Stuff for a slow summer day. If it was their favorite brand, these awards would be very serious prestigious honors. In reality, they're more like the Good Housekeeping seal. You see them on booths at Photokina and for some reason on magazines in the UK.
Now, if DPR were to review the replacement for the D810 or a A7R III and come up with a bronze award, that would be surprising and noteworthy.
dwill23: I read some comments and the same ol and ol comes up again and again. "Too much capacity is too risky to use". I call HOGWASH on that.
When I sold 32MB (yes mega byte) CF cards for $100 at Ritz camera NO ONE DARED to buy the 64MB cards and the 96MB cards for the exact same fear. "I might lose everything if the card fails".
Now a days we have photographers not wanting 128GB when they USED to be scared to dead of 64GB. This is an endless silliness that I'm so sick of.
Point taken, but how would you know? A new size card comes out. It's made by somebody (in China) for somebody else. It's a good brand if you get a genuine one but a card this size has not been made before.
Will it be ok? Probably, and nobody wants to deal with a bunch of cards (they take too much space, I guess). But the chances of four 32 cards all failing are still less than a single 128 dying.
RubberDials: The journalists on this site must die a little, inside, when they read some of these comments.
Maybe DPR should gather the most amusing, the most prescient and the most astoundingly off-base comments and make a book. Amazon did this with their favorite reviews and it's awesome.
How nice to see these. I like ultra-saturated travel photos as much as the next person, but these images have a certain directness and serenity that just seems more meaningful to me.
String: OMG, they used Adobe LR! How on earth did they ever fit a CC subscription into the budget? Why wouldn't they use Gimp??? (sarcasm off)
Sorry, just a little sarcasm considering the incredible amount of posts on this site calling Adobe the ultimate evil for going to a subscription based model.
Maybe, after the movie was completed, they cancelled their subscription.
nathantw: Love the Gitzo I purchased in 1984. Still using it today as my main tripod.
Same here. China is cheaper, but while the Nikons and Canons come and go, your tripod is still current.
straylightrun: First they have conquered Mirrorless, and now the enthusiast digital camera market. What's next for Sony?
Refrigerators in colors. Also a small one with Hello Kitty. Abd bring back Elcassette!
steelhead3: More "X" names...please Korea, don't copy the Japanese.
These must impress somebody because they keep doing it.
I refuse to buy anything that doesn't say "Pro."
Horshack: "X" went out a year years ago. The new hip letter is "Z". I'm personally waiting for "K" to have its day in the sun.
Seems appropriate for K to be in the sun.
JCFan1979: Looking at all the negative comments all I can conclude is that many photographers (or wannabe photographers) are all a bunch of childish snobs. There's no right form of photography, there's no right way of painting, there's no right way of dancing. Art is art and you don't have to talk about how it ruins the picture for you if it's HDR. When you take a perfect photo with absolutely no modifications in Lr or some other software and no technical flaws period you let me know.....and also sell me your magic camera.
Mark Twain said "Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds" and I think it's the same with HDR; it's not as bad as it looks. The rest is just H8-terz who resent Trey's gift for self-promotion which is, frankly, astounding. Guys like Scott Kelby and Gary Fong could learn a lot from Trey about marketing.
Very nice, thank you. I'm sure it was a ton of work.
Viva Santo Nino: Hates are just pure of hate. Trey is one of the most successful photographers in the world. To each his own. I like his style of photography. He switched from Nikon to Sony few years ago. ‘To take an interesting photo, some may choose to carry around a lot of metal and glass and mirrors and silicon. I choose to carry around less metal and glass and silicon. Oh, and no mirrors.’ – Me, quoting myself.” – Trey Ratcliff"
Whatever else you want to say abut Trey, he is a nice guy, free with information and self-taught. He is a master of self-promotion and I'd like to hear more about that.
There's probably some resentment of his success but he brings in enough money to not worry about endorsing a particular brand of camera, which makes his advice on this quite useful, even if you don't care for his images.
Anastigmat: When a camera maker is selling a small number of cameras, it is easy to have a 25% increase in sales volume. A profit of $8.8 million is way better than a loss of even $1, but it is nothing to write home about. Companies that make nothing, such as internet web sites, earn a lot more profit in some cases. Bad news for Olympus is that the world is moving towards full frame cameras. Affordable ff cameras will be the next hot market segment, but Olympus won't be part of it. I wonder how many cameras with 4/3 sensors Olympus can sell if a FF DSLR costs about the same or even less than Olympus cameras.
Ironic that Olympus started out with a 35mm camera, the Pen F, that was beautifully made but shot half-frame (1/2 the size of what we now call full frame.) It was a lovely system but the image quality suffered because the film area was too small.
But they learned. They shrunk a "full frame" camera into a small, light body. It was a win-win; no loss of image quality at all, and those great, small Olympus lenses. No one ever beat the size/weight/quality of the OM cameras; it was the lack of autofocus that did them in.
Hey DPR, now that we have an article from an HDR guru, how about an article from a non-guru who uses HDR and does all the steps necessary to hide the artifacts?
Opening the images and hitting the button that says "process" isn't all that hard, but fixing the contrast in the shadows, removing the halos, choosing portions of individual images, this takes time and some skill. There's an HDR site from a guy in Chicago who does amazing night shots that look like perfect long exposures but they're acutally carefully worked HDRs.
I don't mean to say Trey doesn't work on his images - only that it is possible to use HDR for more realistic, less garish results.
People who were trained in traditional photography (no computers, no software, no instant gratification, no fixing it later) have inflexible opinions on how a photograph should look.
If HDR worked as it should, it would be possible to compress a huge brightness range overall, without reducing the contrast of things that are already flat. But it doesn't. HDR is not "smart" or selective. The result is (usually) an odd look where some parts of the image are fine while others are smoky and hazy and stuff that moved, like clouds, become a sort of gravy or soup.
As for why many people don't like it, it's not resistance to change. It's that unless HDR is done really well, it looks a bit off, like food that's probably ok but doesn't really taste right.
Jetranger_Pilot: I have never once been in a position where I have wished my 24-70 had VR. LOL Which is why it doesn't have it. It would serve no purpose. This lens is a staple for wedding photographers.
As others have stated, if you need VR on this lens, you have bigger issues.
Because of the magnification of long lenses, VR became an important addition. Some people don't understand that it is not even needed in mid to wide lenses. Even long lenses without VR can be compensated for with proper technique. You want to spend more money for no benefit? There are lots of places waiting to take your money.
The glut of people demanding useless features will keep the manufacturers busy and rich.
Those complaining about the weight of pro lenses - take a course on the importance of light. Then hit the gym, or buy the slow glass made just for people like you. Better still, get a little camera with tiny buttons that will fit in your pocket. Or use your phone. That should be light enough.
Since this new 24-70 is a "pro" lens and people have been asking and asking for VR, it would seem that professionals are the ones who see the need.
Years ago, it was "pros" (meaning anybody with an expensive camera) bragging about hand-holding an M camera for 4 seconds. Tall tales, but with a lightweight camera, cloth shutter and no mirror, every once in a while you might do it. These days, high ISOs and stabilization make all that laughable.
But even if this was a valid point and everybody should just go to the gym, the manufacturers desperately need to come up with new features to move inventory.
Sean65: Good cameras sell.
Not always and even when they do, good cameras don't need to be replaced every other year.
Good for them. They've been down so long, it looks like up.
At $249 and 14 ounces its difficult to argue image stabilization adds significant cost and weight. All that's left is image quality and while this lens probably isn't great, there are lots of sharp lenses that do have stabilization.
Tim Gander: The antithesis of a prime lens. 'Tis the devil's work.
Only in performance.