Jeff Seltzer: It's really so unbelievable how many people don't get it. These images are not winners because they are beautiful, technically perfect photos. They are images from a series. The first image, for example, Sara Naomi Lewkowicz, is a well regarded photojournalist that as documenting domestic violence. Just look at many Pulitzer winning images - would you necessarily want them hanging on your wall because they are beautiful? If you want technically perfect images of sunsets, etc., then look elsewhere. The second image from Ludovic Maillard - he's a well regarded professional with a long CV including dozens of exhibitions. His images are not meant to be decor. Those criticizing these images as "ordinary" should AT LEAST do a little homework and research. Really, embarrassing for you.
"Imbecile" was strong language, and I wish I hadn't used it -- but now that you've replied I'm no longer able to edit or delete it! ;-) That said, if Smeggypants is free to emphatically suggest that other people's work is "crap", etc., I feel it's fair for me to suggest that his behavior is imbecilic. As for "rude", well...what alternative assessment is there? So I wasn't attacking him the person, but questioning his behavior here in this forum. And if we can call a spade a spade, I think it's safe to say that, for whatever reason, he's been trolling this Sony piece. I'm all for bold and divergent views, but they needn't be shared inconsiderately.
Subjective feelings don't require explanations -- unless they're offered for others' consumption on a public forum like this. (Duh.)
Besides, it's not your subjective feelings that b craw wants explained, but your clear declaration that Jeff Seltzer's assessment here is objectively wrong; so it's not your feelings at issues, but your argument.
Your statement that "people don't need to justify their tastes" seems to be rather at odds with your blatant repudiation of the tastes of Seltzer, DPR and all the photographers featured here in Sony's awards.
In short, you're a rude imbecile who's overstepping his intellectual capacity, here, in front of everyone. (No wonder you're sensitive about others' superiority.)
Smeggypants: Some of these images are great, most are mediocre. I don't care for the "It's a series" excuse. Putting photographs in a series can't polish a turd
Smeggypants, you're really too much: first YOU pass judgement, then you accuse the person who calls you on it of acting superior. The only case of which this exchange is a "classic" example is the pot calling the kettle black (hint: you're the pot).
rfclark: One reason this didn't crash and burn like a lot of our early military test rockets is that this rocket is built with private money!The engineers made sure they knew what they were doing before they lit the fuse!
So anti-government ignorance has finally made it to DPReview, of all places. Sigh.
smafdy: As usual, Pentax offers the highest quality and feature set in a camera format, at a comparably affordable price, and . . .
. . . some people have an immediate sh!t hemorrhage over it.
Everybody knows that it would have been much easier to just make this pocket-sized, with a mount that would accept any lens ever made, a pop-up 72" Octobox w/1600 WS internal flash, red-eye reduction, noise-free ISO 50 - 102400, high speed (2,000 fps) video capture, waterproof to 3,000 meters, and a few more essential features like a screw driver, bottle opener, scissors, a compartment to hold emergency gear (firestarter, fish hook and line, at minimum), and a secret message decoder.
Pentax just can't get it right.
Brilliant rebuke against these tedious forum rats.
HarrieD7000: Like most android gadgets this will be shown the first week after it is bought and then life a life in a cupboard.
I think there's a reason Android-based gadgets sell well, and it's not likely their ability to consume cupboard space.
Abaregi: Semms to be a great camera for the sensor size. The pricing is a bit steep though, just a bit more and you get FF.
Stu 5, the EM5 has the edge how?
Also, grips go a long way in determining camera application (e.g., hiking around and/or using large lenses imparts a need for a substantial grip). In this sense, the A7 is, in fact, properly compared to the EM1, not the EM5 -- unless you're imaging the latter's accessory grip, which then changes both weight and cost comparisons.
SeeRoy: It's pretty blatant. Hardly surprising that they've been sued.
Only everyone here seems to disagree with your analysis...
epo001: Of course it is a copy and of course the legions of witless fandroids make witless comparisons with Apple, after if Samsung didn't copy Apple all their phones would look like Nokia handsets.
So people who prefer better-spec'ed, more capable but less expensive phones are "witless"? -- seems you have things backwards.
CameraLabTester: I guess space travel now belongs to Museums.
The "PIONEERING SPIRIT" or whatever you might call it, is just LOST.
Space Shuttle... Now the Nation... in SHUTDOWN mode...
Get back in your tea cave, rb59020.
Musicjohn: The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.
I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.
The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.
What utter nonsense. Canon's G-series is unquestionably superior in both flexibility and, more important, image quality to just about anything similarly priced or cheaper. Maybe that's why it sells so well.
Raincheck: One of the most striking things about all these shots over at flicker is how hard it is to find pictures of hordes of fat pigs wallowing around at the circuses and fairs, dressed in tee shirts and stretch pants. With the notable exception of The Fat Lady, of course. I'm jealous of a time where you could get candid shots of Americans enjoying leisure time without filling the frame with round blobs all dressed the same. Ahhhh... the colorful gayly printed skirts and dresses blowing in the breeze...
Beam me back Scotty.
AlpCns2, what an ignorant, Tea Party-esque statement, blaming the government's health initiatives for American obesity -- instead of the private sector (Coke, Burger King, etc.) that literally fuels it. At the same time, you guys criticize the efforts of Bloomberg to combat the insidious effects of sugar in Big Gulps and the like. If you're going to spew reactionary nonsense,you could at least be consistent about it.
Dazzer8888: Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....
By "cheesy", Dazzer8888 was referring to the subject matter, not the phone, and my comments followed accordingly.
Greg Henry: People whine too much.
Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.
Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.
Hooray for Windows phones, and any other ones that compete against the dull monopolies of Apple and Android.
Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.
Roland Karlsson: Very skilful done colorings, but ... she needs to pay more attention to reflections. The red of the fire in the burning monk image should light up the ground and make it redder. The water under the mushroom cloud should be grayer etc. At least if she wants to make it look realistic. But ... I really like most of the portraits. They get more 3D.
But 1) the ground isn't lighter in the immolation, and 2) the mushroom cloud shouldn't make the water any grayer than do the regular cumulus clouds in the same photo (plus the mushroom cloud is principally over an island far in the distance and not entirely subject to water reflection). Realism in this case must be determined not by what you might EXPECT in the (redone) photos, but by what's actually IN the (source) photos.