zakk9: Thousands of photos have already been published of this fiasco of a war. Why show more shots from what was little more than a giant killing spree, organised by a gang of misguided politicians and generals? At least a couple of million innocent Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians were killed during the the event and the three involved countries are still suffering from the results of the bombings and the killings.
One photo is called "Charlie Haughey poses with a group of Vietnamese school children." How many Vietnamese school children were killed by American bombs during the Vietnam War? Nobody probably knows. I guess a smiling American soldier with the kids looks nicer than tiny corpses mutilated by bombs and napalm.
zakk9 wrote:"At least a couple of million innocent Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians were killed during the (Vietnam conflict)..."
Then I wrote:"do you know how many 'innocent Americans' died in (that conflict)?"
Then zakk9 wrote:"The responsibility for the Vietnam War is very easy to place. If the Americans hadn't been there..."
Here you go again, conflating the US government with Americans. Are you really suggesting that American soldiers who were drafted into Vietnam service against their will were somehow responsible for their own deaths in that conflict?!
Here in the US, I don't know of any Americans who are always in agreement with every single thing their government does (but maybe you're in agreement with everything your government does, like the Thammasat Massacre?). Then again, I understand this sort of distinction gets in the way of your simplistic blather.
No Sideshow: I served two tours there as part of the AATT, 1967/8 and 69/70. Of course we all wished that it had not happened, but the politics and fear of the cold war drove a different tune than today.Its good to see these images and it communicates the reality of war, and its the only way sometimes to shock people so that another Vietnam doesn't happen again. You're right though with one thing. It was not a war in that your Congress did not issue a declaration of war with Vietnam. Neither did they for the $3 trillion adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan. US political leaders have hidden behind dubious resolutions from the worlds greatest debating society, the UN, as an excuse to again pretend they are the worlds policemen.
zakk9, your failure of reasoning -- and it is an utter failure -- is to simplistically equate My Lai with the Vietnam war; try to keep your focus. While there are many reasons to dislike both, they aren't interchangeable.
And "many Americans" have NOT claimed that My Lai was a function of policy (certainly not a representative portion of them who have legitimate insight into the matter). That's simply ridiculous. It's as though you enjoy believing anti-American diatribe to the point where you don't even bother vetting it.
Besides, coming out against My Lai is kind of like coming out against cancer or murder: you're not going to find many proponents of either. Translation: your invective here, now 45 years after the fact, is rather pointless.
Ivar Dahl Larsen: Great photographs under circumstances most People of today cannot apprehend. Let's never forget and may it never happen again.
By "it", I think Ivar means an avoidable, non-defensive war with high civilian casualties. Even the last war in Iraq, sadly fabricated as it was, doesn't fit this definition.
zakk9, I don't think Michael H contends the US wasn't involved; duh.
And do you know how many "innocent Americans" died in the Vietnam war? The failures of that war -- as those of ANY war -- aren't limited to one nation or another.
Newsflash: the human race isn't perfect...get over it.
This and nothing else, zakk9? Take a pill and chill: things are usually neither this nor that, but this AND that -- and all sorts of stuff in between.
Surely there's something more current about which you can get your knickers in a twist.
Plastek: Yawn... yet another NEX? Which one is this within last 24 months? 3rd? 5th? 10th?
"So you'd be another one who would whine about if an A88 is launched in the same year as A58, because you can't tell that one is a different model than other..."
Huh? I've offered absolutely no indication that I'm confused or otherwise bothered by Sony's model nomenclature. You, on the other hand, do seem to be confused: the Sony Alphas are NOT distinct from the NEX cameras, but actually include them. Besides the Alpha logo clearly appearing on the NEX bodies, Sony's site describes both these and its DSLRs as Alphas (quoting directly from Sony's site, "Sony Alpha NEX Cameras"). The distinction you mean is between DSLR and NEX, not Alpha and NEX.
"...just like you and the person you're defending..."
Slow down, I'm not defending anyone here (in fact I haven't even referenced anyone's post but yours). It seems you're one of those people who spends more time writing than reading and comprehending, with the inevitable result that you get a bit ahead of yourself.
"You might want to ask first why I put one "x" instead of two..."
In your mind, you may have had all sorts of reasons why you used one "x" instead of two (and you're right: your ambiguous prose dose invoke a lot of questions). But you initially wrote "the Alpha series has HAD" -- past tense; my understanding of English means this sentence properly DOES include the A100, A850, etc., regardless of whether you meant it to; don't get snarky with me just because you were unclear and I can't read your mind.
You wrote "Then your argument is even more pathetic that [sic] it sounded the first time around. It is the fourth model number (you didn't understand that either)... like the Alpha-series which has had five: A3x, A5x, A6x, A7x and A9x) [sic]."
You know, if you're going to badger another member about what he or she doesn't "understand", you might want to do a better job of understanding things yourself: the Sony Alphas also include A1x, A2x and A4x cameras (heck, the first Alpha was the A100!). And there already HAS been an A8x -- the A850.
Actually, these numbers don't denote "series" anyway; for instance, most of the A3x models bear little relation to one another, rather more to cameras beginning with a different number.
ijustloveshooting: I was trying to say, the king of APS-C is Nex-5N,,,clearly better than nex-6 in jpeg, and surprisingly in Raws...
Clearly better?! -- you need to learn how to use the comparison tool, and evaluate multiple points. Consider the spool of silver thread, or the circled C/Y/M letters in Kodak's Gray Scale...these and other points "clearly" favor the NEX-6 over the NEX-5N.
igalk474: when will the full review be ready?will you compare it to olympus om-d e-m5 and sony a99?please hurry
It competes more directly with the Pentax K-30 and Sony A77, not the A99. The OMD-EM5? -- maybe, but the two are ergonomic opposites.
stratplaya: This girl has made some bad choices in her life.
Nine times out of ten, those who repeat the easy, popular catch-phrase, "blame the victim", commit an either/or fallacy, unnecessarily excluding the possibility that BOTH parties may somehow be responsible in a given situation. It's a sign of society's collectively-deteriorating intellect, always looking for that one, finite answer -- simple and satisfying -- to a question.
Kodachrome200: i dont know that 4/3rds ever made sense for full size cameras. seems like a good idea. going foreward you can adapt the lenses to micro 4/3rds body. The slr line clearly has been a commercial failure. mostly in my mind because it was ill conceived. kill it off
alatchin, not a single commenter here has claimed to "know" any such thing as you allege. They've simply offered their opinions, quite as you have just done.
That said, we consumers ARE in a position to comment on the sales strategies of camera companies...because they're selling those cameras to US.
Rod McD: If these developments are borne out in the production model and the field, it looks like Fuji are really nailing the best design elements for mirrorless cameras. What else is there to ask for (apart from better weather sealing!)? I'm with the poster who said that he's waiting for the same features to appear in a future XE2 model - I just find it difficult to live with one fixed lens. Give me an XE2 and a small range of high grade lenses and I'll be very happy.
But that camera already exists, only MUCH more ergonomic: Sony's NEX series. Of course, I understand it's cooler to like retro-niche Fuji and dislike Sony simply because the latter's big and accessible.
JacquesBalthazar: These Fuji X offers, this one in particular, are so tempting for old but increasingly broke leicaphiles such as me. So familiar and re-assuring. At the same time, they annoy me by playing this much on the retro/pseudo vintage chords in terms of design cues. This is 2013. Why are we trying to pretend to be in 1956?
The feature list and tech innards are fantastic. But the design references....am I the only one to be bothered?
@photobeans: You're imposing a false dichotomy here, suggesting the only alternative to these Fuji designs are the likes of DSLRs. And yet a camera like Nikon's P7700 is similarly compact yet not bound by retro-aims (i.e., it uses more modern materials and a slightly larger grip); ditto Sony's NEX series and many of the 4/3 offerings of Olympus and Panasonic.
kongqueror: I honestly like the design! The black one especially - I think the seeming imperfections on it give it character - the Pentax K-01 is just plain boring (and ugly in its plainness). Best of all, it addresses nearly everything I had against the Nikon 1 series (lack of direct user control). But it still has one major flaw - the price. At $900, I could get a Sony A57 kit + prime or a refurbished OMD kit. Just like my comment before on the V1 when it was launched, the V2 only makes sense at $499.
I agree, although I think what others refer to as imperfections are merely instances where form follows function. For me, the plainer the camera, the better. I want a camera to work well, not look good; like a Jeep. It's when cameras (or cars) sport features solely for aesthetic purposes that I become bothered. I guess that puts me in the minority -- a more logical minority. To be blunt, those craving cute designs can go play with their Mac products. The price is indeed high, but I imagine it'll soon sell for $750-800.
Rupert Bottomsworth: Wasn't the main selling point of m43 the small size? After looking at this camera, you might as well buy a DSLR like a Nikon D3200 or Canon 650D.
And, HELLO!, do none of you shoot in imperfect conditions? THIS one is WEATHERIZED!
vvk: Wow, I can't believe they completely f*cked up the ergonomics on this one. Idiots.
Completely? Care to give an example?
Looks OK to me, although the thumb ridge may bring the FN2 button into accidental contact.
Edymagno: It is an ugly camera indeed. Its all rounded contours almost all finishing in pointy profiles remind me so much of the GM Corvette prototypes of the 60's. This "socking" look is unnerving. Maybe one needs to acquire the taste. The 70's muscle car look with the high waistline is coming back.
But the A99 IS rounded! As for "pointy finishes", I can find but one -- the front of the prism housing (and even that is pretty muted). I suspect this criticism is really just a lot of reflexive bashing from the Canikon fanboys.
Nublover: It is UGLY. Sooner a 36MP will come out. The name will be a99+.
Says you. Whereas I like its looks. (I bet we could trim these tedious DPR comments by 75% if fully subjective statements were prohibited.)
jake werner: I can't take cameras without viewfinders seriously.... even Nikon. Just not practical on bright days. When are the manufactures going to learn.
@ VLampa - Never did I suggest that "demanding for (sic) a viewfinder denotes sophistication". Instead, I said "more sophisticated" (not merely "sophisticated") photographers are, rather naturally, demanding viewfinders. (And...they're doing so NOT on P&Ses, per se, but on HIGHER-END P&Ses -- BIG difference.) To illustrate your misunderstanding, you're taking a valid statement like, "astronauts demand precise equipment", and pretending to challenge it by saying "wanting precise equipment doesn't make one an astronaut".