Higuel: some $1300 for a lens that does NOT even close the iris as ordered by the camera...from a white brand on top!
This confirms us all that Samyang has forgotten that their first major success, the 85mm f1.4 owns it to the fact that it was INDEED way CHEAPER then the options from the brands! WITH almost the same optical quality.Start increasing the price like Sigma is doing and in no time Samyang is be story like many other brands who propose stuff way too expensive! They still have a looooong way to catch sigma in AF and ANY automation for that matter! Naturally they can try a crazy move like Sigma did with the SD1 sold at absurd prices, well, actually NOT SOLD! And in few months they had to cut the price to less then half!!! That is what Samyang deserves also!
You tell camera to close the iris. The camera tells the lens to close the iris. The lens closes its iris.
You close the iris.
It's not that hard, really.
OldArrow: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers. And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera. Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.
You never hear a pro say that it is 10% equipment and 90% skill. Because it obviously is not. Equipment matters. Reliability and performance. Especially in professional photography. That is why someone earning a living out of it, buys the best tools he can afford. And yes this mostly means PRO cameras. There are many times you NEED weather sealing, high ISO quality, lots of megapixels, high FPS, fast glass etc.... 90% skill isn't gonna make your camera any faster or more waterproof for a particular assignment.
This cliché statement just keeps on popping up. Everytime.
bluevellet: I'm surprised dust is still a problem with DSLR's. Even more so with cameras at that high price range.
When you change lenses, eventually you get dust on your sensor. This will always be the case.
However, in this case the particles come from within the camera itself. I'm slightly disappointed in Nikon. But still, ordered my D600 yesterday.
tmurph: Sony got to be congratulated for putting a full size sensor into a high-end compact camera.Love to own one and I like the 35mm lens which in my opinion is a good choice for a camera to take with you on your travels.Seems a great camera for street photography.
I think it is not a matter of technical knowhow, but more "would it not be too much of a compromise?''. Terrible battery-life, slow AF, no viewfinder (a must have for street photography, imo) and no interchangeable lens... I think it's hard to sell to a lot of people, even ignoring the very high end price.
But yes Sony won the prize for delivering the first small FF compact. Sony decided it was worth it - probaby more in terms of long term PR. But that doesn't mean it's getting the price for best or most innovative or complete camera.
Maverick_: my second post on this. Why do we need 1080P on a 4.7" screen? What's the purpose except bragging right. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note II with 5.5" screen in brilliant 720P Superamoled and I wouldn't want my resolution to increase at all. It will only shrink down all content.
Keep 1080 for TVs and 720 for smartphones. Stop this madness!
I'm not a big fan of 1080p smartphones either. I see a 720p 4.3" screen as ideal, personally.There is a point you stop seeing improvement in ppi. I believe that 4.7" and 1080p is way over that point. It is just wasting valuable battery and cpu cycles.
I agree, technology should be pushed forward, but I rather have a 4.3" 720p smartphone with a new technology battery that lasts 5 days than a 4.3" 1080p with mediocre colors/contrast that lasts 1 day. When I get dark and cynical thoughts, I feel like they can't improve battery and just put sharper displays in smaller form factors to detract attention from where the real improvements should be.
Caleido: If you bump up the default sharpness of the D5200 or sharpen in post processing, you get the exact same oversharpened look of the E-M5. At base ISO, because any higher ISO clearly shows the (albeit small) disadvantage of a smaller sensor.
A fine camera, the E-M5 and I have a m3/4 body myself. But don't talk rubbish.
Where do I even remotely imply that sharpening images also improves colors? Please contain yourself in daftness when replying or don't reply at all.
Obviously, you can not only change the sharpness, but also completely fine tune contrast and colors if you shoot JPEG with the D5200. Like every other DSLR from the last decade.
I won't magically become identical to the E-M5, but you can come close.
If you bump up the default sharpness of the D5200 or sharpen in post processing, you get the exact same oversharpened look of the E-M5. At base ISO, because any higher ISO clearly shows the (albeit small) disadvantage of a smaller sensor.
Since when is 3.5 a small aperture? The difference with 2.8 is not even a full stop. If you want the play with DOF, you're looking at the wrong lens.
So you want the exact same features as the 14-24mm or 16-35mm, but at a lower price? Are pigs flying today?
semorg: major curvature issue
the barbed wire obviously bends that way
Hugo808: Pentax Spotmatic. Quit while you're ahead.
Actually, my Contax RX was the best camera I ever had, best designed, superb handling, build and image quality. It even had an external battery pack for use in the cold. They thought of everything the photographer actually needs. Every DSLR I've had has seen a depressing drop in quality in every area. Sigh, I think we've all been had by clever marketing and gadget love.
Guess you haven't had a DSLR in the last 3 years.
happypoppeye: Hahaha ...so many people here have no problem spending thousands and thousands of dollars on an accessory for their SLR and complain about DPR not reviewing them yet when someone with a different camera buys an accessory it's utterly ridiculous?
You mean, like, a pin sharp portrait lens or a backup camera for professional use?
Yeah, that's crazy impulsive behaviour, compared to this ingenious piece of equipment that doesn't make you look like a complete dork.
Come on. This is down right ridiculous. The idea, the look, the results. Everything.
shahid11235: No offense, but it seems to me that DPreview has got severely obsessed with iPhone.
Than why not include a range of direct competitors to the iPhone if you want to inform about the IQ? The S3? Nokia Pureview? Sony Xperia S? Amongst others.
Craig Atkinson: 5 vs 5d3!http://dcurt.is/iphone-5-vs-5d-mark-iii
Too bad the 5d3 image had a bad focus - clearly behind the sign.
I like what I see. I see more resolution and about the same noise, if not less than the D700. The colors stay strong and real at high ISO. I personally think and for my work, this is a better compromise than the D800 - which is not really a shining high ISO monster. I was slighty disappointed by the D800 images. You got tons of resolution, but on the other hand it showed a very processed look, noise showing up very early, albeit very thin. Which is no surprise of course. But these D600 images are very clean at low ISO.
I would like to buy it as a backup body to my D700. And give the movie feature a shot, would love to play with with 1.4 lenses. And use it when 24MP is needed (bigger prints etc...)
But I'm going to hold it out until the price comes down a bit.
I'm calling bullsh1t on the OIS ad.
That's pretty much impossible on a hand held phone. Heck even the OM-D can't manage that.
Well, they admitted it on there Nokia Conversations website.
"Note: The Lumia 920 pictures in this post were taken using prototype hardware and software, and then reduced dramatically in size. In addition, the OIS video, above, was not shot using the Lumia 920."
Shameful, but not illegal. Next!
@joe6pack Why does the van have to be there? They don't have the money to shot two different scenes? Come on now...
And besides, it's al over the internet now. It's not the first company misleading in an ad, but someone was stupid enough to make it obvious.
Take a final look at this image: i45.tinypic.com/244b5ud.jpg
Keeping the angle in mind, the space between the girl and the camera (very close), there is no way there is some guy on a bike around, filming and showing this particular scene. The guy in the van is filming and Nokia is pretending it is the guy on the bike.
I agree. So much fake in this video. OIS "on", but then filmed from a van instead of a bicycle.
OIS "on" in the dark street lights. But those images are clearly lit by strobes. Even those OIS-off images look fake!
Why didn't they even bother to edit out the van? So they are lame AND stupid.
And I really had great hopes for Nokia. Let's hope the camera (phone) doesn't disappoint in the real world.
nawknai: Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
@ fmian Did you even read the first words about the background story?
A small group of dedicated employees from a closed and striped Polaroid factory in The Netherlands are using what is left of the machinery and intellectual property (almost nothing) to create a NEW instant film from scratch. Only because of their love for instant film. And because they spend most of their life working with it.
How those veterans can be compared to teens using Instagram and wearing nerdy glasses and skinny pants is beyond my comprehension.
When was the last time you and your friends created an chemical process to develop instant film from scratch with almost no means?
And claiming "they make it look bad, so they can be hipsters" is just even more stupid.