jackpro: Was super interested after seeing comparison with G1X but colour is blah sorry but canon nails colour with no tweaking necessary :( wanting a new travel camera will keep looking)
I'm so glad to hear from you that Canon "nails" the colors when no one actually does. You just have to decide what you like.
It's ironic that you characterize the colors of the Canon as more "blah" because I'd say it's the other way around. Apparently Canon's idea of realism is to make colors slightly dull. If you look in real life you'll see some colors are actually more vivid than Canon portrays (for example some green leaves in the late afternoon).
It's largely up to taste, how you view the real world, and how artistic you want the photos to be. For example, do you want to reproduce the scene as analytically accurate as possible, or is it more important to reproduce the way you felt looking at it?
To me the "better than real life" photos from some cameras still look natural, while others don't.
Lee Jay: This wouldn't be necessary if Apple weren't such a bunch of morons.
I still can't figure out why anyone buys anything from them. Their devices stink and their "our way or the highway" attitude is repulsive, and always has been.
HowaboutRAW - the post we responded to was a little off topic already, because it was about Apple in general, but I don't see how your remarks have anything to do with the discussion.
FWIW I haven't ever been happy with the sound quality in any Apple device I can remember (and Apple's not alone in this). But I happen to be particular in this area, and furthermore neither this nor a temporary software problem has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Ron A 19: So basically what everyone is agreeing upon is that the Zeiss and Sigma are so close in performance in sharpness that Sigma should be lauded for having created an affordable autofocusing Otus. I for one feel empowered that I can afford something so amazing, and can't wait to find an excuse to upgrade my current 50mm.
AbrasiveReducer - I'm not sure what you're saying in the first paragraph.
Then again, I'm not sure I should care, because someone who describes a $4000 lens as costing $5000 in a comparison is purposefully distorting the facts. Furthermore you imply there's shame in buying it compared to the more "sensible" investment of $3000 for a camera which will start rapidly depreciating next month when a new model is released.
To say that only rental or bragging rights count is silly. Many photographers can afford either one, so they want to BUY the one which gives them the performance they're looking for.
Apple is the only one who's come close to the promise of computing. The way we always thought computers should work. Perhaps what we imagined when watching Star Trek or something.
The anticipated iWatch is likely to be another example of this. Even if they can't convince everyone to put wristwatches back on, it will probably come close to the promise.
So they're not there yet (and probably never will be), but they're close.
Maverick_: Very disappointed! Perfect reason why no one uses the MF4 for stills professionally. The images are just a couple of notches above my cell phone pics.
Top MF3 cameras will only be used professionally for video use. And hence the top grade video features on this camera.
BTW, I use a Pana GH and totally dislike its image quality, but it's great for video.
You misunderstand. I think Maverick_ means his cell phone pics are just as good once he runs them through Instagram ... ;)
RichRMA: Very few of the shots were of people moving, close to the camera. m4/3 is not at the DSLR level yet when it comes to action.
I suppose you'd need to know how much of a crop was used to know how close they were to the camera. So, do you know?
From what I've seen, the majority of photographers using "the better equipment" get lazy. Perhaps not the few that are regularly published professionals in major national media. But most of the rest, including some who are published in major regional media.
Using equipment that's more challenging forces you to constantly be thinking about what you're doing. Your instincts come into play and get honed. You feel a part of the activity - not just an observer, but a part of the event as well. When you can't "lean on the equipment," you don't!
I think shooting action will make you a better photographer. If you can learn to repeatedly anticipate and get the shot with only 1 or 2 seconds to prepare, it becomes instinctual. Wedding and event photographers can especially benefit from this. With action, emotions are happening, and they're happening fast.
LA Headshots: photos number 2 and 8 are the only good ones. Everything else looks very amateurish
You wouldn't want an amateurish-looking photo of the "classiest sport on earth!" ;)
These photos - starting with number 1 and continuing through 10 and 11 - elevate the sport in my mind. By the time you get to number 12, this parting corny shot doesn't take away from the positive impression.
retro76: The pictures are good, but the limitation of a smaller sensor really shows it's big disadvantage - the crowd is still somewhat in focus taking away from the subject matter. I use mirrorless myself and while DOF doesn't always bother me, it's apparent this is a limitation to the format.
The crowd doesn't have to be unrecognizable for the subject to stand out. Photo #8 is an example.
And sometimes the people in the background who are observing the action enhance the photo, like the teammate on the bench in #4. She's blurred enough that a viewer won't mistake her for the main subject, but rather is portrayed exactly as she is - an observer. And observers point back to the importance of the action. Interestingly, this is similar to the amount of blur that an painter might use here. McDaniel may not have been consciously aware of her inclusion when he took the shot, but this naturally shows up in some of your photos when you're using good technique. The background in action photos can help to provide context and a feeling of being there - or at least wishing you were there.
A key reason this amount of blur works is that these are quality lenses (regardless of whether they're "the best" or not).
It's nice to see shots from a photographer who really gets in there and captures the emotion too!
The Name is Bond: hmmm, I hate to say it but the bokeh isn't good enough. It's really not smooth at all, despite the review's claim that it's good enough. Even closed down (which usually deals with bokeh issues).
Maybe it's good enough for closer pics, but we have here the usual bokeh-clueless pics from dpreview. Easy bokeh backgrounds (flowers and vegetation) with just a couple of pics that demonstrate the rough bokeh. They need to get themselves someone long versed in bokeh analysis. .....Like me!!! :)
Get that lens in to a bike shop, dpreview.
Anyway, I actually feel a bit sad. I was totally over excited at the review. ...until I saw the pics (and some pics on the blogs mentioned in the comments).
You don't hate to say it, and it's not hard to see for someone who looks for it. That's the sad part.
Real McKay: This is exactly why, I along with what I believe is the majority, prefer programs to be on our computers.Can you imagine earning you living in photography & this happens - its just not acceptable. I am switching to something where I do not depend on the cloud. LR5 & PSE12 are available still outside the cloud so no great loss of functionality for 99% of what I need.I also believe that this will hurt Adobe more than they think.
@Craig76 - I didn't realize stealing software was on the table.
But I put no words in your mouth - this is actually what you're saying.
You can't use CS5 forever unless you want to stand still.
You said NEVER, but Adobe will probably make subscriptions your only option some day (they certainly want to).
The idea that you're dependent on Adobe software for your work, yet will never upgrade, is patently absurd.
John Driggers: Okay, we've had the first two posts and the usual DPR negativity. Time for a positive, photography related comment.
This is a tremendous resource to view and study some great artwork (not all of may be great, but a lot is). Pop down 14-20 great portraits, put them into lightroom and compare them with your own work vis a vis lighting and composition. Ditto for landscapes and so forth. A lot of self-learning about images is possible here at no cost. Ditto inspiration.
Not everyone can make into the museum (I no longer live in the US, so I am in that group). What a great opportunity for an online, self designed tour.
So snipe shoot all you want at the announcement or the T&C. It's still a good thing.
I agree John, positive comments are welcome and needed.
Cynicism runs strong in society these days. It's been a theme ever since we came out of the 60's - the press and movies have pounded this attitude into our heads, and so we have a tendency to look for ill motives and wrong doing. And we certainly find it. But the price we pay is huge: we often miss the big picture - the real story of what's going on. So we rightly avoid the schemers and scammers, but then we end of questioning the motives of those who are working hard to do good.
It's hard to criticize negativity without being negative yourself. Especially if you use such a remark to elevate how positive your own comment is. It kinda takes the gas out of your own contribution. It's much like the classic comedy bit when the sarge asks for a volunteer from the lineup: you don't step up yourself, but everyone takes a step back. In this case you're trying to force everyone else back.
See how this works? I can't even write this comment without falling into the trap of being negative. But at least I didn't indict the entire DPR user community, just you! Oh, no! I'm falling farther down the hole, somebody stop me before I say anything else! ...
joe6pack: Which makes me wonder why many museums do not allow tripods.
Safety (because people could trip over the tripod legs) and probably also visual distraction (because a photographer might be "camping out" next to a tripod for 20 minutes or more). In a busy museum you might find more than one tripod in some rooms.
In I'd like to be able to use one, but I can see why they're oftentimes restricted.
visualvirtuoso: Not sure where the competitive advantage lies. LiveU, Streambox, Dejero all bond cell signals to deliver footage from the field: http://www.liveu.tv/
The main thing he's done is integrate multiple existing technologies for a streamlined workflow that's specific to his industry and company. It's designed to require minimal attention from the photographer during the process of capturing and transferring the images.
The two keys that stood out to me were:
1) They altered the workflow so that the photographer can simply speak the image tags while working, rather than typing them later
2) The cellular bonding technology (of AT&T plus Verizon) means there's a high likelihood the images will get transferred to the editors right away, automatically. Otherwise the photographer has to repeatedly stop and check whether the connection is still good.
It's unclear to me from the article whether there's a mechanism for the editors to remotely request full-res images, but they do receive every image in either thumbnail or publishable medium-res right away, as he shoots.
Rage Joe: I'm pretty sure this pathetic greediness has costed the Waltons already much much more than $2000. Hope they lose big time.
Which would explain why the Plaintiff (Walmart) won't confirm that they made this offer, while the defense has no trouble reporting this fact.
I was wondering why this was - it seemed strange when I first read that Walmart effectively denied having made this offer.
utomo99: Too expensive. And why no hdmi port? Why not using ssd for bigger storage?
What's wrong with using the Mini DisplayPort?
Maverick_: guys before bashing this, keep one thing in mind, the Surface is a very popular product. They do sell. And it's a neat but flawed concept.
I was in the market for an ultrabook, narrowed my choice to a 13.3" Sony Flip, but before buying it Sony sold that division and I decided to look further. Also 13.3 Flip screen is way too heavy to be used as tablet since the keyboard is still attached.
The Surface 2 Pro wasn't even in the running for me, because of the tiny screen size and weight.
So, I decided to look at tablets instead and just when I needed to finalize my purchase Samsung came out with the excellent Galaxy Note Pro 12.2. I got the LTE version on first day of release and have not regretted it.
Surface going to 12" is a good move, but a better move would be 13.3. Windows products don't work as well on small screens. But keep in mind, the thickness/weight of the Surface is its worst enemy.
The future will be phones and tablets and only 1% will use desktops.
Impulses, when I was in high school they fixed computer bugs with tweezers ...
TwoMetreBill: 8GB of RAM for serious image editing, NOT!
Also, don't forget that both MS and Apple have reduced the memory footprint in their current (x86) OSes, compared to previous versions.
Rage Joe: And then these stingy *astards offered $2000 for these unique pictures. I would enjoy it dearly if all the people visiting Wal¤Mart would get this information.
"The Walton Family Fortune according to The Forbes 400 Richest People in America
Christy Walton and family US$36.7 billionJim Walton US$34.7 billionAlice Walton US$34.3 billionS. Robson Walton US$34.2 billionAnn Walton Kroenke US$4.7 billionNancy Walton Laurie US$4.0 billion"
Total US$148.6 Billion
"The Walton Family is by far the richest family in the world"
Dollar figures of wealth say absolutely ZERO about a persons or entity's character, or whether they deserve "hero or villain" status. But it can certainly be a challenge for a wealthy person to maintain good character.
But regardless of whether or not the Walton family has good character, $10 for the full rights to a photo is exceedingly cheap. I doubt you could even purchase the rights to a school photo of your child for that price, let alone historic photos of the richest family in the world. If true, an offer of $2000 is patently absurd!
Walmart, its museum, and the family members need to either ignore the photos or pay for the usage rights.