stevo23: Nordin Seruyan replied below - no claims of 100% natural circumstances.
- Yes, he used Photoshop- Yes, he moved the bugs into place in come cases- No wires or tape- No bugs were harmed
See below before claiming cruelty or lies or calling him/her a liar. And stop being hypocrites - who among you hasn't smashed an insect?
The problem is he did claim so. He's changing his story now. See my post above.
Mr. Nordin Seruyan is being impugned because of the behavior of other Indonesian photographers in the article translated by Jenn Wei. And that's not right.
Unfortunately, Nordin Seruyan has his own problems - he doesn't tell the truth. Take a look:
At the time he reports that he was lucky to capture magical moments. Now he admits that he stages his photographs - although he still won't admit how much:
We would be fools to believe he's the one lucky photographer in the world that happens to find myriad creatures that like to ride snail's backs - many on the same rock or pond.
It makes sense that the same callous heart who would lack the sensitivity to care about these animals would also lack the artistic sensitivity to create anything beautiful.
Lajos Hajdu: Come on, guys.
1. Does anyone believe that no. 8, for example, is not fake? 2. Google the definition of "kitsch".
Funny, that's the first thing that came to mind when other posters referred to this as "art."
It's in the same league as the classic Tijuana Velvet Elvis painting (which have to be seen in person to be - ahem - "appreciated").
MisterBG: Several of them have a very distracting background.
More than just a few, unfortunately.
He way overdid it. He made it all about the round circles in the bokeh. It's like he's showing off how he can do this, rather than making beautiful images.
There are nice colors in many of them, but the overdone bokeh is just distracting. The circles aren't placed perfectly enough to add to the subject, so instead they take over the whole image. It would be better if he toned them down in PP, rather than accentuating them.
SDPharm: > DPR: Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor. <
After re-reading this above statement, I guess one has to sigh and throw his hands up in the air.
Of course Leica uses optical correction to project the best image on the sensor. How would you otherwise apply software correction BEFORE the light hits the sensor?
The key is in three little words "rather than software."
Did Leica lie? Technically, no (not publicly anyway.) Did DPR lie? Does not seem so either. But it sure pointed a big finger at Leica. Fact is, regardless what was said and what was heard, most people will just start calling Leica a lier from now on.
Now we just have to decide if DPR is doing a good journalist's job, or it's another Reddit.
The level of discernment has become so poor in our society - that's about the only thing that makes me want to throw my hands up!
DStudio: Leica lied.
Simplistic statement. Simply wrong.
I doubt even the people who say this are dumb enough to believe it.
Must ... resist ... using "simplistic," "simple minded," or "dumb" again.
It's not an either/or situation. Both probably *are* telling the truth.
DStudio: I think the only one who deserves criticism here is Adobe, because they don't give you the option to not apply the corrections.
The examples above make it clear you don't always want them. While the corrections might be preferable with a brick wall, the tree's seed pods only look round in the "uncorrected" version.
So you're trading one distortion for another.
Good point, Mescalamba. While Adobe itself has implemented this, Leica may be the responsible party - especially since it could have been part of the deal that enables Leica to bundle LR with the camera.
I think the only one who deserves criticism here is Adobe, because they don't give you the option to not apply the corrections.
Yanko Kitanov: Leica - do you believe your customers are idiots to whom you may lie regarding "optical corrections" while they are buying a Sony NEX cam with Sony NEX glass for 10x the price?? A pathetic way to show that you are going down.
People buy BMWs for many different reasons. But It's hard to duplicate the driving experience in any other automobile. This is deliberate on BMW's part. People who buy them are not fools.
You wasted most of your post nitpicking about about the sentence construction. A few implied English words were left out. You understood the meaning of the sentence, as did most intelligent readers. The article currently has a comma and four additional letters - not sure if it's been edited. Either way it's easily understood.
So only Leica could be accused of Lying - not DPR. It's difficult to tell, but I suspect Leica has made better optical corrections than many manufacturers. They probably didn't mention the additional software corrections to DPR. And they may have been content to allow anyone to assume that's all they did, without feeling the need to "correct" them (it's hard to miss the irony here).
Henrik Herranen: Hmh.I know I sound like a broken record, but how is sensor size not worthy to be on the list of "Key specifications"? Isn't that pretty much the #1 specification of a camera without a fixed lens, even much more important than the number of megapixels?
Really, please, don't assume everyone remembers the sensor size of every camera series of every manufacturer. Yes, some of the nerds know (almost) all of them by heart, but not everyone, not by a long shot..
It must take a lot of effort to look slightly down the page at the first chart in the article, or at the full specifications that immediately follow it on the next page.
Based on the way many major elections have gone in this country since the dawn of the internet, I'm not sure being popular is something to be proud of ...
I'm amazed at how quickly the comments have come in!
More comments than usual - yet shorter.
I think most of us can't quite understand these expensive Leica cameras. Few of us own one, so we're looking in from the outside, trying to comprehend.
But two points are hard to argue with: Leica makes quality (including some of the world's best optics), and many owners love them.
Thanks for the mock photo with that disgusting logo on the back!
BJN: The Lytro interactive image samples are under 900 x 600 resolution. Do you think that they wouldn't provide higher resolution samples if they had them? The end image size in pixels can be provided despite the nonsense about megarays and equivalent of 5 megapixels conventional resolution. Where are the 2560x1920 (5 megapixel) image samples?
Talk about a no-information launch. No ISO range given. Is the f/2.0 lens fixed aperture (pretty sure it has to be)? If the lens is fixed aperture and the max shutter speed is 1/4000 second, how does the camera handle bright light scenes? What control does the photographer have over exposure? What's the frame rate and write time? For $1,600 Lytro had better have a lot more information and better resolution examples to show. The samples are cute but highly staged. The 3D baseline separation is tiny, so we get shown shots of miniatures.
Apparently you've never heard of an ND filter.
However, I wonder if it would disturb the angled light rays?
In any case, they don't pretend to be either an everyday or professional camera. It's just stage two of an interesting concept, and they want to find/allow photographers to see if they can make some good use of it in its current form.
If it ever becomes refined, then we can allow Sony to take over and market it, once the main innovating has already been accomplished.
NancyP: Well, for the landscape photographer, the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM is a good lightweight choice - weight wise, 6 Canon 40mm equal one Sigma 50 Art, pricewise, 4 and one-half Canon 40mm equal one Sigma 50 Art. I would like one of each, the 50 Art for my bokeh cravings on short-distance trips, and the Canon 40 for those camping trips where I am hiking 10 miles a day with a 35# load. The Zeiss 21mm goes along regardless of weight - I love it to bits, the 800 gram gorilla. I am afraid that I might feel the same about the Sigma Art.
@DigiMatt - I'm glad you mentioned Jr. High - the place where 8th graders beat up 7th graders because they're less mature.
Altruisto: Everything is gorgeous in this lens, but the bokeh can get ugly sometimes with line doubling. I visited the Nikon 58 f1.4 for the sake of comparison, and there the bokeh is always buttery smooth.
Yes, he buys and sells cr@p, or cr*p (or whatever he calls it) and recycles it. He's very green!
But I can assure you some people think (for good reason) that the Sigma is more cr^p than the Nikon, and it has nothing to do with brand loyalty.
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.
Lots of people are saying it's not as good as the OTUS. And a number of people (including myself) say they'd rather not get the Sigma at all because of one characteristic or another, although they'd choose one of the other non-OTUS alternatives.
But most of us are impressed with the sharpness, so if that's your main criteria, get one!