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?
@stevo23 - Do you genuinely think it's "on the edge" of honesty when you say you keep happening upon amazing scenes while you're actually staging them?
Aroart: Wow, is Canon so clueless. Why buy a 10-18 f4.5-5.6 when you can get a Tokina 11-16 2.8... Is it that hard to make it a 2.8....
Considering STM and the price, I'd hardly call Canon clueless here.
But if IQ and/or lens speed is your priority, the Tokina is almost certainly going to be the better choice.
Smokymtnhiker: The 16-35mm F4L should be awesome on the A7R. It would be the perfect do-all lens for backpacking trips. I hope Novoflex hurries up with their AF adapter. If so I will forget about getting the Sony 35mm 2.8.
If the size and price are OK, you've already got one of the best UWA lenses in the Sony 16-35/2.8, plus you get AF. Why would you look elsewhere?
DStudio: Since the IQ of the EF-S 10-22 is left wanting, I hope this lens can do better. Perhaps it will be the first step towards quietly replacing the former.
The 10-22's IQ could be understandable at $300, but not at the price it sells for.
Next we need a faster and better IQ UWA EF-S lens - whether prime or zoom.
But UWA isn't really Canon's strong suit anyway, so one needn't get his hopes up too much.
For all this negativity, I'm genuinely glad Canon is releasing both of these lenses - I think it can only be a good thing in the end.
The Nikon equivalent (10-24) isn't very good either. You need to have higher standards.
Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16 do a pretty good job of delivering the goods. Pentax DA15 (though not as wide) does too. And if you're bringing in mirrorless APS-C, then Fuji 14 and Zeiss Touit 12 have them all beat.
APS-C UWA is one of the trickiest categories to get high IQ out of, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards.
Since the IQ of the EF-S 10-22 is left wanting, I hope this lens can do better. Perhaps it will be the first step towards quietly replacing the former.
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.