nandbytes: "quickly became one of our favorite lenses last year on both Canon and Sony A-mount bodies."
On Sony a-mount? really? Do tell us more, I am intrigued...
really? do tell...
Patrick Dodds: A new model - with working focus?
arndsan: yes - new lens please. 35mm (as before) but f1.4 please. and ultra sharp wide open - of course.I want to have the focus ring in Leica Q style ! and please: less is more.
like in "less aperture"?
holyfan: Full-Frame sensor with 34 f/1.4 lens with fast silent focus, on-sensor steady shot. 36 megapixel.
*facepalm*full frame and f/1.4
you really like numbers, don't you?
AJF1934: I used to have an X-100S but nowadays use the 27mm pancake lens on an X-Pro 1 as my "walk around lens". The difference in focal length between 23 and 27mm doesn't seem much on paper, but is a big one in practice. I found 23mm too wide to ideally be a "universal" lens, whereas 27mm is just right, and is my go to lens (provided its slow speed isn't going to be a problem). If the X200 successor came with a lens with an angle equivalent to 40mm on full frame, I might be tempted ........
aaaah, having less options was what drove me towards X100!
vesa1tahti: 24-70mm/2,8 (eqv.).
i see what you did there.same size though, right?
ebbo: I guess Fuji will milk the X100 as far as they can then launch a full frame
right, it makes sense. like the SUVs in automotive. it's the natural evolution. making it bigger in the end.
"UUGH, BIIIIIIIIG! caveman need bigger!"
olee22: I want:- smaller body- faster autofocus - I missed incredibly lot of shots due to lag of autofocus- 50 mm equiv. 1.4 would be great- touch screen to select focus point- EVF to be higher resolution- ditch the OVF, I have never used it anyway due to the silly parallax
a 50mm f/1.4 without OVF would be an XE2 or XA2 with the F35 f/1.4 lens.the X100 line is something completely different, although it's the same manufacturer.
SSantana75: Get rid of the auto-focus (it's slow anyhow) and instead use the space savings to make the 35mm (equivalent) lens closer to a 1.4 or even 1.8 BUT with a proper mechanical manual focus ring.
uh, i like the idea very much! away with the autofocus!
samfan: I want a very small camera (much smaller than X100) with a 21mm fixed lens, a viewfinder and a B&W sensor of around APS-C size (m43 is fine if it's 3:2 ratio).
any longdrinks with that?
Johnedlt: -24MP or higher-1.4 or at least 1.8 lens-Release this holiday or get killed by competition!!!-Everyone gets affected by smartphones. You want a product that's clearly ahead or that curve from the perspective of a new photog
-24MP or highernice to have, but not a must. i would even prefer a decrease to 12MP
-1.4 or at least 1.8 lensf/2 is super for this camera and should stay like this IMHO. If there is optimization in quality and they decrease the aperture to keep size of the lens down, i would live with it even up to f/2.8, no problem.
caver101: I changed to micro four-thirds just over a year ago, and I'm extremely glad that I did. I've ended up with two bodies: GX7 for tripod work (panoramas, landscape, macro) and GM5 for hand-carrying. The latter with the Panasonic 14-140 lens (28-280 35mm equivalent) is small and light enough to carry in-hand for hours.
The GX7 with Olympus 75mm lens is a superb combination for panoramas: view this one at 100%: http://speleotrove.com/gallery/files/Kenilworth-Castle-MFC-2015.jpg
makes me really wonder why an EVF wouldn't be suitable for this situation. I don't know your exact models' quirks, but on my X100T, it is pretty easy to ramp up the EVF to see in the dark. Much better than the OVF (which i wouldn't rely on in darkness) in focussing...
Lift Off: There's a big advantage to mirrorless that I think should be mentioned in this article: the ability to use legacy lenses (from virtually any system available), with the added bonus of being able to manual focus faster and with more accuracy than with any other system.
Along with size, I know this was what made me jump from dSLR to mirrorless.
That comment made me giggle. Why should in body stabilization not work with non-native lenses? In terms of face focus: yes, of course it does only work with AF lenses (!) and not any manual lenses, geee....
and "many of the functions and features of mirrorless" work indeed with legacy glas as well. guess 7829mark never has used any mirrorless...
OBI656: She is a very nice person, but I am not sure about her photography. In many instances, figure/hand-posing has been taken from old well-known photographs and simulation of "old", hmmm I don't know.
Very good interview tho.
well, about this: direct copies are bold to impudent, i give you that. but for similarities, that you think you spot in her work compared to "old well-known" work of others, I would thread lightly. If we force us to never use already used momenta or ideas, that would be a very trist world, wouldn't it? oh wait, someone said that already. sorry for plagiarising....
jameslj: I find it very easy to imagine someone on dpreview being inspired by these shots and trying some of them without realizing the risks. It really would be tragic if there was another death trying to get a shot like #3. I think this dpreview article should include a serious warning.
seriously? like "watch out when you climb a tree to take a picture, you might fall?"
canonpro: ****To all those haters, who say his work is poor, etc. Your just out of touch, Cooper really is an innovator, the firey trash the dress shot for example is from 9 years ago, seriously think of photos 9 years old and show me something from then that was this well done. How many photographers out there have tried to immulate his trash the dress themes. To the haters, look at your photos from 2006, and post them, to show us how great your work was.
nothing wrong with opinions, i give you that!i give you some comments that are flagged as hate
By Erik Ohlson " Total BS. Garbage "photography." "
By ThatCamFan " Photo nr1 screams "moron" "
By Bobby J "This is something I'm supposed to like and enjoy?"
By Zconimir Tosic "Following the lines of his "talent", he could equally wrap all his cameras and lenses around his neck and jump into lake to make a spectacle"
By luxor2 "Trashing the dress, simply trash!"
By stevo23 "Poor taste"
sorry. in one thread you disrespected JM Cooper as garbage photographer. now i stuble across this in your portfolio.very nice!
stevo23: Poor taste.
he is an example. of some sort. i like some of his images displayed here. others not so much.
Orcio14: Technically, pictures are pretty good, however they probably reveal serious psychological problem of Mr John Michael Cooper.Fire, dirty shovel and kelpie at the wedding? Mr. John Michael Cooper had, I think, a very difficult childhood. It would be interesting to create a psychological portrait of the Author.
@Orcio14surely not what i ment. one should not glorify anything. or fall to the other extreme. that was my point!
to subject an artist by only one piece of his creation of art or phase in his creativite expression is like stamping a dog as vile only because it bit. conttext, my lad, context.
also, strong thesis that i would oppose. Mona lisa is a manifestation of the personality of da vinci? maybe true in a philosophical way. it sounds very vibrant. i am the last to disrespect art, but sometimes a picture is only an function of a situation. and should not be over-interpreted.like the mona lisa or the theory of relativity. for some reason, these topics are huge conversation starters in pop culture. and not soo mystical for people from their respective fields :)
FRANCISQUAN: I wonder what Claudia Winkleman would think of the bridal dress in flames after her daughter’s horrific accident on Halloween in which she was rushed to hospital with severe burns.
common, what are we suppose to write to a tragic event like a small girl catching fire?