It could be that they just threw a cloth over an SL1 to take the shot as an illustration and it has nothing to do with the actual camera that will be announced. I would not put much importance on this image.
If I was going to do this, I'd attach some handle to the top so that there was less risk of dropping it in, I'd attach a rink of Styrofoam around the top edge on the outside so that it would be certain to float fairly high if I did drop it, and I'd cover the top with plastic to protect from splashes. Then I'd not use it anyway as it wouldn't be worth the risk, except with an old body/lens.
Why isn't there an easy to click on link that takes us to the original site? (Or if there is, where is it?)
As for the lake being a "lake of blood" - if so, what about the green lake? I'm pretty certain that the water color is simply from minerals in the water, not "animal products".
Joe Talks Photo Gear: great cameras in their time! Even a 1" sensor would make these both SO MUCH BETTER!
I chose the S110 over the Sony equivalent NOT just because of price: the large sensor in the Sony made it bigger AND meant that the lens couldn't go as wide.
The change to a manual flash mechanism is a big improvement on the S camera. With my S110, there have been too many times that I've turned the camera on with my finger near the top of the flash, and this caused an error as the flash tried to pop up at startup.
RPJG: Why do I continue to read the comments on DPR, when I know it'll be full of nonsense from no-hoper negative-nancies?
Photography was more full of negatives in the film days ...;-)
MarcusGR: Stunning job, the "Migrant mother" especially. Technical question (for DP or anyone else): is there a way, with today's technical tools, to derive the "real" original colours of a scene from their "interpretation" by a B&W film? Or is it just a guess-work (though based on documents and historical studies) ? I suppose that if the "real" colours (in natural average daylight) of a couple objects appearing in a scene were known, all the rest might be 'derived' rather than 'guessed' ...? Of course, light and colours are one and the same thing, so nothing 'absolute' about colours can be said when light is not in the equation. Nonetheless, in natural light I think some very realistic assumptions might be done ...
The only way to get color from a B&W image is if the photographer shot the same scene with red, green, and blue filters in place (plus one with none) then the four images could be used to get a fairly good estimate of the color. Without that, most of the color information is gone. (If you know the spectral sensitivity of the film and have the negative, you'll get some based on unnaturally light/dark areas.)
Ed Gaillard: Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.
She clearly has a lot of talent/technical skill. The fact that you don't like the way it was applied is entirely a different matter.
From the technical perspective these are extremely well done. They don't look colorized, but appear to be color originals. I don't think they take anything away from the original iconic images but stand on their own as great images.
And the artist's name seems very appropriate (dull-away).
This doesn't make any sense. With hard drive mirroring, you have a backup in case one hard drive fails. But this is a single card with a single interface, so what's the chance that one copy of the file will be good if the other is bad? Pretty slim. The most likely failure will be at the interface.
I'm still looking for a good travel bag designed for frequent flyers who also want to carry camera gear. That means it should have easy-access compartments for all the normal essentials (books, tablet, water bottle), plus exterior pockets for travel documents, a place for emergency clothes (underwear, socks, etc., for when your checked luggage gets delayed) AND padded compartments for a DSLR and a couple of lenses. These days, I make do with a general purpose travel bag and add my camera gear with the body in a neoprene pouch and each lens in it's own pouch, but that's far from ideal.
Reilly Diefenbach: Or you could do the D800e and the 80-400VR and be a lot sharper for half the price :^)
That is an f4.5-f5.6 lens. So, even assuming it is as sharp (doubtful due to the longer zoom range and has optics that handle flare and distortion as well over the 200-400 range (doubtful based on comparing specifications), it is a whole stop slower at the 200-400 range. The latter is a big reason for the increase in price - shaving a stop from such a big lens is VERY expensive.
photoramone: Do you suppose that it's LEGAL, or Friendly, even?? I once took a picture of four ladies in a shopping mall, all were dressed in middle-eastern garb (Burkas) and you could see nothing more than their EYES. I was incredulous that they were very angry that I had taken this picture of them, out in public... My response to their complaint was, I'm very sorry, I won't do it again... But later, it occured to me that , How could they Prove, in a court of law, that it was the four of THEM??? BUT, I believe that, with-out getting their PERMISSION, I shouldn't have "done that Drive-bye" thing.. I'm just sayin!!!
A shopping mall is not a public place - it has owners who can set rules about photography. Many malls have signs saying "photography not permitted without prior approval."
The should have chose a less hazy day. OK, not so easy in London, but they do happen.
Jeff Peterman: I hope the new monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio of their existing 24" photo monitor and not the more common 16:9 aspect ratio. The squarer format is much better for photo work.
If the monitor is big enough, then vertical resolution can compensate for the 16:9 aspect ratio.
I hope the new monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio of their existing 24" photo monitor and not the more common 16:9 aspect ratio. The squarer format is much better for photo work.
But the issues is how much did using Kodachrome 64 impact the final result compared to if the same photographer had used a modern high-end digital under the same conditions for the same shot. Are they any better because they were taken with Kodachrome 64 than they would have been taken with digital? If the answer is "no" because of the "noise" (grain) and lack of contrast/saturation control, the this is just an exercise in nostalgia.You appear to be implying that these shots ARE technically better. If so, in what way?
Amazing how our expectations have changed. To me, these are grainy and over saturated compared to modern digital images!
When paired with a 10-22 on a crop body, it could make a good, two-lens, combination. If the macro works well, that would be a definite advantage to this combination over the 10-22 and the 17-55. (A little more lens swapping at the wide end, but longer reach and no need to carry another lens for macro.)
OK, I'm confused. At the start of the review, it says that the bag can take a 5D with 100-400mm lens attached, but it was tested with the MUCH shorter/smaller 24-105mm lens. That, and the apparent outer dimensions of the bag make me seriously question whether it could take a 100-400mm bag.
A review should at least verify the manufacturer's claims, and in that case I think it would have failed.
In any case, I personally don't like holster-style bags - their slimmer fit makes then much less functional than regular bags only a little wider, and the latter allow room for a small flash, a small second lens, or other items. My personal favorite for that is the Tamrac Velocity 7 sling bag - which is pretty small, yet can hold a 7D, 10-22 lens, 17-55 f2.8 lens, and a 55-255 lens - with pockets for spare battery, memory cards, and other small items.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review