Peiasdf: At some point, I think street photography went from creepy to stupid.
As opposed to self portrait avatars of a camera in front of your face? We don't see enough of those either.
matthewk459: How quickly we forget Eddie Adams' photo of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's execution of Nguyen Van Lem. Or, Kevin Carter's photo of the child and the vulture of the Sudan. (and yes, I realise Carter's photo was a matter of perspective and he likely chased the bird away)
Rather than beating them up on the internet, we simply gave them Pulitzers. Perhaps if this was on the cover of time magazine rather than the post, we'd all be looking at this a little differently...
It's simply journalisim, bringing you the worst, and best parts of humanity since the dawn of time. Shame on us for being so hypercritical of a situation none of us actually participated in.
Maloy - fake picture and fake story? Are you nuts?!
macroxscape: No amount of saying could excuse a person not to do something to save the fellow human being but taking a train of pictures (40+). The picture says more about the photographer and the NYPost editing manager than the tragedy in the picture. God bless us all.
So you are out saving lives left and right? Or is it only if you happen to be in the area of someone about to die. People die senseless deaths all over the world on a daily basis. What have you done to prevent a single death?
davejm53: The Post clearly is only looking for sensationalism. They are disgusting. I also wonder where anyone else was to help this man? Were no New Yorkers around? The photographer for one is an idiot, but that does not excuse all other people.
The person in teh photo is an idiot. All you have to do is lay down in the tracks, they are made for that. Or he could have run the opposite way, this is far down the subway track so the train is slowing and near stopped.
PanErwin: Many people here defend the publication of this image, but what do you find interesting in this image? Except some voyeurism?
Only answer I can find is that it makes me react because things like this should not happen. Let's find ways to make this impossible. You can not have a cop behind everyone?
So here is an idea: in a nearby city, the subways are accessible only through doors that open after the cars have stopped. The platform is isolated from the tracks with a plexiglass wall, and the wagons stop precisely so that the plexi doors and wagons doors are aligned.
PanErwin - are you kidding? NYC isn't even close to the wealthiest city in the world. The average income here is very low.
Now I know how to win a challenge, be the only entrant!
MaikeruN: Dear posters below,
It doesn't matter what you say, about the price, the design, the principles, values, practicality, etc. This camera will sell. People are going to buy it. People will love it. They won't have enough of it. Leica is still going to be around, possibly a lot longer than you. And you know what? They're gonna make more limited edition products just like this.
I don't own a Leica, maybe I never will, but as a fellow photographer, I think it's pretty cool to spice some stuff up a bit sometimes. If you don't get at all excited over anything camera related (and it applies to all the other product announcements) then maybe photography ain't for you. Unless you're just a boring purist photographer, in which case you should just buy yourself an SD1 and not bother posting anything at all.
Please stop crying.
cxsparc - what is my problem?? Im using the same argument as gothmoth to show how stupid it is. Anybody posting on this site has more money then 99% of the world. Anyone spending a $1,000+ on a completely discretionary item is in the top percentile of the world. Because some fools here draw the line just above wheat they can spend is hypocritical at best.
As far as the blatant extravagance, most of these sold won't see the light of day. They will be bought as investments. But there are hundreds and thousands of products that are all about extravagance, all the multi thousand dollar bags, jewelry, $400 burberry scarfs, it's just lame to put arbitrary values on when it becomes extravagant. To many, many people, 50k is nothing.
As far as the bible goes, if you believe in some imaginary sky fairy, that's a whole other issue.
Gavlis - it's the exact same argument as Gothmoth put out. I agree it's stupid, that was the point, to show that Gothmoths argument was stupid. He/she was the one saying people shold be fed instead of buying this camera. There are MF digital cameras that cost this amount, there are watches that cost far more then this and any cheap digital watch tells better time then an automatic.
Gothmoth - I'm sure these people spend some of their money on charity too. What makes you so great by only spending "some of your money" and working for a charity in your spare time? Why are you spending any time on a gear forum when there are people going hungry?? I mean think of the people you could feed and help or the extra time you could spend at the charity organization if you didn't hang out on a photography site or take pictures!! I mean come on, how can anyone possibly spend time taking a picture when their are people that are hungry and hurting!!! Oh the humanity!!
I'm guessing most of the people who are able to buy this camera do more for charity they you ever have or will.
Nice enough pic but how is this not the same old New York that we know? This is one of hte most photographed spots in the city!
larrytusaz: I would like it if the red-dot movie button could be re-mapped. I don't use movie-mode on SLRs & it would be handy to be able to remap it to ISO or white balance etc, just as you can with the Fn button.
I'm not going on a "SLRs shouldn't have movie modes" rant, it's been almost 4 years & whether I like it or not it's here, and I realize the target market absolutely wants it. Still, the Fn button can be re-mapped, on a model like this that has so few "hot buttons" it would be nice if the red-dot could be as well. (Obviously it would be mapped to movie-mode out-of-box by default.) Other "semi-serious" models like the Olympus E-PL1 I also own allow for this, as do the newer versions of m4/3rds.
And yes--why not Wi-Fi built-in? (One person said "different standards in different countries"--but then how did Samsung figure it out?) Why not have the Wi-Fi unit, or another one like it, that works with not-so-ancient models like the D5100 and D7000 etc?
You haven't changed your mind?! Yesterday it was your life's mission to stop convergence of video and stills and today you tolerate it?
You also said having video on dslr's took away functionality that could make for better stills. Now you are fine with it as long as you can remap a button?!
Thank god your lifes mission isn't something important as it would surely end in abject failure just like this one.
Yesterday you said "even if photography & video are "converging" (and I sure hope they aren't, and if they are, I will practically make it my very mission in life to make it not be so if I at all can)."
Today you say "it's been almost 4 years & whether I like it or not it's here."
It took all of 24 hours for you to give up on your lifes mission. Sad. As I said, resistence is futile. Thank you for proving me right.
larrytusaz: A number of observations:
(1) If I read the specifications correctly, this camera, which looks more like a stills camera than a video, nonetheless is video-only. I have no problem with that. Trouble is, good luck finding a stills-only d-SLR. That seems like a double standard to me.
(2) That aside, even if photography & video are "converging" (and I sure hope they aren't, and if they are, I will practically make it my very mission in life to make it not be so if I at all can), what is with dpreview's fixation on video gear of all a sudden? A little here & there is okay, but my goodness--it's like I woke up & Chick-Fil-A suddenly not only sold hamburgers, but forgot about chicken completely.
(3) Lastly--why a sealed-up battery? Something in me worried sooner or later cameras would jump on the "don't let users replace their own batteries" bandwagon. Why are all the electronics manufacturers so insistent on doing this?
When quoting someone one should use quotation marks. I made a typo while quickly replying, you tried to correct me on grammar while making your own mistake. And you have edited your response four times and didn't pick up on it. Been to punctuation school lately?
In order for one to be wrong, they must deviate from fact. I have posted numerous facts showing video is photography. You have yet to show one. You have since resorted to calling out typos as opposed to reasons video isn't photography or answering a single question asked of you.
If you are serious about stills perhaps you should spend more time taking them as opposed to arguing without any basis aside from what you feel in your heart.
And don't you love how Nikon announced there new entry level camera? Did you catch what they are calling it in the press release? The Nikon D3200 HD-SLR. Gotta love that. Making sure people know it shoots HD video right out of the gate. Maybe you should take up your life's mission with Nikon now. Resistance is futile.
Also wanted to say that the aesthetics, merits, and qualities of portraiture are different then they are for architecture, landscape, and wedding photography. Do you dismiss all of those as well?
Saying video is a series of stills is nothing mike saying a lake and a human body are the same thing. Water is the only thing they have in common. You have yet to point out anything motion pictures and stills DON'T have in common. Again, same tool to create them, both captured on same media, both have Iso aperçu and shutter speed to worry about, both have equal settings for exposure, both can be captured on film or digitally, both can even be output the same way. You can print motion pictures on paper just like you can print still photos, you just won't get the motion part of it, you would just have photos. Which brings us to the only difference between the two, one appears to move when viewed in rapid succession.
Perhaps you also contend that animations aren't illustrations?
Shocking Larry, you still didnt provide one reason a video is not photography. There is a reason you can't, because there is no difference.
No one cares that DSLR's have always been about stills. Photography was always about FILM. Why aren't you respecting that boundary?!? You seem to have picked upon that change just fine. Why aren't you arguing that photography should be shot on film? You're boundary and tradition argument is silly considering you use DIGITAL means of capture.
Your argument about the merits aesthetics and qualities is moot on this site. This site is about GEAR. Every forum says it talks about the equipment, it never mentions photography (stills or motion). The only forums that do are gear agnostic and there is a video forum as well. This forum has never been about photography, it has ALWAYS been about gear. Most people are measurebators more concerned with taking pics of cats, brick walls and rulers. This is not the site to discuss merits and aesthetics of pics.
Larry - Photo means light, Graph means to draw. Both stills and video meet that definition. They both require a camera, they both have the same exposure, both require ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speeds. Both are recorded on the same media (film or digital). Both require a lens. Both require a sensor or film. Both are able to be recorded on the same device (in most cases). A motion picture paused and a still of the same scene would be identical (assuming same resolution). All motion pictures are are a series of stills shown in succession. Your opinion of what a photograph is is beside the point. Please tell me how motion pictures are in any way different then a still. You would have no idea if an image was taken as only one shot or a single frame pulled from a series of stills.
I'm open to agreeing with you, all you need to do is give one reason that a motion picture isn't a photograph. Just one, that's all that is being asked.
Larry - you're right, the millions and billions are all wrong, you are the only one right. All hail Larry, may he save us from YouTube mode. Larry - please go press your phase button a few more times and stop bothering us. Your emphatic statements that the majority of people aree wrong and you are correct seems like a psychological issue. I hope it does take you a lifetime to realize you're wrong, hopefully you don't die thinking you are right, that would be the tragedy.
And you do realize feature films, music videos and many commercials are shot with the 5Dii. That is far from you tube, and again, cinematographers are known as DP's for a reason, because it is photography. Anyone who understands photography would know that, obviously you don't understand photography.
Larry - you're purely speculating on the fact video is what kept out updated af in the 5dII. It's not like anything needed to be done for updated af, they already had better AF they just didn't use it to keep it at a price point and probably mo importantly to not cannibalize higher end models.
Everything is about compromise. You have a d5100 a $600 camera and you think there are no compromises?! isn't the articulating screen a compromise? It's something that could break, it could be bigger if it wasn't articulating, it could be lighter.
SLRs arevideo machines, your SLR, and pretty much every other one today is. I don't care if you don't like it, it is what it is. It's not like we are talking about two completely different functions, we're not adding a cell phone to it, we're adding the ability to take 30 plus frames a second at a lower resolution. In a couple years you will be able to take 30 fps at a resolution higher then your d5100 shoots now. Youll have video to thank for that
What is it that you are sacrificing by having the ability to capture 30 frames a second on your DSLR? You don't think there were increases in buffers due to the ability to shoot motion pictures? Having HDMI ouptut is taking away from stills? Live view is taking away from stills? Selling more cameras to those who also want to shoot video effectively lowering per unit cost is hindering still image capture? You don't think there is faster hardware because of this ability? Name one thing that has been left out of any DSLR because video is there.
I guarantee you don't use every feature on a DSLR now, why do you only complain about video? You don't use every feature on your computer either, why aren't you complaining about items you dont use there? You use the smae tired argument that something was sacrificed in order to add video yet you can't name one thing that has been.