It's interesting that photographers here will fight tooth and nail against fair use for images, and then demand the ability to photograph the creative works of others as they please.
ogl: Das ist Big :)
I actually like the size of it. I don't have particularly big hands, but still had to buy an add-on grip for my EM10 in order to hold it comfortably. This looks to be about perfect.
funnelwebmaster: Technically difficulty and noteworthy but without much artistic merit. Reminds me of some of those Guinness Book of World Records feats - who cares?
As a musician, this is a pretty great image. There are some nice touches that only someone familiar with orchestral performance would catch.
Not all - or even most - images are created for photographers.
dave: In the age of cheap full frame cameras, the quarter sized sensor will always hold Olympus back. All of the bells an whistles can't makeup for the small sensor.
AKH said: "where I live it costs more than the Sony A7 equipped with the mediocre 14-42mm. Not very competitive."
The lens range and quality of Sony will never come close to m4/3. Sony is only a better choice if you use legacy lenses.
munro harrap: Looking at results, the camera is junk, and the formayt is junk: focus is no better than full-frame or APS-C and if you look at the samples the grain is huge on the sports shots and degrades portraits completely at 800, and here I'm talking about reworked from RAW jpegs, by Dpreview.
At lower ISOs OK, fine, but frankly when there is just so much more leeway and resolution available at the same price in other formats elsewhere, I feel that m4/3rds customers of all brands are being cheated out of their own photography, the image quality is so poor.
Thankyou to Dpreview for helping me avoid the format completely!
If you can't take great photos in this format, then it's not the format that's the problem.
nerd2: So MF 20mm 1.8 equivalent for $1250 and 586gr? Nikon 20mm 1.8g weighs 357gr, has AF, costs $500 less....
This is a lens for videographers, which is obvious from the specs. So obvious, in fact, that DPreview doesn't bother mentioning it.
Why do so many non-photographers bother commenting here? Just to show their ignorance to the world?
aramgrg: So why should they be competitive?Because of bulky and heavy construction? In particular, why will someone consider say 25 1.8 instead of well regarded PL 25 1.4?I know, they are all metal, but how many times you damaged your lens because of plastic construction?
These are video lenses, obviously. Educate yourself.
Copyright exists "To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Nothing in the lawsuit furthers that goal. Seeking to get paid retroactively because something you sold years ago is now more valuable promotes nothing. This guy had his chance, and blew it.
Additionally, Nike's lawyers will find 10,000 images throughout the history of basketball showing players in identical poses
cgarrard: "Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever"
No it isn't, all you care about is how this bad move is going to further hurt your publication and you're trying to save face.
I can't take it any other way than that.
For all the handwringing here, this move just makes sense. Every sports league has their own photographers; SI has nothing to gain by keeping their own in-house staff. If they need pics from any events, they'll save a bundle by contracting out for it (rather than paying yearly salary+benefits).
Ergo607: What is flickr?
@Ergo607: No one said that. Learn to use google and stop asking dumb questions.
quezra: I like how the same people who love to bash Sony are nevertheless slavish in their attention to every move Sony does or doesn't make... jumping to comment on some very old news (all the lenses shown here are identical to those at Photokina last year).
Inasecurity perhaps? If they don't bash Sony, they fear Sony will take over? They don't seem to bash other brands with nearly the same gusto. What about bashing EOS-M or Nikon 1 or Samsung for their lackluster sales and systems? The difference appears to be that this is the one system that is threatening their beloved brand(s).
I love how Sony fans get their panties in a bunch over the slightest suggestion that Sony is anything but perfect.
HowaboutRAW: VT + Duckie,
Is the step occuring on every picture taken with the D750? 10%? 5%? 1%?
Y'all understand that oil spots on a sensor affect every file shot right?
Y'all understand that you don't have to post the same inane comment 25 times right? Y'all?
Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL
@abolit said: "The camera is a TOOL and it should meet the today's standards. "
No. The camera is a TOOL and it should meet the user's needs. I have no interest in how you or anyone else uses a camera; I care about how *I* use a camera. Having capabilities I'll never use is not on my list of priorities, because that would be foolish.
Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.
As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.
If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.
(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)
Edgar is right. They didn't sell ALL Creative Commons prints; just those with a license that specifically allowed commercial use.
The real question is why anyone was at all upset by this at all. If you don't want people to use your photos commercially, why not use one of the Creative Commons licenses that specifically disallows it? Better yet, just don't use any license, and you automatically retain ALL rights.
All the umbrage here is from people who don't understand what happened, or don't understand basic copyright (which is strange on a photography site).
D1N0: there's a list, you click it. Nothing happens. #Fail
They made the mistake of thinking that people who use some of the most technologically advanced gear ever made could figure out an interface that the average 4-year-old could master in 2 seconds.
They gave you too much credit.
Raist3d: You can tell how many people just don't get art or photography by all the negative comments instead of simply accepting this is just another brush and canvas of light, different from digital.
Obviously just because something exists doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, while still be a valid good option for those who know how to and want to use it. Why else would Lomo bottler if there wasn't a market for it?
Saying this as a guy who does not regularly shoot film.
AlanG said: "I also encourage people to have something to express with their photography and not depend totally on an effect"
Let's be honest, AlanG: You expect people to be reliant on photoshop rather than being photographers. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so against film.
Have you ever even shot of film? You certainly don't act like it.
brownie314: to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon". Lets assume - worst case scenario - Canon is paying DPR to get some space in the articles section. So what - you are getting all of this content for free. So you have to skip over a few articles that you are not interested in - what harm is done? On the up side - they are funding reviews of other equipment. So lets say Canon is behind this - get over it. Doing all of this equipment review isn't cheap.
"to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon""
Only people who can't read are complaining about this, so ignore them.
steve_hoge: Does that orange case help you find the drive after it's fallen overboard? Or is it just screaming "steal me"?
Yes, criminals are always looking to steal small orange things. <eyeroll />
mpgxsvcd: Haters going to Hate no matter what. Wait till we see some RAW files to make final decisions.
I'm a m4/3 fanboy, and these pics are terribly soft.
piezoe: None of the photos are sharp. Something is seriously wrong! These are a far cry from the shots used to promote this camera on the panasonic Lumix site. I had planned to purchase this camera as soon as it is out, but I'd return it immediately with results such as these. The main reason for purchase is the lens. Surely this can't be the fault of the lens. Could these files have been condensed before uploading to this site.
Seriously. My em10 takes better pics than this even with an old kit lens.