Fri13: The video is falsified, it shows recording from the moon, but you can hear wildlife on soundtrack. Everyone knows that space doesn't have air, so the moon wildlife could be heard from the moon to earth.
The moon landings are fake too. Actually there's no such thing as the moon. Just an optical illusion created by the NWO!
gdfthr73: Good grief, all you posters are so pathetic. You should all find new hobbies. Or maybe if you started your own magazine and began your own "best photographs of the year" list than your taste in photography would be petter represented. The only problem of course is that no one would actually care about it.
"Fall in goose-step" Really? The goose step here is to criticize for the sake of being critical. Without a shred of a constructive critique, all I see are posts from mad photographers, p$# off that they will never have an image published in NG or any other magazine.
If your truly as talented as you think you are, than give a constructive critique without the bashing or the hateful tone I see in these posts.
Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.
Colin Franks must be the greatest photographer that has ever lived. He is the god of cameras and is the ultimate authority of what is good and bad.
Good grief, all you posters are so pathetic. You should all find new hobbies. Or maybe if you started your own magazine and began your own "best photographs of the year" list than your taste in photography would be petter represented. The only problem of course is that no one would actually care about it.
peevee1: Looks like somebody finally gathered some courage to make a review of a pro camera... Awww... :)
Next time, maybe you can get to properly (objectively, numerically) evaluate autofocus instead of the JPEG curves? People gotta dream, right?
Why don't you start your own review site
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The pictures on Flickr vary between very good and awful, the latter looking rather bleached. Better buy a second-hand medium format film camera at this price.
Who cares about resolution if the lens on this thing is crap or you have to guess at focus. Most of the images look soft and out of focus anyway.
gdfthr73: It Just drives me nuts. So many amazing full frame lenses for the K mount camera and no full frame K-mount camera exists. WTF
They do have some oldie moldy ff af zooms from the film days (remember the k-mount system has been around for a very long time) Primes are my preference anyway though. I thought the K-01 was a cool concept. Cosmetically it was laughable but a full frame equivalent with classic Pentax looks would be it
It Just drives me nuts. So many amazing full frame lenses for the K mount camera and no full frame K-mount camera exists. WTF
Sadly fake. Obvious spliced picture with the attached OM lens and scaled up om-d camera.
caver3d: Buy either m43 (Olympus and Panasonic) or Fuji X-systems. These cameras have great IQ, are feature-rich, and are built very well. Time for you misguided FF fanatics to get a reality check and dump your dinosaurs.
"misguided FF fanatics" please your ignorance is laughable. Full Frame is not just IQ. It's a look and feel that smaller sensors cannot recreate no matter how great the sensor. Yes size does matter
alcaher: No human has ever been on the moon...we were just fooled as that person who just bought that camera for 1 million doll. was.
Now that I think about it, I believe we should have a new national Holiday. "National Punch a Moon Conspirator in the Face Month" sounds like allot of fun. Any free month would be fine.
The Coolest thing I have ever seen was when Buzz Aldrin knocked the stupid out of that moon landing skeptic. HAHAHA
Langusta: 2 strips of cheap, self adhesive plastic priced 99-149£...Fuji please, don't hasselblad yourself.
Thank you balios- you would think your comment would be self evident but most commentaries on this site are a bit short minded.
Stollen1234: why are Fuji cameras all of a sudden so similar to leica Cameras?
me dummy. Thank you Fujifilm
Collett: Looks like a sweet walk around combo. Significantly lighter than my 5dIII plus 50L.
Their is more to a f/1.2 lens than just low light capability.
I still think these are the Ugliest (notice the capital U) cameras since the Pentax K-01 (maybe Uglier) but not as ugly as the Hasselblad Lunar. Size wise they are not that much better than a d600 or 6d. IQ is great I'm sure but man what a dog!
jaygeephoto: As a professional photographer I fully understand that equipment is not always pleasing to look at - I used to own a Rollieflex twin lens! However for a family/vacation/survey camera this thing is absolutely hideous - especially with the optional viewfinder attachment. Does anyone remember something called the Vsioflex that attached to Leica M cameras? It made an otherwise panache´looking camera into something that resembled a Russian moon lander.
You think that a Rolleiflex is Ugly? WOW thats nuts
ThomasSwitzerland: Look on your right hand when you want to grab something. The camera has been built around this in a practical human way. New horizons open up when using new methods. The Sigma might be very unusual and conflicting with what we are conditioned to see and use.
Smart Sigma people have developed a totally new design to function. This demonstrates vision, strategy and progress. And I like their courage – we need more of this breed in our boring mainstream world.
I would like to pull this camera out and take photos. Because my right hand balances and operates.
It may be ugly but from a usability standpoint it looks like it would fit quit nicely in the hand. I hope the UI reflects its physical usability philosophy.
ThePhilips: Wow, that thing is big!
I don't understand why some people want the smallest weeniest size cameras. I loved the specs of the Sony rx100 but when tried it i realized that smaller is definitely not better. Perhaps a 12 year old school girl may want and need a small camera for her tiny hands, but as an adult I need something to hold and not look like a complete W$nk%r.