Not a useful range: I'll wait for 12-4000.
all you need is the other halves and superglue.
it is interesting: nobody talks about the winners but the photographer that established the grant. i don't want to raise this as an argument against Reichmann..not at all...but it is obviously not the purpose of this type of initiatives.
Pentax wants to hear from the troll in you
This camera is excellent looking until you start shooting with it, and then it looks like a dog with an erection. The built in cap makes it even worse.One other point: I don't think anyone would be jumping up and down if they saw the lens performance before the built in digital lens correction kicks in.(Having said that I can understand the enthusiasm over this)
I would like to wait for the special edition: portraits of two sexy models of your choice included...
Next in the series: tips for photographing dating couples...
Pick any forum any day, half of the threads are April's fool material...
An old guy on steroids, hair implant and face lift...retro gone wrong.I have problem with the retro movement in general, but this is the worst I have seen in a while. The body proportions look terrible.I have zero problem with classic cameras. Some of them are gorgeous- including Nikons..."new" does not need to look "old" in order to be good looking. I am not a fan of the modern DSLR design, but the answer shouldn't be in trying to squeeze them in 50 year old shells.
I expect this to be part of the "retro-looks" trend, and I think this will be its only connection with the past cameras: the look of the shell...hope I am wrong.
He looks rather depressed for someone with a dream comes true camera...
I need a wooden lcd, with previewed images engraved in wood.ok, not to be hard on my favorite camera maker, the poor souls are only charging an extra 100 bucks for it. And it is not as tacky as the infamous hassel thing.
CameraLabTester: "...is entirely composed, using satellite images, which are freely available for public use."
If I like a picture, I'll just lift the original from Google or NASA.
provided that you can find it!you have a rather large database to choose from...of course you can also find something more appealing during the process!
ConanFuji: I don't understand how this is photography on the so called photographer's part.
More like graphic tweaker.
If you had the chance to go to the space with a camera, you would get the very same flattened view to choose from. So in other words: the reality from that vantage point is already two dimensional, just like a photograph. So satellite photography is not about transfering a three dimential world to two dimensions. it is always working with a two dimentional world.i think your criticism is more valid for the guy who reframes google street view. That's indeed retaking a photograph...
Hasselblad design department consists of a microwave:They place Sony cameras in a tray for 30 to 45 seconds, and voila...
rondom: Hi, i just want to say this: what Adobe is planning to do with their software pricing policy is outrageous. Penguins? What penguins?
Lovely energetic pictures, by the way...thanks for sharing.
Hi, i just want to say this: what Adobe is planning to do with their software pricing policy is outrageous. Penguins? What penguins?
one cannot just be an observer and create such body of work: you need to be part of the project. if there was a camera aimed at this photographer during working, the pictures would be as compelling. should not be confused with sanitized and timid homeless hunting on the sidewalks.
rondom: The first thing I check when comparing the ISO performance is the EXIF data to see if the ISO rating correspond to an actual advantage or not.You can find them here:http://imageshack.us/f/341/59375191.png/The A seems to retain slightly higher shutter speeds, but before declaring the A the "winner" (a-la-dpreview crowd) check out the crops: the GR seems slightly brighter at every ISO (look at the white surfaces such as the typed paper) which may explain the shutter speed differences. Again to me they look very similar....But I urge people to check the EXIF before starting high ISO wars: you may be surprised!Also another nice finding of the EXIF: check out the shutter count. The GR has almost double count. This tells you why Ricoh is better: Makers of addictive cameras! :)Also check the dates the pictures were taken. January 17 Coolpix, Jan 19 the Ricoh! Speaking of being tight lipped....I wonder why Ricoh waited that long.
@HowaboutRAW the test scene is ideal for this kind of comparison of high ISO as the lighting conditions and the camera settings are identical.Although, granted, the high ISO is much better judged at real world conditions: in low lit environments...but if you want to compare the ISO ratings, shots like these are perfect.
..or maybe DPR guys don't bother with setting up the dates of the test cameras they receive?