A business with a public telephone! No such thing anymore, it seems. What nostalgia #6 inspires. Yes, I remember it well. Didn't Trenet sing,
Le téléphone Qu'on entend sonner à travers les fenêtres claires A des cloches d'argent Le téléphone Des bruits changeants Apres le bavardage
Nice if there were a graduated ND filter whose dark area could dim a full moon enough to allow a single photo to show lunar features and stars too. Of course, the moonlight tends to emit lots of flare anyway. I had no luck, a few weeks ago, capturing both the moon and mars in the same frame. Either the moon was blown out, or mars was too dim.
Zograf: "... are gearing up for a rare meteorological event" ...That's NOT "meteorological" event! It is, and it has always been an ASTRONOMICAL event.
The moon is not a star, so why astronomical? The event is caused by refraction of solar light through the terrestrial atmosphere on the lunar surface. However, it can be seen or comprehended only by a few humans. Thus, it is a para-human event. But the tiny few who venture to see the event are lunatics, so maybe the event is just loony.
Looks like about $500 without the monitor. Solid build. Relatively stable, as stable goes (be careful), with jibs. However, like the competing products, the gear is a bit heavy, requires careful assembly, and cannot be deployed casually. Orion might consider offering something quick and light for small cameras, perhaps like the Boom Bandit, which is currently the sole player in its league. True, it's not the same thing, but for small cameras it offers about 80% of the results with only 10% of the weight or setup time.
Wolfgang Fieger: Once more for better understanding: we photographers are not interested in movie making! If we would be interested in movie making we would be movie makers, not photographers. Please recognize the art of photography as a totally different form of art as movie making is. These two forms of art have less in common than painting and sculptury. The only connecting part is the fact, that both arts involve lenses as tools of their craftmanship.
Those who can, shoot both stills and video. Those who can't, have no right to impose an apartheid, even though it exposes a distaste for motion or audio, or fear of strenuous editing. It is a grueling challenge to keep eyes glued to a work any longer than it takes a polite (but non-admiring) observer to glance five seconds, then say, "Gee, nice photo. You must have a great camera."
maaggyr: This gentleman should be dismissed due to poor video quality in Olympus cameras.
Has anyone offered better video stabilization than Olympus' 5-axis IBIS? Pray tell.
Francis Carver: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. These desperate camera makers never give it a rest, do they now?
Well, I'll wait until Sony beefs up the sensor from 1/2.3-inch to at least a nice 1-incher, beefs up the zoom range from a paltry 63x to a robust 64x, and gives us a break in the price.
I am sure with the speed Sony is releasing these new bubble gum cams, the one I am hoping for cannot be more than 2-3 weeks out.
A 1" zoom camera with such zoom would be exponentially larger and have to cost plenty. If Sony and others discontinue P&S or compact models under $500, will there be enough revenues to stay in business selling RX or alphas only? That remains to be known.
$1,300 will get you an RX10, which has a 1" sensor, fixed f/2.8 aperture, and 24-200 equivalent aperture (8X zoom). It's big.
$499 will buy an HX400V, which is smaller and boats 63X zoom.
Both have sensors with 20MP, which is the only metric besides zoom which most will understand.
Joe Consumer will pick the model that hurts the pocketbook less, is less dorky to lug around, and furnishes more bragging rights when discussing gear with Bro' in law Bill, who "knows all about cameras" and has a 40mp phone camera to prove it.
A super-long zoom will require lots of light, be hard to keep steady, and make framing difficult, but offer the only means most people can photograph grizzlies at a safe distance. Maybe Joe won't see any grizzlies, but 63X zoom is attractive for such "just maybe" events.
mpgxsvcd: 20 megapixels, 1/2.3" sensor, with a 1200mm lens, at F6.3. Will this madness ever end?
I wish they would just re-badge the Canon G6 with a Mark II version and give us 7 megapixels with an F2.0-F3.0 lens on a 1/1.8" sensor. That would be great with today's processors.
Check out the RX10: fixed 4/2.8, 1" sensor, 24-200mm equivalent, $1,300.
Dafffid: I thoroughly recommend his autobiography, which is really too short as he just touches on some many fascinating topics: not least how poor, violent and unpoliced much of London was in his youth, giving the lie to the idea of an idyllic crime-free past so beloved of politicians. On which note, it was a travesty that Thatcher banned him from going to the Falklands, the one war he really wanted to document. Perhaps some of the flag waving might have been a bit more muted had he gone and we been able to reflect on his record of events.
The Falklands / Malvinas episode would have been unrewarding for any independent photographer to document. The aerial or sea element (the torpedoed Belgrano, Exocet striking Sheffield, jets crashed in the sea) could not be photographed, really. The land portion was very brief and involved more sheep than people. Censors would "bah" too if any pics were too wooly for public morale.
SayCheesePlease: I aggree with his thoughts. We need to know the news and images are vital. However did images help Rwanda? Chechnya ? Helping end Syria conflict now? After the horrors of WW1 the conscience of the world was gutted. The only thing that ends conflicts is lack of funds. Dark powerful forces work behind the world stage. One man and a camera is insignificant. A lifetime of witnessing these horrors will only destroy the person documenting them.
Conflicts end, or at least end a chapter, when one side out-funds or defunds the other. But low budget conflicts abound, with cell phones serving both as cameras and remote detonators.
War photographs are handy propaganda. They inspire zeal for one's own side or rage against the other. Those that don't face a wall of incomprehension or hostility.
An embedded war photographer bonds with the side that gives the access and protection. Document atrocities and career or life expectancy will be nasty, brutish, and short.
Pacifists don't swing elections, control boards, or command fortunes to reward peaceful causes. Nobel, after all, invented dynamite.
A war becomes unpopular mainly when one's side appears to be losing or stalemated, but it must still be upheld as a "glorious cause." A fair quotient of the electorate, including maimed veterans, blame failures on leaders' reluctance to unleash even more violence.
Violence infuses movies, games, and much else.
JDThomas: I think it's safe to say that if you worry about the definition of professional and whether or not you qualify as a professional, you're not a professional.
A "professional" is anyone who from a specific trade earns, net of costs, at least as much as a mid-career cop, teacher, electrician, or retail manager, with weekly work efforts averaging around 40 hours, and leaving enough savings for insurance and retirement.
In Toronto, cop pay averages around $100k, and taxpayers foot a nice pension atop that, unless I am mistaken.
Anything less remunerative, admired, or stable than that is nothing to envy.
Quirino2k: :( for only 25 years and under .. So i don't qualify to even enter im like 6years to late ...
The contest is for "emerging talents." A 10,000 prize and a trip to France are a nice enticement to a person under 25.
Those who are comfortably established can, whatever their talent or lack thereof, have the money to travel to Arles whenever they please, and not worry about contests.
Those whose talent is stagnant, declining, or in senility should take up another hobby. Or they could beg their way to Arles and, like Van Gogh, tramp about in rags and be considered mad.
star shooter: My photo editor once said to us photo cadets: "....while words can bring joy, sadness, to making a Government or bringing it down, a photo has more impact, as it is the camera that carries more weight than the pen..."
Journos always knew that a photo will always accompany their story as it was the photo that caught the eye first, not the words.
Humans have always been drawn to an image than words. As far back as the cave people, humans have scratched or drawn, things to what they witnessed. This was the beginning of photojournalism.
While words can not 'paint' the sheer beauty of a mountainous valley of colours nor the gasping delights of the Milky Way, the camera can.
Books, magazines, newspapers publishers would go bankrupt over night if they took out photos. It is the camera - be that movie or still, it is that device that carries on the tradition of being able to describe what it saw. While journos are a dime a dozen, there can never be enough photographers.
Even with photos, many newspapers are going bankrupt. "Tradition" is for naught, if no one buys the copy or pays for ads.
HawaiiVolcanoes: Newspapers are lame. The only reason anyone buys one is to line their bird cage. Photojournalism is dead..journalism is dead (thanks to Commissar Obama)...this is really a big yawn of a story.
Print journalism is suffering. It relied, in its heyday, on volumes of ad space sold to retailers. This resulted in massive inserts that, more often than not, served mainly to fill recycling bins or line pet cages.
The "gesture" of the Liberation is lame, unless they have a formula to substitute lost circulation and revenues.
snegron2: I applaud this publication for taking a stance on the importance of photography. I am disappointed and sickened by the 20 somethings and 30 somethings today who are only capable of acknowledging low quality "selfies" shot with their toy camera phones as actual "photography". What a sad,sad art-less generation of techno addicts.
The conscientious reader will issue a "progressive" shrug, then click to find some other source with news and pictures and less of the obscure baggage about protecting a privileged club of haughty "photographers."
Michael Ma: It needs full frame. Stop it with this dime sized sensor business.
MM: then buy yourself an RX1, attain Nirvana, and ascend into the clouds, if the lens weight doesn't sink you into a pit.
The Jacal: This camera doesn't fit my needs, I need something expensive that I can't make proper use of just to take mediocre images of my cat, so therefore I must criticise this camera come hell or high water. Sheesh.
Dog shots, on the other hand, positively demand faultless IQ at 12,000 ISO, razor-thin DOF (nose in focus, eyes blurred), and manual shutter speed control in video mode that can be changed while tracking Fido retrieving a stick. A 1D with an F/0.5 prime.
Francis Carver: What a joke -- and so is this "news item."
This little not much of a camera is being called all sorts of heady things -- a "flagship high-end camera," an "enthusiast compact sensor camera," whatever. Why no just call it what it really is?
The lens is said to be "fast" -- so fast, apparently, that under the OPTICS & FOCUS heading, DP Review fails to list its F-number.
And so on, and so forth. I mean, what is the exact PURPOSE for these types of press releases, really?
F / 1.8 to F / 2.5, as stated.
Casio has trimmed camera offerings in the depressed market, so whatever it offers these days is the "flagship" by default. Canon, Nikon, and others might fare better without making so many redundant consumer models, which are very similar, confuse buyers, and reduce operating margins.
Casio, very wisely, backed out of cameras as the P&S market collapsed. Times remain challenging for consumer electronics, but the company has managed to post profits in recent quarters, unlike some competing conglomerates. Interesting to see that the company still makes cameras. Casio virtually pioneered high speed video in consumer models.