steveh0607: I noticed this camera was only given a numeric score. No "gold" or "silver" designation. Why?
Because they didn't think it deserved one, and they no longer offer a bronze award. It does seem a little odd that 81% = "outstanding" per the guidance and yet it doesn't get an award, but I think one of the reasons is value, which only takes a tiny role in the % score but may be more significant when it comes to the reviewer feeling the camera deserves an award.
Jaberwok: This camera is competent, but no more. Hell it should be excellent! A triumph of marketing over substance. pricing really is plain silly: With Christmas special offers you can get a D800 for less. Hard choice guys?
This is designed to appeal to a certain market: Dare I say Footballers Wives? More money than sense: All fur coat and no knickers?
"you can get a D800 for less". Quite a bit less from where I'm looking. That's the key point for me. I'm sure everyone is affected by style and marketing, even if they don't know it. But would you save up this kind of money and then miss out on a D800? I wouldn't, not for all the retro styling in the world.
onlooker: Some post in this thread make me think of a guy who will not consider buying a car for daily driving because it won't go 140 mph.
I'll be happy to buy a sub 140mph car, as long as it isn't the same price, or more expensive than the one that does do 140mph.
Apparently Mario was seen successfully fighting off 2 more alligators by dropping his cast iron balls on them.
PhotoKhan: If that camera and lens (...and their correspondent sensor type+ FOV + max FL...) took that last photo I guess he should be very happy the gear was all the beast snatched away.
I have this feeling this won't be the last time we will be hearing from Mario in the news...
Think something was lost in translation there. The OP is saying he was very close to the gators and hence lucky to be alive. Anyway, I love the idea of the alligator taking a few snaps, and I love slipping puns in to my posts on DPR.
24hrexposure: This is the first time I've seen light-painting used well on a human subject, and it really works. I like how the photo is kept simple, and I like the contrast between the environment's geometric shapes and darkness and the subject's organic lines and brightness. This photo is a great example of how to take a simple concept and a seemingly mundane setting and make a strong and expressive photo. Nice work.
Thanks for the kind words. This was taken during my second attempt at light painting and I was pleased with the results.
dstate1: Is there anyone else here who only reads comments with 4 or more likes? The interweb is seriously over stocked with bs pundits. I miss 2003 like you cant believe.
I only read comments that are posted at least 3 times ;)
Raincheck: Mind Control through threat of impending disaster, that's all this crap is. If someone tried to hand me a cardboard printer, I'd hand it back in flames.
"Mind Control through threat of impending disaster" - Crikey that sounds scary!
Just out of interest, where did you get your degree in Environmental Physics from? I'd love to hear more about their research.
Really enjoyed this. I've been meaning to develop this kind of "non-HDR HDR" technique for a while and your description of your method seems like a good starting point.
nacho02: Hi Erez,I've read a couple of your articles here, and regardless of the comments made by people who might think that you could do still even better... i'm positively baffeld by your pictures... I'd love to be able to attend one of your workshops in Iceland. Maybe one day.
I agree, and we need more people like you in these comments sections!
Excellent. Every evening I'll get to sort through a few hundred photos of me debating which camera has the best dynamic range on the DPR forums. Can't wait!
RichRMA: Translations in order:
"I think it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen!"(I can't afford it)"I'm laughing my head off!"(I can't afford it.)"If Sony offered X X X X I would buy it in a heartbeat."'(No I wouldn't, because I can't afford it, so much for the bombast)
I probably can't afford a turd signed by Versace. I still don't want it though.
I don't think I'd be able to tell if this was a hoax. Hasselblad are satirising themselves.
JackM: I guess I don't see the point of this lens anymore, now that ISO performance is at least 1.33 stops better than it was when I first bought my 17-55/2.8. I'll keep the extra 20mm (30mm) of reach, thanks.
And don't say DOF control. The DOF of a 35mm lens at f/1.8 is pretty deep unless you are right on top of your subject. Certainly not enough shallower than f/2.8 to warrant giving up the range.
I'm sorry but the OP just doesn't make any sense. I know sensor technology has improved, but you can use this lens on a new sensor too, regaining the 1.33 stop advantage. Sensor tech is irrelevant here as we're comparing lenses, not sensors. There are always users that can gain from using higher shutter speeds or lower ISOs.
the 17-55 is a good lens and offers IS and a longer range. This one is faster though, regardless of the sensor.
It's great to see Canon innovating again. However, before this release the main gripe being aired on these forums (regarding Canon) was the outdated noise/DR performance of the sensor. It was a fair point - although Canon excel in other areas, the 7D sensor just doesn't compete with the Exmor related offerings of the competition on DR & noise. This sensor just has to be better. I really hope this new focussing system isn't the sole improvement on this sensor. Innovative as it may be, IQ always comes first.
I like the waterproof roundups. I bought a Canon D10 after reading one a good few years ago and was very pleased with it. I felt they'd made a lot of good choices for a compact and I think I got some good results with it (just the underwater ones: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancesagar/sets/72157631929724683/).
I have to say that I'm very disappointed with this latest release. Not for the first time, Canon appear to be launching an expensive new product without a satisfactory level of improvement. F3.9 at the wide end is truly shocking. No wonder the images are soft. My D10 was F2.8 and I suspect would still make a better choice.
The D10 wiped the floor with its peers (for underwater use) in its roundup. It won't be the same story for the D20.
howardroark: It's an acronym and "graphics" is pronounced with a hard G. My dad says "jigga" instead of "giga" but even if he invented the metric system I wouldn't say "jiggabytes" or "jiggawatts." Maybe Google should be prounounced Joogle or GIF should be prounounced with a long I...GUY-F. Jeez.
Is your dad Jay-Z?
What on earth are they actually including in the $500 account? It can't just be 2TB of storage if they're giving 1TB away for free. I mean you could just get 2 free accounts. I'm worried because I want to know what I'll be losing if I can't afford the $500... and I can't! (I hope we still get stats)
xlynx9: As a pro subscriber, I received an email from flickr, which much like the linked forum post, did not suggest I move to the new paid (at double the old price) accounts, but instead to a free account.
This suggests they want to move to an advertising model, with a paid no-ads option only offered to reduce backlash.
The upsetting thing is two of the best features will be gone - detailed stats and the ability to replace a photo. It is not clear if these are even being offered in the $50 and $500 paid options.
I'm really worried about what they're doing with the stats. I'm also worried about what exactly they could be offering in their top account to get people to pay $500 for it.
arndsan: is there any count or stats for the free account?quite like the detailed one.
I'm trying to find out which accounts will have stats, as there's no way I'm paying $500 for them!