Marty4650: Holy cow!
Not even a Silver Award!
Heads will roll in Seattle!
Anybody else singing that in the voice of Karen O?
Just me then...
brumd: OK, I am not in the market for this camera. After recently purchasing a Nikon Df, I don't have enough internal organs left to afford this one. But, I do understand why many people are so excited about it, and it is going to be very interesting to follow the next years how Sony's At system is going to mature.
But, am I the only one with this idea?
Just because camera developments in Canikons have steadied down a bit, it makes it a bit easier to spend a few thousand on a camera body, in the knowledge that at least for the next few years you'll be shooting with a device that delivers top IQ.
With these stormy developments of Sony, I am less likely to spend the sum of cash, just because I have the idea that in a year from now the model is seriously outclassed by the next 'achieving-the-impossible' camera.
I don't see it like that at all. The manufacturer failing to bring out a better camera doesn't make mine any better, and Sony will still be bringing out better cameras, just not on my upgrade path.
Although now... I guess they are on my upgrade path!
It's not actually that small is it? That's the problem I see. The shot at the top makes it look the size of a USB stick, but it isn't. This camera sounds like a great idea if it would be "always on me" or at least able to be carried in the same pocket as the iPhone itself, but that's not the case. If I'm going to have to make the decision to take the camera out with me, and free up a pocket for it, I may as well take the RX100 with its zoom lens and flash.
Bren Dyer: Sony seem to be an innovative company that continually bring out new products that dont quite fit the norm. I am a dedicated Nikon user but get a serious hardware hard on when I see the stuff Sony come out with. The A7 series is actually bloody good and I have been tempted on more than one account to jump ship. The biggest question for me is will it work well with my lenses especially the 70-200 2.8...The low light capabilities of these cameras MUST point it in the right direction for at the very least a second camera in a wedding shoot, if not the leading role...
Yes, a very serious hardware hard on!
I'm just here to applaud the use of the term "hardware hard on". Well done, well done indeed.
#6 is like a visual representation of what Sony just did.
EthanP99: Just cancelled my a7rii order for this.
Thematic: wow, even SLOG making it in as well? Gotta hand it to Sony that they do far less "saving features for the high end" compared to their competitors when releasing new models.
Agreed, I was meaning stills.
Looking at the launch price - this is pretty high end.
My next Canon body could be a Sony.
So, do we have any evidence/guesses as to how WELL Canon EF lenses will autofocus on this (speed/accuracy) and do we know what the sharpness penalty looks like from the Metabones adaptor yet? Pretty interested to know this so any input appreciated.
peterstuckings: I'm very interested to see image #4 has a ton of dust spots in the sky over the subject's head, plus one big spot on the left of the frame. Before the trolls get their claws out, I'm not having a go - I'm just curious why these spots were not cleaned up when these images surely have had a lot of post-processing done, and in this particular image the subject's outline has clearly been enhanced. Do some photogs simply not see dust spots? ...
I'll risk it. For me #4 does not reach the high standard of the other images. It's poorly processed and neither the subject matter nor the composition stand out for me.
EskeRahn: Suggestion for slogan"For when what you are recording is so boring and uninteresting that it needs to be speeded up 30 times"/S ;)
I like it, but it's true of most videos I see on social media. The only way I'm watching a video of a mate riding a motorbike in Bangkok is if it lasts less than 10 seconds.
It seems that it will have the best DR among EOS camera!!
I haven't seen this sort of reaction since Adobe launched Creative Cloud, but Adobe weren't asking for $2.5k up front. I know nothing about this product so won't comment on it, but the reaction can't be a good sign. Angry forum posters may not concern someone trying to sell a small monthly subscription fee, but a $2.5k camera... that's going to a much more specific market.
IvanM: Who still uses Canon today? Can one still take a passable photo with a Canon? Are Canon's being dumped for Sony's by the Pros? How Bad is the DR really?
Here is a breakdown of the cameras and lenses used by the winners of the World Press Photo Awards: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25150.15
I think the results says it all....
I've honestly never seen anyone argue that Canons don't take "passable" photos. I have seen some argue that the sensors aren't currently producing the best low ISO results.
The WPP Awards tell you nothing about how Canon sensors stack up to their competition for three main reasons:
1) The genre is less reliant on low ISO sensor performance than it is on other areas, where Canon excels.
2) Nobody disputes that Canon have the highest user base. Of course they are going to be well represented in any sample.
3) The photographer and the scene in front of them is more important than the equipment. More photographers in front of more scenes are *still* using Canon equipment.
I too would like to see more DR at low ISO in Canon's files. Why? Simply because I could use it. It won't get me in to the WPP Awards, but when I buy something I want to buy the best one, to give me the best chance of success with it. Canon has loads going for it, I'd just like to see low ISO DR added to the list.
mgrum: "Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"
That's pretty much all Canon have done for the past 6 years ;)
I'd assumed that line was meant to be sarcasm!
Sessility: What really annoys me about the first photo is that it's so obviously a composite (the reflection doesn't match the stars in the sky). I know the technical reasons for it (light level of sky vs. foreground, and long shutter speed needed), just saying that I find it quite distracting.
That's interesting. I'd assumed the same due to the stretched point light sources in the water, but having reviewed one of my own starry night shots, the same thing had happened there. Great shot anyway.
JoEick: Cool thing to do for the users of the website. Thanks DPR staff for putting this together. There are many talented photographers here who deserve a bit of recognition for their hard work.
I didn't take any keeper photos in 2014, so it will be nice to see what others have done.
In fairness, when I read the comment I thought he was just having a joke, there was a wink at the end after all. Emoticons soften everything... :)
Outdated and inadequate technology, crammed into an unattractive form-factor, with an impenetrable user interface, producing substandard results.
It's almost as if Nikon *want* to fail.
Are you reading about something different?
Timur Born: The lions shot strikes me as quite wide angle, is it not? How fracking close did the photographer have to get for that shot? Two of the lions are *looking at him*!
The horizon is tilted because of the lower left lion, that is quite nicely aligned, by the way. Either he'd have to cut him off in post or shoot more of nothing in the lower right. Or maybe there was some disturbing object in the lower right that he wanted cut out while keeping the left lion in. Or maybe the whole damn pack noticed him and got up, so he decided to call it a day and save his life?
Who knows... but lions on a rocky beach look pretty wildlife to me. At least I don't see any fences or zoo signs there.
I think he used a drone, which may also explain his troubles with the horizon. I don't think it's a beach though, but it's hard to tell in this infrared image.