JEROME NOLAS: Excellent pics! #5 my favourite.
Hmm. How about a Kick-Start venture called "Hooter," based on a gadget that lures night raptors to a camera. It could be assembled from an infra-red motion detector, camera flash trigger, and a pungent morsel of deceased rodent. Vulture capital would surely be available, provided it included a daytime mode too.
Eskilsson: Top notch photos overall. Most repect to the photographers. Let`s see how many comments this will bring. Comments on "why GX7 only gets silver award" is now a couple of hundreds. Really hope this is bringing in more, so there will be some hope about that pictures are more important than gear...
Wrong. To comment on such photos is about as plausible as adult discussion about holy shrines, miracles, or the paranormal. One can politely venerate, or maybe envy, but only by standing a minimum distance from the altar or ceremonial stage. No polite coughs allowed. Amen.
Robot shots from Mars are also miraculous, in a way, but deal with stones, dunes, or ravines which don't defy the mind.
Comments about cameras, even if ill-informed or biased, at least deal with tangible objects any mortal with a little money can buy and test. The spectacular animal shots, on the other hand, boast attainments that vastly exceed what you or I will ever see or photograph in person. All required either exceptional amounts of travel, time, patience, and (here or their) dexterity with a mouse. Occasionally, by virtue of sheer number, amateur phone camera shots may also capture extraordinary natural events or animal behavior, but these will invariably cause gear hounds to howl.
CameraLabTester: "Wildlife Photos"
It certainly is a wild way of spending your life.
Waiting for that right moment.
Maybe we can strap a dead rat beside this camera trigger for the owl to swoop on it... sure cuts the waiting time...
"Eh, sure, why not?" Moe, the bartender.
J'accuse: that owl picture certainly employed red-eye suppression!
How do you know the owl wasn't enticed by the camera and, after discovering the brand, decided it wasn't worth a hoot.
jacketpotato: 8 little crocs on mum made me laugh
8 fanboys perched atop Mamanikon or Papacanon, the two senior river deities of ancient lore.
mcshan: Nice shot of the extremely rare blue elephant.
All pink elephants turn blue when morning comes.
Most of the shots require a talent for prestidigitation that would surpass Houdini. How in blazes be in such-and-such a position at uncanny moments and capture any image at all, much less one that displays finesse on par with a studio portrait.
James Randi has debunked the paranormal, UFOlogy, and other assorter quackery. Photography is, almost by nature, an art of illusion. Perhaps the practitioners should be called illusionists, just like other conjurers of the impossible.
Anyway, my measly animal pictures are unlikely to win any attention whatsoever, unless they happen to depict the contest judges' pets.
A parochial note: millions of photo prints perished in the tidal surge. Salt water turned them to muck. Some were missed dearly. Most weren't.
Digitalized replicas were not "safe" unless the drives or discs were kept on upper floors. Insurance claims differentiate, surely. Yes, quite.
Johnsonj: That last shot is beautiful. I bet it was taken with an iPhone.
There's very little to distinguish between photos taken by kids with their camera phones and seasoned photojournalists. That's why the Sun-Times laid off their photographers. The thousands of kids in the streets, by their sheer numbers, trumps a piddly little staff of so called insightful, classically trained photojournalists.
Photog D. Duck just had an anger fit. Flames sent his "Press" fedora to the ceiling. Steam flew out his ears. His Graflex lens cracked. "Don't say it's so! Quaaaack, quackity, quack, quack!"
Other haunted architecture: derelict insane asylums. In the 1800s, Thomas Story Kirkbride convinced US state authorities to house the mentally ill in sprawling buildings that, from the outside, might be mistaken for Blenheim manor or even Versailles. The order, structure, and tranquility were supposed to pacify, if not rehabilitate, the deranged. Unfortunately, internment was often a one-way ticket to hell on earth. The institutions detained thousands for life, in conditions worse than frightful. New drug treatments made the mammoth facilities largely obsolete after the 1960s. But the decayed buildings persist as eery reliques. Various Kirkbride building photo galleries exist, though none seem to employ HDR. Very scary. Discretion advised.
Miwok: The think about so many violent comments here is the fact than DPR is a site of gearhead. Lot of people here have only passion for gears and very few of theme have any artistic talent.So, they're very jealous of creative people.
Unfair. There are lots of DPR "heads" who have a fond appreciation of high ISO shots blown up to pixel level. They ponder pixel noise with all the high aethetic splendor of canines sniffing about a bush. Woof: purple fringe. Woof-woof: barrel distortion. Aaaaouuuugh: ISO 6400 and you can still read the brandy label. Wagging tail: ah, here's the spot to ....
Don't fault them, though, if they bite and snarl at anything else.
WT21: Wake me up when they finally put a 43 sensor in a fixed lens compact.
The smallest I'll go is 1" sensor. The RX100 killed everything underneath that size for me.
What about the DMC-GM1? Or is "good" incompatible with "perfect"? Or there's the FF RX1: fixed lens, almost "compact," and luxury pricing. High prices a way of forcing (hypnotizing) buyers to affirm their purchase decisions.
DDWD10: I keep telling my friends... now is a GREAT time to get into serious photography.
Then how do you answer the perennial "What camera should I buy?" query?
photog4u: I don’t envy the crew here at DPR at all. They have a responsibility to try and keep people interested in all of these other mundane announcements that coincide with the JUGGERNAUT that is Sony. I mean REALLY? FULL FRAME, no AA, amazing EVF, fast AF, 1/8000 shutter AND accepts third party glass maybe even M glass! 36 monster pickles! Did I mention FULL FRAME ?!? ILC! COMPACT! Wheww… what an undertaking the boys and girls here at this site have. And the manufacturers are not helping with red cameras, 58mm primes and firmware…yawn. All I can say is Sony brought a 1000HP Super Charged Big Block to this race whereas everybody else is bringing there ’74 Pintos and Pacers with 87HP 4 bangers IMHO. WAKE UP INDUSTRY! START INOVATING! YOU’VE BEEN RESTING ON YOUR LAURELS AND REPUTATIONS FOR WAY TOO LONG! SACK UP!!
"... until some boffin makes 24-70mm f2.8 that fits in your pocket..."
It uses a 1/3.5" sensor and also works to make phone calls, play games, let the NSA know what you are up to, and keep you up to date with the Kardashians.
Sony really did unveil a "system" lens that mounts on a phone.
Will the new devices tilt the global onslaught of smart phones upon camera market share? Or are they, like the machinations of Alex Lippisch, or the late Cretaceous giant sauropods, merely specimens for future museums?
If phones are the paradigm, anything resembling a traditional camera (or a vinyl record) is a tough sell.
An irony: people who praise the new cameras don't amount to a drop in the ocean and will be no more likely to buy the stuff than volunteer to ride in an ME 163.
CosmoZooo: I have been through this discussion so many times my head is going to explode from all the thinking BUT please explain:
"...and total light on the sensor (which is a major determinant of image quality)"
Why does total light on the sensor matter? What does that mean total light? By area a larger sensor will have more light - but the light intensity (signal strength per pixel or photo diode whatever the technical term is) is not determined by the sensor size...so f2.8 is f2.8 when it comes to light concentration and nothing else. When considering lens brightness nothing else should be counted for.
The sensor size will matter in signal to noise ratio but we already know RX100 sensor is an excellent performer. The multiplier is relevant to DOF only and says nothing about light gathering. RX10 will have more light per pixel at any focal length then a Canon with 18-135...it's the combination of that light and sensor performance that will determine the end result.
Other things being equal, bigger sensor means more photons. The RX10 and RX100 both have a 1" sensor, but the latter's aperture shrinks below f/2.8 at the below-200mm end.
WhyNot: Interesting camera... Interesting price.. I think at this price point the question is “Is this lens of a quality that Zeiss would offer as stand alone lens and at what price?” and if the question is yes and the price is right then do I need this lens in this form? I suspect that for me I'd just as soon have the Panny FZ200 for less than half the price (as I suspect they are both sunshine cameras.) .....
An interesting duel: FZ200 at 600mm, versus a crop of an RX10 shot at 200mm, shot hand-held of sports action at: a) full daylight, b) indoor venue, or c) night hockey (high contrast, so-so light). Might the difference be worth the added price, or barely a dime?
jkoch2: On paper, impressive specifications. In practice, people may find that the traditional 1/2.3" back-lit CMOS super-zooms perform about as well in good light. In weak or bad light, all cats become gray anyway. The advantage of the larger sensor may be evident only at a short juncture between dusk and dark, or between dawn and day. Interesting to see a comparison indoor sports shots taken with an HX200 at 600mm equivalent, on the one hand, and a cropped 200mm equivalent shot taken with the RX10, on the other. Will the "action" appear any sharper?
The RX100 has very little zoom and the aperture narrows rapidly with any extension of the focal length. An LX-7 sells (periodically) for $299, has a 1/1.7" sensor, an f/1.2 to f/2.8 aperture range, and more zoom equivalent than the RX100. Have heart for the working poor, sir!
jkoch2: The RX10 looks nice. The $1,300 price, though, is a bit steep.
Will a cropped evening hand-held sports shot taken at 200mm equivalent with an RX10 look any better than a 600mm equivalent one taken with an HX200? Perhaps if you pixel peep carefully enough. But perhaps not $800 better.
Another alternative would be a discounted $450 D3100 with a 300mm kit lens.
The Panasonic FZ200 super zoom with a 1/2.3" sensor has a fixed f/2.8 aperture and a longer 600mm zoom equivalent. Very likely, a cropped shot taken with an RX10 at 200mm equivalent, and a 600mm one taken with an FZ200, will both look pretty bad as the light levels fall. The questions are: 1) whether the RX10 prevails at all over the FZ200 at all in full zoom with hand-held shots of sports, 2) the light levels at which either begin to turn to mush, and 3) whether the advantage (if any) furnished by the RX10 is worth the extra moolah. High ISO shots of stationary liquor bottles and queens of hearts are only part of the story.
AngryCorgi: They should be selling this for right at $1000. Not sure what the extra $300 on the price tag is all about.
$300 is the "Sony premium." Were the product Apple, the premium would be $600, and the market might well pay it. Things like this, even if based on intangibles, is what drive shareholder return. On the other hand, Samsung can win on the basis of gross phone sales, even if its cameras (a tiny part of sales) must sell at a discount to other brands.
falconeyes: I mark this day in my calendar!
DPR, for the first time and eventually, seems to understand the notion of equivalent aperture.
I can only hope that NEVER AGAIN will DPR quote equivalent focal lengths mixed with non-equivalent aperture figures. I really really hope this nonsense will now come to an end.
Nonsense and bacteria outnumber reason or thinking creatures, so the idea that the first two will lose out to the latter must be based on nonsense. Arguments over optimum pixel count are immortal. Case rested.