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.
Joseph Mama: I can't imagine anyone buying this thing. It is interesting and all, but its basically an RX100 with double the zoom... and over double the price and a heck of a lot larger.Compare to a P7800 which has basically the same zoom and features. It would seem to be very difficult to convince people that it is that much superior.
Why...why would you buy a fixed lens big camera like this for 1300 bucks, when you can get a DSLR/Mirrorless with 18-200mm lens for less money, while retaining the same size?
200mm is not THAT much of a zoom! Its decent but hardly on the level of an FZ200, or bridge superzoom.
Tests may show whether the 1" sensor and fixed F/2.8 aperture yield an advantage, with cropped images, relative to ones shot with 1/2.3" sensor super-zoom models. The difference would need to be substantial to warrant the higher price.
However, on second thought, wishful beliefs tend to trump proof, so perhaps tests don't matter. So let the believers spend their abundant money and call it a day.
Lucas_: The price is high, but you'll be paying for a camera with the most complete set of useful features ever built. This RX10 is an extremely well thought-out camera, which combines great optics, wide usability, high IQ ( based on the RX100/M2 ) all packed in a relatively small package. I'm eager to see an unbiased in-depth review of it, mostly to have my performance expectations confirmed before I get one! It seems it will be a perfect everyday/travel camera and a more than worthy companion to my A99.
Lucas: "[RX10] a more than worthy companion to my A99."
Will the A99 queen accept your proposal to let a junior consort and concubine into the royal household? Let thy Majesty be wary of poison in your next swallow from the chalice.
kwa_photo: Interesting concept. I like it. I know people are complaining about the price, but looks look at what we really have here in comparison.
Sony: 1" sensor (blows away other bridge cameras), very good EVF, constant f/2.8 24-200mm lens. Fantastic video functionality with full manual control, audio monitoring, level controls and mic input. A compete package and it appears to have some level of weather sealing as it's listed as "moisture and dust" resistant. That sensor should do very well up to ISO 800 and with the f/2.8, that's excellent compared to the slow kit lenses elsewhere.
If I wanted to get a bit larger sensor with that level of video control (incl critical EVF for video work, sorry, LCD just doesn't cut it for video), I could get a Panasonic GH3 body for $1000 on Amazon now, the 35-100mm f/2.8 for $1350, and the 12-35mm f/2.8 for $1135. Together, those give you a 24-200mm f/2.8 in micro 4/3. That's a total cost of $3485.
For a lot of people, the Sony is a sweet spot.
Shoot video at 200mm through a viewfinder? Good luck. This might almost work with a shoulder-mounted videocam, but a shaky proposition with something you hold in front of you and try to track that weaving player or diving raptor.
JJLMD: There's NOTHING on the market that is comparable because this camera offers 2 attributes that don't travel together in ANY competing product:
1. The constant f2.8 zoom allows me to snap quality pics of my kid's indoor performances (ie, ballet recitals). Previously bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my wife's Nikon D3200 and she made me return it- too big, too heavy, and she doesn't like changing lenses. I've considered a Sony 70-200 f2.8 for my SLT-a99 but also find it too big, too heavy...and it's $2k!
2. DSLR IQ from sensor + processor. I recently bought the Sony RX100m2 and its IQ surpasses that of my wife's Nikon D3200 + 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (!), especially in low light. The BSI architecture allows 40% more light gathering ability than the sensor size would predict meaning it'll perform on a par with the best MFT sensors.
This UNPRECEDENTED combo makes it the perfect camera for the enthusiast soccer mom (and dad). I ordered mine.
An RX100 is fixed lens and hasn't the optical "reach" for pictures of soccer kids. If it is claimed that the RX100's cropped shots still look better than ones with a basic DSLR with a 200mm zoom, it would help to furnish apples-to-apples proof.
$1,300 is a lot of gold too. There are other ways to get twilight shots for less.
The RX10 looks nice. The $1,300 price, though, is a bit steep.