paulski66: I've had my d600 for over a year now and cleaned the sensor exactly once. Absolutely brilliant camera; I don't regret my decision to purchase it one iota.
Yes, I understand the some people have had issues, and Nikon should have addressed these in a more forthright manner. But I also think the whole thing has been somewhat overblown, and that there are many, many more happy d600 owners than unhappy ones...though as always the unhappy owners are the most vocal.
Until death shall thee not part, eh? Or might your eye now be roving towards a D610? Tempting, tempting.
Did you degrease the D600 after 50, 500, or 5,000 shots? How many taken since? Might you, semi-unaware, be lettiing the grime build up to qualify for a swap?
Only human, after all.
Honestly, the only way to break into photojournalism is to capture attention or Pulitzers by shots of violence, mayhem, suffering, or destruction. Candids of celebritiess or public figures might be the second route. Either way, the path is narrow and precarious.
Do photos influence opinions or policy? Sorry, but I see no proof. People may remember this or that picture, but that is no proof that it inspired decision A instead of B. Fear of public embarrassment because of compromising photos or video is another matter, but generates gainful employment only to PR managers or attorneys.
Landscape photos are nice. Put big prints in a nice frame, and maybe they sell too, but the peddling must be tought if the vendor in the next stall is selling purloined or public domain photos of landmarks or celebrities to adorn folks' homes.
gak44: I really like the extra-wide angle lens. This would make a great travel camera for when you don't want to carry a large body and an assortment of lenses.
Wider-angle is a life-saver. Imagine the rocky summit mishaps that occur when the photographer or subjects take one too many steps backward to fit everyone in the frame.
Joseph Mama: Dot Sight is a great idea, but you would think they would toss in some other feature as well for 400 bucks. I'd expect 60x zoom or a better aperture or slightly bigger sensor (1/1.7), or something. its behind the competition except for this 1 trick.
"Behind" in what way? The initial $400 price is 1/3 that of an RX10 and the likely $360 street price is the same as that of the FX70. There is no 1/1.7" sensor camera that offers comparable zoom with a tolerable size or price. The Fuji super-zoom with the 1/1.7" sensor proved to offer dubious IQ advantages and the huge lens phallus was prone to drooping. A f/2.8 constant aperture demands less zoom or larger size. There is no overall index of "better," unless one weighs a particular variable. If the dot-sight gimmick works, that may be the "ticket" for some people.
duartix: 1080/60p? Is this a joke? Do we have to buy their cheaper cameras to get the best of their video? Meanwhile their m43 cameras are still featuring a codec and frame rates from the Middle Ages.
1080/60p is more or less the benchmark for action video. Few OMD-EM5 owners use that camera to shoot POV action. 30p is good enough for stable or slower subjects, and some folks worship a 24fps mode that dates from the DW Griffith epics about Babylon or the silent DeMille version of Ben Hur, making it sort of pre-Medieval.
The Achilles Heel of all rugged and tough cameras is how well their seals will survive repeat submersions in salt water, or in any water if there is also exposure to sand, grit, mud, or whatever. The prescribed maintenance regime is demanding. After two years, it's questionable whether the seals (whether regularly swabbed with distilled water and dried or not) will survive a >20' dive, since they will naturally stiffen or wear. If, between dives, you open the battery hatch for re-charging, you need a surgeon's care to make sure no micro specs of sand don't compromise the seals. Any penetration by salt water will lead to early death and void the warranty. Trace leakage of fresh water is not as instantly toxic, but also hazardous.
rpm40: Trust me when I say that the vast, VAST majority of buyers of these cameras don't know what RAW is, and don't care. Same goes for f2 lenses. These get sold to skiers, beach bums, college kids going on vacation... Even so, they don't sell a lot of them.
I understand the desire for a high end enthusiast style tough cam, but the market for that type of camera would be even smaller. At least I give Olympus a little credit, that they dipped their toes in that water with the TG.
In defense of skiers, beach bums, and kids on vacation, the dowdy armchair folks obsessed with RAW don't move about very much or have any fun. They most assuredly don't have time to edit 1,000 RAW files or hours of video shot on an adventure.
Alphoid: If it was not for crappy folded optics, had manual, and maybe RAW I would buy one...
Try using manual controls while biking under bright sun or snorkeling. Just inform the rescue services beforehand, and make sure your will and testament are up to date.
peevee1: Sounded nice until... No GPS - no sale.
Where is my TG-3?
My experience with GPS is that it takes too long to calibrate and saps battery life. If you flip on the camera to take an action shot, you can't wait 30 seconds or more to set up the GPS, and don't need a stale reading. Underwater, GPS is a no-starter. Most of the time, absent a fatal fall or drowning, we can remember where we were.
ashokvashisht: Why are superzooms not coming out with bigger sensors, say, 2/3" instead of the normal 1/2.3". Ideally priced at about US$550-600 and having a fixed focal lenght zoom ( f2.8) of 25-600 mm. That would be a good camera!
"Ideally priced at about US$550-600"? Fantasy. Wake up. Think $3,500. Or go back to sleep and dream of Turkish Delight or being wooed by a mermaid.
The RX10 has fixed aperture, and a 1" sensor, but a limited zoom and costs $1,200 price. A 600mm equivalent zoom with f/2.8 aperture, on a 2/3" sensor, would have to be very big and very very very expensive. Or you could slap a mirror lens onto a cheap camera, and claim long reach, but get a poor image.
Give Oly credit for introducing a new tracking tool. Long zoom is hard to use with moving objects. Let's hope the reviewers check how well it works. Perhaps it aids if the zoom is 600mm or less, but hand-held shots at any longer setting are probably difficult to keep steady or track at all. No mention if the SP-100 has the 5-axis stabilization of the OMD-EM5. Nice if it did, but maybe not.
The 1/2.3" back-lit sensor is all the bigger one can expect and also have a 24-1200mm equivalent focal range. The RX-10 has a 1" sensor, but is bigger, has a much more limited focal range, and costs almost 3X the Oly. 1200mm equivalent range with an APS-C sensor would cost a fortune and require the size and weight of a RPG launcher.
John Miles: FZ50 rating (-3) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52339583
A dedicated front wheel would allow instantaneous EV adjustment whilst the right thumb assisted in steadying the camera. A hot shoe for standard accessories does not appear to be present. The screen does not look to articulate to allow waist height composition.
The first Non Fuji 2/3" sensored superzoom camera of this generation. This camera has enormous potential, with broadly speaking double the typical superzoom sensor area. An excellent contender for the superzoom enthusiasts cash; a fitting "camera bag in a camera" release.
FZ50: a 12x 1/1.8" CCD Panasonic model sold in 2006, which DPR rated 7.5 on a 1 to 10 scale.
Al Valentino: No RAW option unlike some of Fuji's Bridge cameras like the new S1. This difference can mean a lot to get the best out of a tiny sensor.
RAW is not high on the priority list of people buying an ultra zoom to track sports action or birds in flight. Key question here is whether the "dot sight" and AF are efficient enough to perform those tasks better. A shoot-off comparison of the Oly and S1 would have to be based on outdoor action, not a studio still life with bottles of cordials, schnapps, and brandy.
mrdancer: I don't think they shot IR to eliminate haze - they could wait for a good weather front to take care of that issue. I think the IR was for several reasons: 1) easier to pick out veg, 2) easier to pick out water vs. cloud shading in the distance, 3) I think IR reduces or eliminates cloud shadows (though I could be wrong on this) which would make for clearer image interpretation by those versed in IR reading.
For public viewing purposes, I agree that they should have monochromed the IR images for those who aren't used to dealing with IR imagery. For their (research & science) purposes, IR is definitely better and would serve as a good baseline for future IR "re-taking" photos.
Imagine the howls, though, from peepers enraged that the IR had been "manipulated" (monochromed). The red areas would either appear very dark, or require selective lightening.
joe6pack: Used infrared "to reduce the hazy effect of pollution and keep land formations in the distance visible. "
Okay, I don't get it.
Pollutions in National Parks? It is not Los Angeles we are talking about here. How does all the other landscape photographers "get by" without infrared?
How is comparing photos between B/W and Infrared not apple-to-orange?
Pollution raises ozone and haze, but both have been around along time. Look at Hudson River paintings from the 1820s. Smog or wild fires make Grand Canyon or RMNP appear hazy more often than not, at least in recent summers.
Paul Farace: I accidentally found myself standing on the very spot that Ansel Adams shot his famous "Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" (1941) in 2012... he used an 8x10 I used a Canon 50D... point is that except for the church and a few headstones in the cemetery, little was identifiable... what was flat ground in 1941 had become heavily forested (trees and scrub) and homes and structures. Earth and man are dynamic... constantly changing... also the choice of format and lenses are crucial for making comparisons. Adam's print shows the mountain range... my shot couldn't... a bit too wide.
Easy solution. Next time simply accidentally find yourself in the same place ... in 1941. "Hey, Ansel. How come I didn't see that Burma Shave sign, or junked car, in the print?"
Smeggypants: I went straight to the pics, thought the modern versions were cap and came back here and found out they were in IR. A goodidiea ruined. either use proper colour or do them black and white for an even better comparison.
Oh and dont' forget to stand in exactly the same spot next time.
Very poor 1/10
Then boycot Amazon, stage a hunger strike, and hold your bladder.
Glacier National Park's big controversy is whether the receding glaciers reflect a cyclical trend or unusual global warming caused by CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. Vegetation could shift, either way.
How do photos taken in recent months of August compare, on average, to those taken in the same month of the same scenes decades ago? There is certainly no shortage of photos, but perhaps only variance in month or time of day. Dated tourist or NPS shots could be assembled into an extensive time lapse sequence of many landmarks.
Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.
Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.
She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.
Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.
Commercial failure does not equate with beauty either. What you or I like, or don't, is only wind. Meanwhile, if stuff sells, at least something must be working right. Van Gogh merely lacked proper market outlet. His sunflower paintings eventually became quite popular and fetched plenty at auction. Replicas sell right along works of the late great maestro Kinkaid and so on. He and Van Gogh both died rather young and (paradoxically) agonies arising from a surfeit of over-saturated genius of sorts.
Samuel Dilworth: This rampant kitsch (which runs amok on sites like 500px) is destroying our ability to see. It’s like the ‘loudness war’ in music: everything is turned up to eleven to attract attention. More is without exception more in this world.
So it follows that if a dog is good, and a pot-bellied toddler is good, putting the two of them together at sunset on a misty farm is even better. (Duh!) If you formulaically combine:
• fluffy pets• children• sunsets• snow• backlit mist• flowers• bucolic artefacts• fabrics blowing in the wind• blurred backgrounds• very warm, highly saturated colours
… you arrive, as Shumilova did, at the apogee of this aesthetic – the equation can’t be denied! – even though you’ve truthfully created an absurd parody of beauty.
As this garish view of the world becomes normalised, it becomes harder for people to see other, better possibilities.
Tut-tut. Surely Dilworth meant only that "better possibilities" would require these additions:
• fluffy pets: tropical fish• children: grandkids• sunsets: sunrises• snow: warm sand or glistening grass• backlit mist: front-lit mist• flowers: fruits• bucolic artefacts: tidy suburbian gardens• fabrics blowing in the wind: fabrics donned by models• blurred backgrounds: crisp landscapes• very warm, highly saturated colours: B&W