locke_fc: This makes a lot of sense to me. Assuming it was a properly designed study, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (granted, that's sometimes a lot to assume), I'm going to say most people here aren't qualified to express anything but anecdotal views as to the validity of its conclusions.
Did I say that? No.
vFunct: Look at all these scientists with their own research disproving this one!
Didn't know we had so many scientists on this site.
Everyone that posts is SO awesome! They must be superior to other inferior people!
Yes, just like most people in Copernicus' times thought they had a say on the heliocentric theory because they all saw the sun rise and set every single day. They felt entitled to have a say, and yet they were basing their opinion on subjective, non-scientific data. And of course they were wrong.
MtOlympus: I'm betting that subjects of this test were not photographers. Taking a snapsot of something isn"t the same as composing a photograph. For me takeing a photo means that I have focused my camera and my mind on the subject. I'm much less likely to forget, especialy after spending time editing the photo.
I have no idea what that degree is, but people here are dismissing the validity of a scientific study based on their intuition and personal experience. I don't need a degree in photography to be sure their opinion is nothing but anecdotal.
I have a PhD in genetics. So, yeah, I'm guessing I'm more qualified than most people to make an educated comment on this news piece.
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of folks with direct experience of the sun coming out and going down everyday felt the same about the heliocentric theory.As a trained scientist, I'm always amazed at how easily lay people are ready to call bs on scientific studies and the conclusions drawn from them.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Assuming it was a properly designed study, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (granted, that's sometimes a lot to assume), I'm going to say most people here aren't qualified to express anything but anecdotal views as to the validity of its conclusions.
Awesome! Well done, Fuji
I don't understand this sentence: "The thing about the A7 and A7R that concerns us the most is pricing. The bodies are fairly reasonable given their specifications..." Does it concern you or DID it concern you, but not anymore since the prices are fairly reasonable?Anyway, these two look pretty amazing. An FF sensor in a small size, weather-proof, body with a tilting screen... potentially game-changing, provided the lenses keep coming along.
xtoph: I have to add my objection to the new "click and load 12 pages to view content worth maybe 2" design i have seen a few times here recently.
Not only is it tedious and timewasting, but it is incovenient if you want to compare anything or review anything you just read as you go along.
Please dont go this way--just makes your site look like "10 wardrobe malfunctions" clickbait nonsense.
I couldn't agree more. Click-bait never fails to keep me away, no matter how interesting the title. Get rid of it, DPR
Studio3Jim: Apple gets the press because they started the whole so-called smartphone thing. And somehow what a bunch of needy fanboy photographers think is somewhat less the zero interest to them. That said I've had dozens of cell phones since the mid eighties and every iPhone since the first. And no other electronic device I've ever owned has had such amazing resale. And my iPhone 64Gb 5c will likely not break my resale streak. Can any other cellphone model or digital camera for that matter claim as much???We know the answer. And for now that's why they're the single largest selling individual models made. Worldwide. Move on. Please.
@supeyugin1: if they didn't start the smartphone thing, it is pretty obvious they were the first ones to make the kind of smartphone that every other successful brand is selling today (Samsung, HTC, etc)
Doesn't change a thing to me. I don't want to pay yet another monthly subscription (on top of all those everybody already has), specially if I am left without no usable software if/when I decide/can't afford to keep paying.
Keep trying, Adobe, but this is what you really need to understand.
Richard: This is smart, they set your expectations, and everyone said no, then they set the real price and everyone thinks well that is not so bad, But it is. You still never own the software and it is shut off when you quit paying. This is exactly what they want and people are going to buy it. I just hope the photography communitiy is wise to this old sales trick. These people want in your pocket the rest of your lives.
I am not going to do it.
You're right. Nothing is in the cloud if you don't want to, you just need to go online from time to time to confirm your license and get updates.It still isn't acceptable to me. I don't want to tie myself to yet another monthly payment, specially if I'm left with no software after I stop paying.
Bill McGrath: I will never migrate to a cloud/subscription basis unless I can opt out and continue to have access to the software versions current when I leave. The idea that I have to pay in perpetuity to have access to my files and the means to use them is a deal breaker for me. I'd pay the $120/year to stay current, but at some time I might decide that I don't need any new bells and whistles. (I'm 64 years old.) When that time comes, I should be allowed to continue using my software without further updates and without further payments. I won't budge from this position, and I doubt many others will, either.
No, the reader-converter wouldn't be enough for me. I need to be able to keep using whatever the current version is if/when I don't want to or can't afford to pay a monthly rate.
zlatko: Such beautiful lenses. If only they made a full-frame camera and full-frame lenses. If Pentax can make aps-c and medium format, why not full-frame?
Sure. It's only, what, $ 9-10K?
bigdaddave: What self-indulgent nonsense. Why does this deserve to be here?
How is it self-indulgent?Looks like a nice piece of documentary photography. If you don't like it, or aren't interested, move on, or at least explain your views.
From the piece itself: "According to Morin, 'The remote-controlled camera that took this picture was the fifth of my rig, set pretty far back, about 30 metres, from the finish line."
Great shot nonetheless.
Cute and creative, although it wouldn't have hurt to pick a different background.
Which is why mFT is doomed...
Interesting little camera, although, as others have pointed out, it's a shame that the new kit lens is bigger than the old one.
locke_fc: Please, not here too. Enough with the royal baby silliness. Who cares?
I thought so!