Beautiful pictures of amazing creatures ...
... but on a point of order re. the biology, "Since the jellyfish in the lake have no natural predators, they have lost their sting" is misleading and wrong.
Jellyfish don't have "sting" to ward of predators - they still get eaten freely by turtles, whales and others. They "sting" in order to paralyse THEIR prey, generally small fish. And without SOME kind of sting, they would simply starve and die. Even if that string cannot penetrate human skin.
Good Spoof ... only one problem ... I would LOVE an OM-compatible Full-Frame digital Olympus model!
I really WISH people writing technical reviews would understand their units. If this flash REALLY produced just 180W of power - for the 1,000th of a second or so that it is illuminated, it would be of no use to anyone. What it DOES produce is 180Ws (Watt seconds), or 180J (Joules - same thing as Ws). And 180J in (say) 1,000th of a second is actually 180,000W.
Interesting, if somewhat heath-robinson device. But this would frustrate me by only going about as high as you could the traditional way, with a small step ladder. If I want shots from up there, I'll buy a hexcopter drone!
Biowizard: Sounds to me like NOW is the time to buy your drone (or two), and enough spare parts to keep it flying for years to come ...
... it is only a matter of time before these devices are suppressed by the authorities.
Nah, you don't get it Juck, do you - you gotta be a Yank. That kinda stuff has been illegal where I live forever and a bit longer.
Sounds to me like NOW is the time to buy your drone (or two), and enough spare parts to keep it flying for years to come ...
THAT's no way to use a LEATHERMAN! You should ALWAYS "unbox" with a Stanley Knife with the blade all but retracted ...
Biowizard: There are already many, established, available and reliable "gimble" mounts for GoPro - what does this one have to offer that is any different?
Stephen123 - sure - just Google "gopro gimbal" and take your pick.
There are already many, established, available and reliable "gimble" mounts for GoPro - what does this one have to offer that is any different?
Thanks for posting SOMETHING about the latest GoPro, but this is NOT a proper review - rather an enthusiastic biker/"hockey" player's personal thoughts about his latest glory-recorder.
Even though they are primarily about video, not stills, I would LOVE to see a proper comparative review of the main action-cam contenders, using normal DpReview standards - and comparing them (say) to the ruggedised compact options from Olympus, Canon, Pentax, etc.
Can't imagine buying BM - but PLEASE can we have MORE GLOBAL SHUTTERS in general? Imagine a GoPro without the Jello effect. That needs a global shutter. Or weirdly curved helicopter blades on most any digital camera: get a global shutter.
Sorry, but as a biologist who loves and does everything he can to support the dwindling natural environment in which we all have a deep and profound share, I find an album of photos of collected-and-killed bees about as appetising as those dreadful cases of pinned, dead (some now extinct) butterflies, moths and beetles collected by Victorian "explorers".
Peter Lacus: a "retro" camera with a non-replaceable focusing screen of a dubious quality (for manual focusing) - maybe it's just me, but the viewfinder quality is actually the thing I'd liked the most out of the cameras from the bygone era...
Once in a while I just have to peer through one of my wide-aperture primes attached to my lovely original OM-1n (had it from new), to remind myself of JUST how lovely a viewfinder could look. Pity you need to use a 36-year-old camera to get that feel of being "in" your picture ...
Toccata47: I know three pro's that are using a df to at least back up a d4, (in one case replace). All three circumvent the retro dials in favor of manually programmed buttons and menu diving.
I think this is probably an excellent camera despite the handling hiccups, but the "pro" column in the summary here seems rather well padded, not something I expect to see in a dpr review.
Classic stylingGood blend of traditional and contemporary controlsGives sensible choice for using aperture ring or command dialFairly accessible menu system, considering the camera's complexityScrew-in shutter release socketIn-camera Raw reprocessing
6/12 pro's seem either superfluous, subjective, obvious or even dubious. Given the tone of the review I'm quite surprised to see the camera score as highly as it has.
Lack of time lapse is fairly obvious, considering that video is not supported. Or did you mean an intervalometer? Which is different. And thanks to the threaded shutter button, should be easy to arrange with any number of third-party, mechanical devices.
Biowizard: There is one set of amazing Nikkor lenses that the Df can't accommodate ... and I would KILL for a digital Nikon body that could ... and that's the Nikonos series of waterproof lenses.
C'mon Nikon, make me a DIGITAL NIKONOS. And with today's technology, it should be possible to design it so that it does NOT need to be opened up just to download images (WiFi?) or charge the battery (induction?).
[ed. spelling correction]
The AW1 doesn't go down to 60m unaided. And sure, I have an Oly TG-1, which is pretty much a go-anywhere camera - but its 10m maximum depth rating is again well short of that of my old Nikonos III. Besides which, I was thinking full-frame (D4 sensor) in a Nikonos-mount body, able to use those wonderful underwater Nikkor lenses. Manual focus only, of course, so should be easy to implement.
[edit: correction - mine was the Nikonos III, not IV as I originally said. The III was fully-mechanical, with NO electrics (not even an exposure meter)]
There is one set of amazing Nikkor lenses that the Df can't accommodate ... and I would KILL for a digital Nikon body that could ... and that's the Nikonos series of waterproof lenses.
Biowizard: This is very "Apple": they did this with their iOS device interface, where first the depracated one of the pins that used to carry analogue audio, giving it a new digital function, and then a couple of years later, when they binned the interface altogether for the new, sleeker "lightning" connector.
A number of third-party add-on companies got badly burned: one, in particular (Blue, who make microphones) had just brought out a high quality stereo mic for the iPhone, complete with free matching recording app. Within weeks, the mic was made obsolete by the change in pin assignment. So Blue continued to work on a Digital mic instead - and just as that was ready, Apple switched to Lightning. Blue have (understandably) gone away in a huff, and have pulled any attempt to produce a mic for iOS, and have stopped developing the app.
The losers are the Users. And Apple, because some of those users will have switched to Android to avoid this kind of crap. Another reason I will stick to Olympus.
Big difference here guys ... YES, Oly has come out with new mounts. BUT they also fully support the old ones with adapters. My 1976 OM-1n and its 4 prime Zuiko lenses has lasted me nearly 40 years, still working perfectly. And I could buy the OM-D E-M1 tomorrow, plus an adapter, and still use those lenses. What's so bad about that?
There is a MASS of difference between hardware evolution, and sneaky FIRMWARE "UPDATES" that make formerly-compatible kit, suddenly stop working.
abcdefghijklmnop: Help me here, Nikon did not change anything on the existing batteries or lenses we already own. I know since they did not recall mine, at least. So nothing about how the lenses and batteries operate was changed. If the third party makers had done their jobs right and accurately reverse engineered a product this would not have happened. Some of the lenses were sold with a port for lens software update which pretty well confirms to me that the maker knew everything had not been figure out about those lenses by that company. And since all third party lenses and batteries apparently, from reports, have not been affected does that not also point so sloppy engineering by some.
The whole point of allowing firmware updates is to allow unforeseen issues to be fixed and/or new features to be added. Designing a lens (or anything) with the ability to update firmware is NOT a sign of shoddy design - quite the opposite: it suggests a manufacturer with at least half an eye on future-proofing. The shame here, is that NIKON (not the third parties) has taken the opportunity to render some third-party stuff incompatible. And that is naughty.
This is very "Apple": they did this with their iOS device interface, where first the depracated one of the pins that used to carry analogue audio, giving it a new digital function, and then a couple of years later, when they binned the interface altogether for the new, sleeker "lightning" connector.
Amrbeethoven2: is it fisheye ?
No - read the text, it says "Rectilinear" ..