Bloke living in Richmond upon Thames with wife and three kids.
Not sure I would call this an "archive" service which would be long term and permanent. This only persists as long as you pay the fees and relies on the life time and commercial decisions of Amazon. It is not fully within your control. Inevitably at some point it will be replaced and you will need to shift your photos to the next big thing.
This is more of a short to medium term backup solution, basically making sure you have your photos off-site in case the house burns down destroying all your local PCs and storage. A valuable service but not permanent.
I would call an archive something that you pay for once and it sits there forever. An appropriate archive would be saving to a portable hard drive / flash drive and storing it somewhere other than your house (probably a family member's house).
KL Matt: Fallacy 2 is poor logic and to me is overly dismissive and narrow-minded. Of course you can have most of your bases covered for a full frame camera with a set of primes that you currently use to meet your APS-C needs! Why in the world not? It's actually a very smart way to work up to the system you really want over time on a limited budget, slowly adding lenses along the way, for primes at least. The focal lengths match up extrmely nicely between APS/C and FF along the tranditional 24, 35, 50, 75-85 focal lengths. And the reason they match so perfectly is because those popular focal lengths are spaced at intervals of 1.5x -- which just so happens to be the crop factor for most APS/C cameras. So if I have lenses at all the above FLs and a crop body, when I finally acquire a FF camera, my 35 will then do what my 24 did, my 85 is my new portrait lens, and my 50 is my new normal, my 24 is now a true wide and all I need to do is purchase a 135 to get back the reach I've lost.
Spot on - both points!I have a Tamron 28-75 that I use on my APS-C Pentax K5 and becomes a 42-112 equivalent "normal-tele" zoom. This is a very hand range for a "walkabout lens" for outside use and would work fine as a "wide-normal" zoom on a Pentax FF if they ever get round to bringing one out.
I love the camera - the ergonomics suit me fine and the weight and size are manageable (if a bit heavy with a long zoom). With the right lenses it produces perfectly acceptable DOF in almost any situation I come across.
Personally I cannot contemplate doing without a good bright pentaprism OVF so any FF alternative is going to be a lot bigger and heavier - lenses as well.
However, I think it is a perfectly sensible strategy, if you are contemplating moving from APS-C to FF, to buy lenses that would work in both situations. Why waste money?
Airless: LOL no U.S. price, Canon is a joke that hasn't made a relevant camera in years, DSLRs are dead and long live M4/3.
There are so many variables here that it is almost impossible to come up with an objective comparison. Hippo84's DxOMark scores come close because they measure specific light gathering properties on the cameras that the lenses are likely to be used on.
However these measurements tell you absolutely nothing about the look of the images produced! What about contrast, colour rendering, bokeh, curve of focus plane? These need the detailed study of many photos to form an opinion.
Anyone who has worked with FF or MF cameras knows the huge advantage in composition that having the big sensor gives through DOF control, but they will also know the big penalty in size, weight and cost. Personally I find APS-C gives just enough of the big sensor image quality while still being small and cheap enough for my use.
I think APS-C provides me with the right balance between photo quality and practicality - but everybody's experiences WILL be different.
supeyugin1: Where is Pentax Q7?
Very popular in Japan, apparently, but it needs some more serious glass if it is to make it as a serious photographer's tool in the USA or Europe.
Remember this?http://www.submin.com/110/manuals/pentax/brochures/pentax_now_you_can.jpgMy sister bought one and loved it. Still has it, but cannot get 110 film any more :(
Kuppenbender: A lot of emphasis on rugged/shock-proof cameras for the under 10's. How about teaching your children to treat fragile electronic gadgets with a little respect?
My son's Canon A560 (similar to the A1400 in the article) has remained undamaged after four years of use - he got it when he was 5.
Incidentally, I found that once he discovered the long optical zoom on the family videocam (Panasonic HDC-SD40) that this quickly became his camera of choice, even for stills photography. Of course, by now he has learned to treat cameras with care and respect.
Well, that really depends on the child. If you know your child then you will know how careful they are likely to be and how much you want to supervise them. The biggest hazards with mine are not while they are using it but when they are not. Often the camera is left on a floor ready to be kicked or trodden on by some unsuspecting adult or left behind in a cafe while on holiday.
D1N0: How about dad's old camera ;)
No joke! My kids already use my old Canon A40 and Sony W1. They cost me nothing at all.
chlamchowder: I like the recommendations a lot, and think this page will be very useful to a lot of parents, or college students with younger siblings.
However, I disagree with the focus on compactness in the pre-teen and teenagers section. When buying cameras like the Nikon 1, you're paying a premium for compactness. You can save a lot of money by buying a used DSLR, and get roughly the same image quality with a far larger native lens selection.
For example, if I were buying a camera for a 10-15 year old, I would seriously consider a $150 Nikon D70/50, or a Canon 20D for about the same price. I think anyone considering buying a camera for a kid needs to take the used DSLR market into consideration, because IMO that offers some pretty much unbeatable functionality/image quality per dollar out there. And a 10-15 year old can handle a medium sized DSLR without problems.
Airless, so a Nikon D50 is not a "real" camera?!?!?
I think Chlamchowder's comment is very good advice. I have a 10 year old who is very keen on photography and if I had a $150 budget (£100) I would seriously consider a used DSLR any day over the most capable P&S. I already let him have (supervised) use of my Pentax K-5 and he wants full manual controls on his next camera. That would be a struggle with anything other than a used DSLR. The budget might have to be higher, but a used Canon, Nikon or Pentax would give him access to any kind of creative photography he might be interested in (wildlife, macro, studio, portrait (bit young for glamour!). For instance he is already into snapping bugs (he is 10 after all...) and I have an old 35-75 manual macro zoom he could use already. In fact I might have a browse on e-bay to see how much an old K100 might cost.
blurredvision: I feel this move is out of desperation, Adobe has realized that users aren't upgrading as fast as they used to, if at all. They have reached a point where they are running out of stuff to add/upgrade to make the price attractive enough...earlier versions work perfectly fine and most users aren't missing anything by staying behind.
Due to this, Adobe has to try to maximize services to keep up revenue. This is exactly what is happening with Microsoft and their Office suite. Office 2013 will be the last "numbered" version we'll see, they will be 100% subscription going forward once 2013 is removed from stores.
The ultimate end result here is you either accept the new service as-is, you try to find a suitable, affordable alternative, or you ultimately decide you can't live without Adobe's products and suck it up. For all those getting very upset at this, your current version of Photoshop will still work for years to come, I doubt you'll be missing out on much going forward.
Spot on with the Microsoft comparison. Both are big companies with lots of employees to pay yet they can't persuade people to buy their software upgrades any more.
What they should do is reduce the frequency and price of upgrades. That would make sure that a greater proportion of users upgraded and give a steady income stream. They would have to substantially reduce the size of the workforce, but that is just how it goes.
This company seems to be run for the benefit of the management and employees rather than the customer or shareholder.
If they move to the CC model then maybe a few pros will subscribe, but most users will find alternatives. Their revenue will simply crash. What is astonishing is that they cannot see this!
Absolutic: Pentax just need some big company with deep pockets to buy them. Not sure how long they can survive on their own. Sony or somebody else, buy them already.
Quote "Pentax does not have deep pockets, period".Which period are you talking about?In the year to March 2012 (last full accounts) they had sales of $24.4 billion and shareholders funds of $10.5 billion. That is pretty deep pockets - period.
kwhi02: '$2100/£1955/€2149' - I don't understand, at current exchange rate £1955 = €2439 or $3149USD. Are they honestly selling for $1000USD more in the UK?
If you take into account 20% VAT (sales tax) payable in the UK the equivalent price to compare with the US is £1,629 or $2,639. So still over $500 more expensive. It is strange that companies feel they can rip us off like this so consistently.
We need a free trade zone with the USA, that would stir things up a bit!
Shogun Fantastico: Just another misstep by Nikon. When will they learn not to build $4000 cameras when people aching for $1,854 cameras only have $600 in their domkes, no? When they learn to honor their market, I will await for a $721 camera with a 18-500mm f1.8 lens and a medium format sensor in a small body I can put in my kimono without obvious bulging and enter museums. I am crazy for pictures of beautiful light effects and brick walls. Nikon Picture Controls do this for me. Canon is way better, but I may sell it for this now.
He is joking...
Dattaphoto: I think the choice between a K-5 and K-30 would depend a lot on whether you should manually or in program. I generally shoot my K-5 in M mode and I frequently use the green button, AE-L button, and AF-L button. I could get equal results from a K-30 but I would miss the hell out of having those functions on separate buttons.
Ditto. You have to pixel peep at 100% to see any noticable difference between the K-30 and K-5. If you shoot RAW and post-process there will be no effective difference at all.
Which camera to choose should be driven by whether you want the robust solid metal body, "pro" style controls, top LCD screen and the separate buttons and levers for all the major shooting functions or whether you want the slightly smaller, lighter body and can live with more menu diving, or usually rely on the automatic metering / focusing.
I doubt anybody will "downgrade" from a K-5 to a K-30, particularly if you do not use video or live-view much.
I bought my K-5 with 18-50 WR kit lens for £699 last December (using a £90 cash-back offer), only £20 more than the K-30 is currently priced at (£679). The same shop is now sellling the K-5 with 18-50 WR for £725. £46 difference? I doubt I would have bought the K-30 in preference to the K-5 for just a 6.6% saving (but then I use LV rarely and video never).
MPA1: If you think a Pentax K5 is a high end DSLR your definition of high end and mine are not at all the same!
As a K-5 owner myself I could take offence at your remark, but you are right. The K-5 and the OM-D E-M5 (name far too complicated IMHO) are clearly shooting for the same market, those needing a small, robust weatherproof travel camera with good ergonomics. The Olympus emphasises the "small" angle and Pentax the "ergonomics" angle. Horses for courses.
If it had been released when I was in the market for a new camera I might have looked at it. Personallly, however, I would find it very difficult to work with a camera that did not have a decent optical VF, or at least a built-in EVF of sufficient quality.
The benefit of this lens was obvious in the days of film when films had a fixed ISO rating and anything higher than 400 asa was seriously grainy.
However with digital, the fall-off in quality by going from ISO 100 to 400 is probably a lot less than the compromises resulting from a lens at f1.0 compared to f2.0. In fact with a 16mp camera with a good f2.8 lens at ISO 800 will have a better "printable" quality than the same camera with an f1.0 lens at ISO 100.
If you want a shallower DOF than you will get with an f2.8 lens, why not go medium format? A Pentax 645D with the "kit" 50mm costs the same as this lens!
Yakbutter: I LOVE shooting my my iPhone 4. As a professional photographer, it's nice to always have a camera on me and not have to haul around my D700 for everyday stuff. People trip out when i post pictures to Facebook and then I tell them it was taken with my iPhone.
Nice snaps. However looking through them what sets them apart from the average Flikr collection taken with a P&S or DSLR is the heavy use of "effects" and processing - your selective blurring is particularly effective (Dana point and Roadside tagging). However I have to say I am seeing the "Polaroid" effect everywhere these days and it is losing its novelty and becoming a bit stale.
It is clear that for you the main benefit (apart from always having it with you) is the processing apps available. Maybe that is the iPhone's real advantage over a tiny P&S or other camera phone?
I like L.A. Country Fair Sunset (the first one). A real example of the advantage of having a camera to hand. How many times have I said to myself "damn, If only I had my camera with me!" when I have spotted scenes like that.
Excellent article, it is clear that Mr Britten has a great eye for a "found" image, wherever they may crop up. There is a similar article in the Economist glossy periodical Intelligent Life:"Cairo, before and after the fall of Mubarak: pictures from an iPhone, by Steve Double"
Ultimately though this tool is limited to opportunistic shots - mainly street photography and photo journalism requiring an instant reaction. Fixed high DOF is a boon here, rather than a limitation, as focus is less critical. However what it is not good for is: - high quality portraits - event photography - landscapes - wildlife - macro - telephoto - low light (ie virtually dark) - sports photography - flash photography - studio photography(and so on)Whereas any half decent DSLR would be able to cope with all of these. So don't worry, the iPhone is not likely to replace your Nikon quite yet!
However for capturing street life the only camera worth having is the one in your pocket.
jcmarfilph: Great article but the title doesn't fit. You could have said...
How to make great pictures out of cheap phone or camera.
It's your skills in photography and post-processing made these shots. Not the iPhone or whatever.
I mostly agree, as it is clear the author has a brilliant "eye" for a good image and - for him - the best camera he has is the one he has with him because he could clearly take a good picture with *any* camera!
However the Apple iOS photo apps are generally extremely good quality and very usable because they are produced by people/companies with extensive experience in image processing and publishing using Apple software and hardware (I include Adobe in that category). Try and find a publishing or image processing professional who *doesn't* use Apple kit. You will be looking for a long time!
Lots of problems with this, despite the wizzy demonstration. Looking between the lines Lytro suffers from:- Huge data files but very low resolution- The need to post-process to produce a useable file or print- Even the in-focus bits are blurry!- Not a patch on even basic P&S cameras
Most P&S users take most of their pictures of friends and family. Their major fruatration has, in the past, been missing focus on people's faces. Despite being derided as a "gimmic" in these forums, I know lots of people who think face recognition in compact cameras has massively increased their number of usable and printable shots.
Fundamentally the biggest market this camera has, reducing the number of out of focus shots of people, has been solved with face recognition. Sure you get a faux artistic background bokeh blur, but photographers looking for that "artistic" shot won't be prepared to put up with the camera's other sever limitations.