I'm curious as to who buys lens baby products, because all I've seen from them are cheap gimmicks that have no photographic value at all. These kinds of gimmicky effects can be done in photoshop anyway, so why would you waste your money buying this junk?
Rupert Bottomsworth: Bad move Ricoh. Now all your cameras will look like abominations à la K-01.
philo123, I see you are one of those people who thinks: plastic = bad and metal = good, which is quite ignorant.By the way Pentax also make "plastic junk" too in the form of the K-r, Kx & K-m.Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras from the midrange (e.g. Canon 7D) up have magnesium alloy bodies too.
spacelounge: it doesn't mean that PENTAX will be designing the new Ricohs.. it simply means that the two camera division have been amalgamated into one, larger and specifically dedicated to creating cameras.
Notice how it will receive resources from the main Ricoh company, which might mean they will both come out stronger from this.
I think the missunderstanding comes from the fact that the new unit is named Pentax Ricoh.. but it doesn't mean Pentax takes preference over Ricoh. It's just an aesthetic choice.
Read point 3 again. It clearly says PRI (Pentax) will be in charge of consumer businesses such as digital cameras for the B2C market. PMMC (Ricoh) will be in charge of B2B including security system business, and imaging solutions business.
Bad move Ricoh. Now all your cameras will look like abominations à la K-01.
Mr Fartleberry: Nikon announces 36MP. Canon pro users stuck with their new "magic pixels" for several more years.
What does that have to do with this lens from Tamron?
DioCanon: f6.3!!!!!!!!!!!!rubbish!thank god I've got my Canon fast lenses f1.2 and 2.8!
You have a canon 300mm f1.2?
That is possibly the ugliest camera I've even seen.Do they really expect people to be seen outdoors with it?
Nice shot. Shame about the oversharpening in PP.
Rupert Bottomsworth: What a load of rubbish.
I don't need one :D
What a load of rubbish.
James Van Artsdalen: Since when is 1600 x 1600 "real high resolution"? I have never owned a digital camera with resolution that low! Maybe a camera-phone years ago; I no longer remember.
I did try to use it with a Toshiba Thrive but I was not able to pan after zooming the image. There are no tutorials or instructions on *using* the app, only on how to make various edits, and nothing on how to view or inspect the picture to decide what, if anything, to do.
Everything is driven by unlabeled icons. You won't get anywhere unless you're already proficient with Photoshop/desktop.
Where does it say 1600 x 1600 is "real high resolution"?
seems to have the tick of approval.. what more can you say?
This challenge is a load of crap.
Surely you're taking the pi$$ with this challenge..
Faintandfuzzy: I'm just dissapointed with the lack of DSLR releases. My D700 is a 3 year old design.
You might as well give your D700 to the local museum, given that it is now ancient technology. I mean, who in their right mind would use such an antique?
The cold war was over by the time this aircraft was introduced.
The more I look at this camera, the uglier it gets. In fact I'd be embarrassed to be seen with it in public.
You can buy a Pentax 645D for this price.. What were Sigma thinking? Maybe they weren't thinking..
Rupert Bottomsworth: Here come the prudes!
And why not? This is a photography site and the book is about an aspect of photography. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be reviewed here.
Here come the prudes!