damian5000: Thanks Google. Don't listen to a bunch of cynical, whining ninnies.
Would that include those asking, "What about Win10 compatibility?"
I guess each person decides his own criteria.
sh10453: It would be very useful if DPR would follow up with a report comparing the cost of printing using these printers vs. printing at professional printing services.
The price of ink (regardless of manufacturer) is ridiculously high, and buying cheap refill ink is not a desirable option for quality prints.
I've got an Epson 7800 (24"). No cats, and my apartment does a pretty fair job of maintaining temp, although humidity can diminish in the winter because of electric heating. Nonetheless, I had occasion to leave the 7800 idle for about 10 months, after which all I had to do was run a nozzle cleaning, and it was good to go.
By the way, I bought this baby used for $600. (all smiles)
Too bad. I was hoping to see a lot more entries, especially of actual in-flight images. These are truly remarkable aircraft. To think that, as a child, I saw pictures of some of the then current earliest attempts at VTOL combat aircraft (Convair VFX-1 & VFY-1) that didn't make it.
Kudos to the Brits for finally making it a reality.
F Stop Fitzgerald: I would like to see a video of how this is actually done.
Indeed. Now THAT would be a REAL story.
nunatak: any sign of camera makers cutting prices in half? :)
Dream on, you fool.
Maximum effective range?
rsenk19: It is difficult to trust the word "forever" from companies like Sony...
John, this is clearly an example of how Churchill once described England and America ... two nations divided by a common language. I'm reasonably sure my fellow Americans got my meaning ... even if you didn't. Besides, this is a photography forum. If you wish to debate the finer points of computers and operating systems, there are other forums more appropriate for that.
Mike FL: SONY is on the right direction to create another high-end line w/o paying Zeiss for putting Carl Zeiss blue logo on it.
The GM line seems higher than SONY with Carl Zeiss blue logo.
Way to go.
Well, I can't speak for others, but I am astounded by the image quality of the 24-200 on my RX-10. So much so, in fact, I've been giving thought to relying on that as my back-up to my Canon 6D and selling off my 2nd 6D. As it is, the RX-10 is my "trail camera" that I carry whenever I'm making a serious hike where I want to limit my load.
princecody: Sony is WINNING!
WINNING? Winning what???
Yes, Nikon hasn't dumped its legacy glass like Canon did. And I remember when Nikon was the top dog in the SLR camera business. They aren't anymore, and the change began with the introduction of EOS.
Yes, Canon "dumped" FD lenses just like Microsoft dumped DOS for Windows. Please note this site would never have been possible in DOS.
Technology evolves, and sometimes, that comes at the expense of earlier technology. Given the passage of enough time, I imagine virtually all existing photographic technology will be eclipsed by something more advanced. It happens.
Of greater concern with anyone from Sony using the word "forever," is the seemingly ever increasing number of camera lines that Sony is developing. Common sense suggests that, the more different, but similar, product lines you have, the more unprofitable the overall business is likely to become, AND the less likely any of those product lines will be developed and enhanced to its fullest.
I'd like to know which lens & what aperture setting was used for the test scene. I'm comparing the 5DSr to the 6D.
Provia_fan: THis is a little long for DPreview so will have to split into two threads, one in reply
So many badly informed opinions it gives me a headache.
1- Super 8 cartrigdes can still be bought from different brands although limited and at £25-£30 a pop
2- Film Schools still teach the format
3- It still has a depth of colour that digital still struggles to get
4- There were Super 8 SOUND cartridges! But you could use a separate recorder as is the case in my Cosina Magic Sound (and many others)
5-You can develop Super 8 at home. Tanks still exist and can be bought on eBay, many new. Use a reversal process or if you feel experimental, you can cross develop with many available developing kits that you would use for stills photography (it's film for God's sake!) and scan at home (there are 3rd party adapters to use flatbeds, although it's a long process). Many Super 8 emulsions were e6 process and some still are.
Provia, you might like to believe this effort is aimed at hipsters, but something tells me that (a) it costs a lot of money to set up a production line for Super 8 film, and (b) that it's very unlikely Kodak still has its original Super 8 production sitting around under dust covers just waiting for the day when it would be re-opened.
No, I have to believe, to justify that kind of investment, Kodak is going to need to sell a lot more Super 8 film than is likely to be purchased just by hipsters.
Angelic, thanks for the attempt at clarification. Unfortunately, it appears Davinator is off on his own personal tangent. He can't, or doesn't want to, focus on my original point.
I'll admit I might be wrong, but I believe Kodak's aim is to somehow resurrect the Super 8 film market, the bulk of which was based on sales to ordinary people who wanted to make home movies at a time when the only way to do that was with film.
Now, if neither cell phones or any other consumer grade digital cameras were capable of making anything other than still photos, and the only way to make a movie was either film or with high end digital equipment, then this Kodak idea would have a fighting chance.
I wonder how much money Kodak invested in this brainstorm so far?
Davinator ... where did I say anything in this thread about consumers using DSLRs? Or do you think "real cameras" only means "DSLRs?"
To clarify, when I wrote "real cameras" I meant devices devoted exclusively to making photographic images.
O.K., Provia_fan, assuming all your statements are accurate, do you really think most consumers interested in making home movies will give a hoot? Seriously, we're talking about the same consumers who have been eschewing real cameras for cell phones because, apparently, that's good enough for them.
No, Dzacco, it isn't just you.
Why would any semi-intelligent person think that tens of millions of consumers, having been exposed for a decade or longer to the convenience of "digital film" would now be convinced to want to return to celluloid to make their family movies?
This smells like a desperate attempt at Kodak to revive a section of their business (making consumer-grade celluloid image recording materials) that technology has clearly left in the dust.
If I were a Kodak stockholder, I'd be howling for someone's hide to be nailed to the big yellow barnyard wall.
Rajeshb: Fantastic shot. But are you sure this is a Raccoon? Looks quite big
gReat capture, Philip, but you should know alligators don't chew anything. They haven't got the teeth for it. They just swallow their prey whole. This gator was probably making sure the 'coon was dead. It doesn't do to have still live prey thrashing about as they travel down your gullet.
Jan Bohme: If we, on the other hand, instead discuss de lege ferenda - i.e. discuss the law as it should be, which is essentially a political discussion - I agree that one can apply a fairness argument for copyright to be awarded. The problem is that fairness points in two different directions. One may argue that it is unfair that the photographer can't get copyright just because the work of art is so unique. But one may equally well argue that it is unfair that an author of a work of art is excluded from copyright just because it isn't human. While it might be difficult to benefit the actual monkey who - supposedly - took the selfie, it wouldn't be altogether impossible to allocate the revenues of the photo to benefit monkeys of that species in general in that area, which would hopefully benefit also the actual author of the photograph.
However, I don't think that copyright law will be changed because of this. This situation is so rare that it isn't really reasonable to adapt legislation to it.
What I see is the far more disturbing idea that a 3rd party (other than the Copyright office or the courts) with no claim whatsoever on a specific image is deciding who does and doesn't have the rightful claim to that image.
Look at it this way: it's terribly expensive for a photographer to prosecute a copyright violation in court against a single violator who also claims to hold that copyright. It would be effectively impossible for anyone other than a billionaire to prosecute violations by a number of persons who decide they can use an image because the alleged copyright holder isn't legitimate.