iae aa eia

No wonder this is happening. 'Weak' compacts (for such a brand name).

this is similar to 16:9 (1.78 x) screen format for tv. rectangles derived from the multiplication by square roots of 2 are visually more comfortable for the eyes (for example: 1.2 x, 1.41 x, 1.71, 2 x, 2.39 x,...).

so, why didn't tv makers choose 1.41, 1.71 or 2 x? why didn't they choose at least a format matching a movie format, like 1.67 or 1.85 x? they didn't because of convenience for themselves, and clearly not thinking about the user.

until today i don't see much logic (in the user sense) in this choice.

it is the leading because the manufacturers needed to use a smaller portion of a ff size in order to face less problems about image quality, and thus, make cameras available quickly into the market.

aps-c (and that early canon 1.3 x) was thought out not with the users in mind, but the companies interests only. well, it's only my opinion. i am from the ff time. if you're not, that's another good reason you not to share the same opinion.

maybe, if you look back, you can tell aps-c digital was born on its own and derived from the aps film format, but aps helped to match the companies main objectives, that was to use a smaller portion of a ff sensor.

that is so, that canon proved 1.3 x crop would be enough to get rid of most optical and cost problems. but then, they (canon and others) did like, "why not making it like derived from aps film format? then we could be justified of why using an even smaller portion of a ff.

aps-c will always be that son of an ff sensor pretending to be ff. differently from 4/3 and 1", it will never be one of a kind format. i will always see it as a "desperate" attempt from manufacturers to step into (and get the development in) digital faster. but, no denying this is an amazing addition, though.

by plane now.

perfect! i think this size keeps the same great balance super16 format does. anything smaller than this size, even for photo, i only consider valid in those cameras with internal optical zoom, miniature, phones or tablets. other than these situations, i see just as financial opportunism.

fujifilm is really doing great launching brighter lenses as standard lenses. if all makers followed them, we could have brighter and less expensive lenses. nobody wants, nobody gets excited about a 18-55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 or 55-200mm ƒ/4.5-6.3 lens, for example. costumers are forced to have them (or they can make a HUGE leap towards a monstruous heckuva $,$$$ aperture-fixed ƒ/2.8 zoom).

i'm not saying there's no space for a 3.5-5.6, because they're really cheap to make, but in such dark lenses category, i see the panasonic 12-42 pz and the sony 16-50 oss retractables as really appropiate lenses. dark and so-so quality, but really compact (makes more sense).

this is exactly how every rebel launch news sounds to me. it's like, all the way back to somewhere in the early 90's (at least visually speaking). and not only the camera, but its kit lens is also boring.

i was giving the basic definition of 'professional'. there are other extended definitions, but all based primarily on the fact you are engaged in an activity and make your living out of it. and, for someone in this situation, is going to show (or is supposed to show) a professional behavior, professional skills, etc.

sometimes we say someone is a professional photographer, even though 'they' only shoot sporadically, because 'they' show skills typical of someone who is engaged in this profession, so, for convenience, we call 'them' professionals anyway, even though, by basic definition, 'they are' not.

about the insurance company, they have their view and understanding of what 'professional' is based on what the pros themselves and others (including you) consider 'professional' to be, that is a way broader definition, so it is like they will also consider a professional, right? it seems fair.

look, i was just exploring its basic definition, but for all that matters, i'm like you.

i forgot something. there is a breach on what i consider a 'professional'.

let's say you have two very different professions. you're a photographer and a radio host. parttime one parttime the other. if you can make enough money for your living from each of both professions, i mean, you can leave either one and that's fine, so, you can consider yourself a pro radio host and a pro photographer.

so, it doesn't matter how many different professions you have, but you can only be called professional on the one that will make your living if you leave all the others. and those others, of course, are on your semiprofessional title.

but, when i say 'make your living', i mean profession, alone, can pay everything in your life, considering your social status. so, one can be a professional earning $10 a month, if this is enough for his life where he lives, and equally another can be a professional earning $1000000, if this one's life requires it for this guy to live and socialize where he is.

i'm sorry for the profits. i am not a native speaker. i meant income actually.

yes, by definition, if they do not make all their income from photography, they are NOT professionals. look, i am talking about the true definition of 'professional', not the other definitions that were built around it.

i myself would also feel very bothered not being considered a professional if i did some other things related to photography instead of shooting itself, but if it is something related to the area, that's ok, i'm a professional, professional photographer. but, if i write much more than shoot and the former become my main income mean, than i'm a (semi)professional writer, and i am no longer a professional photographer, but perhaps a pro photography writer (once a pro photographer).

we like status. but, it's worth mentioning the parttime fulltime thing. actually, it doesn't matter. you're a parttimer, but make it all? great! you're a pro. but, don't? sorry. you're a semipro. accept that.

what is a professional? a professional photographer is a person who makes all his profits from photography. if the profits are not all from photography, then he is a semiprofessional. this is the true definition, and it has nothing to do with skills (though professionals are expected to show them).

what about equipment? well, when we say professional camera, we actually mean "professional targeted camera", because only the ones who earns all their money from photography can eventually, and eventually needs to, buy a better (more enduring, faster,...) camera.

thank gosh they are designing lenses with zoom endings brighter (i mean, less dark) than ƒ/5.6.

you didn't get it. it's a fade-in effect.

i have found out a non-official feature in this camera. if you want to apply a fade-in transition effect to a video while recording, just zoom in.

the most interesting thing about this sensor is that it is not about technology, as usual, but using the head only. "ok, let's just develop a sensor for an ff video camera. if they want a picture, just extract a frame out!"

it is not going to be an expensive sensor to produce, so i guess the camcorder won't be expensive, unless it's a heck of a loaded one.

i still don't understand why they don't make an affordable 10 mp ff camera. it would have enough res for photos and hd video, and cost about a grand.

don't they understand there a lot of people who can't wait to see ff sensor cameras something normal again?

Congratulations, Fujifilm, for the lens! Still expensive, but that's how bright these APS-C kit lenses were supposed to be.

it seems to me it is a quality issue during production. this dust can be particles from finishing or other material inside the camera. the problem might be happening in one of the manufacturing plants or lines.

i have the feeling companies are just making some extra money since they started to build aps-c and mft lenses, because these continue to have the same aperture lenses used to have in the film era (or same as ff lenses), but now being smaller, lighter, produced in a larger scale, and sold more.

ok, one might say they have to be sharper, and being it and cheap come with a price: the price itself or a small aperture. maybe the companies are increasing the mp count on purpose, so they can continue to use this 'quality' argument. or yet, they are taking advantage of this 'the more compact the better' trend to continue making great dark lenses.

pentax knows how to lower its glory of the past, i say that because, how nice could it look and how amazing could it be if mx-1 had a big sensor.

i don't see like a nice thing to make a reference to past like this, using such a small sensor for something that once had what is the biggest nowdays.

the body looks awesome, but the lens... the same case happens with the om-d, but this the body also does not live up to the original, it seems to have less harmonious design.