Photography is not dead, of course - just more seen daily via phone, TV, internet, cinema, DVD, magazines, etc, etc.
I took about 2000 photos on film the year before going digital, but then about 300 a DAY after digital - I love the idea I could take 30 pictures of some scene, and go on to perfect and find the best angle, etc., and richest colour, and so forth. Cameras and phones are getting better all the time, and features and image quality is getting way over the best the person in the street could dream about before digital. I love the fact you can see the right colours, which with film was usually an accident. Also, if the colour is not quite right, you can change it on computer, and the cost of film has gone. Camera cards are great - lots of photos, and then reuse them. I saved about £4000 on film costs in the past 4 years, and view on a big monitor - it is better quality than anything but a giant paper photo - so it should never die! - hooray.
Ron Poelman: Another ad,really, DPR ???
Pickey, Ron - it just seems relevant to something happening now. I saw the film last week, and wondered where the place was. Now I find it is a real place, and where - I am very pleased this item came up. I would worry if this site did not 'advertise' cameras - It has saved me a lot of money by me reading up on various cameras, seeing the actual pix they take, and being able to compare. My last four cameras were chosen after some intense reading here. Personally, I hate Which? mag, because they won't sell just one magazine, but you have to susbscribe to it, and I am too poor to afford all the stuff it advertises. I suspect Ron, that you are becoming a jaundiced over-read consumer, but I am sure I have seen some great photos you have taken, though I would hesitate to class your work as product placement
Reilly Diefenbach: Homo Sapiens, the oversized locusts!
I guess if you know that God is real, it is not condescending. God is our Heavenly Father, and we lived with him before this life, and if we make a success of living right here, we will live back again with him in the next life. I am blessed or fortunate enough to know this. To find out, just live the commandments and pray to have him show you. Paul may have done this already. That knowledge is available to all, and is a vital part of life, really - most helpful. He keeps prompting us in our lives, and to listen to the promptings and so advance in knowledge is a sublime thing. Not everyone seems to understand this presently
I am a poor man, but spent £100 on a really old Hasselblad 500cm, with 80mm lens. I was shocked at how fine detail it can capture - better than my canon lenses, better than secondhand Carl Zeiss Yashica-mount lenses I have, (which are better than my Canon lenses too.
I can't wait for Hasselblad and Sony to work together, as long as they come up with some first class 35mm sensor cameras, and use the excellent quality of the Hassy lenses, but at a more consumer price - Hopefully, I can look forward to a 36-50 megapixel camera, with the very high definition lenses we could expect from Hasselblad, and if they can work out how to sell it for £1500, I will be able to buy one. For the last 10 years I have been waiting - hopefully some strides will be made now in real progress. If we can persuade them to improve on the Foveon sensor, and have 3x50 megapixels available, I shall be in a highly satisfied state - can't wait!!!
rrr_hhh: I think it is absolutely anti ecological in its concept : what when the battery is at the end of its life ? Thrw it away, with heavy metal components (those of the battery) polluting the environment at a higher rate, becase they will be more difficult to separate from the body of the camera.
Frankly such discoveries are a disservice to the society. Research should be made with sustainable development in mind. And making gear more disposable than they already are is not going in that direction, rather the opposite.
The current mad use of one-use batteries is an insanity far worse than spray on batteries, surely?
I needed some emergency AAA batteries, bought 10 standard ones in a pack, and found them useless - they powered for about 4 hours. I then had to dump them. They cost £1. I could have bought rechargeables at 2 for a £, and used them for 4 years, up to about 1000 recharges, which saves a load of money. The waste of materials if I used throwaway ones permanently is staggering, some 22,000 tons, of varying poisonousness at this time per year in the UK alone. I welcome careful use of spray batteries, if the power output and stamina is up to it, and we can find the right chemistry.
changas2188: Looks good, but considering they are selling ND/Grad ND filters they still left some pretty dodgey halo's around some of their images.
Personally, I find the photos of the filters confusing - they look as if they are suspended above a white table or background, and have uneven lighting units placed around them so that there is always a dark, offcentred patch to the right side, lower than the top, which is lighter to the left. I can't quite understand why they would photograph them like that - is the filter colored in the same way it appears, or what? - I should like to see what light changes actually are there in the filter - a smooth graduation is what I want, preferably ending a little below the halfway down area - what say you, folks?
ir Bob: Nice, I visited their website and clicked to see some information on the ND-filters. Guess what, they are not made of CR-39 but of 'Lorum Ipsum'....
Lorum Ipsum is Latin meaning 'Learn more', but I guess the material is not actually glass, but like the cokin filters, a kind of plastic, admittedly optical quality, but a plastic nonetheless. I have emailed them to find out, so we shall see
Chuck Fralick: I don't like plasticky, cheap cameras. That said, and contrary to what photo nuts posted, I think the high iso quality is exceptional for a camera at this price. If you're a photographer younger than 30 years old, you can't possibly understand how much better even the lowliest DSLR today is compared to the best 35mm cameras of only 10 years or so ago. I remember arguments back then about how long it would take digital to equal film. That was rubbish. As soon as the D2X, 1DS and later models came out it was game over. Add to that the HUGE advantages in modern digital workflow over film and it's ludicrous that we (me included) are so critical of some digital models today. I mean come on, ISO 12,800!! I remember when ASA 800 film didn't look that good. I wouldn't trade any film camera today (and I still own an F4, FM2 and Leica M6) for even my Canon G12. We're so lucky and so spoiled. I can't wait to see what comes out in another 10 years (if I'm not broke from buying new toys).
True, but I like to be able to drop my cameras on stone floors in churches, and still be able to pick up just one piece of gear - (I don't actually do that often, but I did once with a Bronica film camera, and it separated into it's three separate parts, with breaks around the viewfinder mount (plastic) - luckily, I had a spare body, but the lens and back(metal) were fine. Even the costly Hassleblad (sic), tends to break easily when dropped on a hard place. A review mentioned two pros complaining that all the Hassy's they had had, broke in a year or two. So, a solid piece of gear is my main want, then image quality, pixel count, fineness of detail, and so forth come after. I do like the red one - would like blue and green, and maybe white and gold - the lens too - not keen on all black - they are not Ford's first car, "any colour as long as it' s black".
Digitall: Really I would like to see some images with a 50mm 1.8 D/G, to keep the kit cheaper for test proposes.
Amen to that, brother - We need to see the upper quality limits for each camera - or at least, I do - that's the main reason to buy an new camera for me - what do others think?
My view on the more pixels debate is that as a keen amateur photographer mainly of scenic views, with not a lot of money - ( I have used Canon 400D's for the last few years, and can't afford to improve my equipment in all that time), I have gone for secondhand Zeiss lenses, which give me much better results than the kit lenses. However, when 24 to 36 megapixels are sold secondhand, I will buy this 'entry level' type of camera, as more pixels give more + finer information. I just have to be careful over choice of lens. Presently, I use the camera portrait way, and take up to 13 shots, which I then piece together to form a big print - four feet or so at native resolution gives me a 300dpi print with fine resolution enough to sell. But if Canon make an 'entry level' 24 meg, I'll be after it like a shot. More power to the pixels, I say, and more of them, and cheaper excellent fine detail lenses and built-in anti CA is my personal goal. Top lens tests on this camera needed now ... Please!!
stan0301: Several thoughts--for the fellow who takes several thousand pictures a week storage is going to be a problem--the hard drive of the month club?You are going to need to spend at least as much on a computer--probably more to Photoshop files that big.--sending them over the internet to be printed is going to be a problem too.Photo paper cane "Catch" about 250 lines per inch--so out of the box the D800 is good for 30"--but when you print smaller--and most of your prints will be--the paper is going to catch 250 no matter what you throw at it..Finally, I really wonder if the lenses can deliver 36MP to the sensor--maybe they can, but I would like to see some numbers--All that said I will buy a couple as soon as they are out--but especially the file size storage is going to be a mixed blessing.
Relax - don't stress - I have some files from a D800, and after processing from raw, they are about 30mb each, and you can get 3TB hard drives, and use Blu-Ray writer to save to useable disks. I am editing on a 1.6 ghz chip, with only about 2gb memory, and apart from taking a bit of time, there is no big problem. Just remember that because of the tsunami and earthquake problem, the 3TB drives are way more expensive. Stay with 2TB and a hard drive docking station, and you will be well away. True, you may have to spend out more on your computer, but in the course of events, you would have had to anyway. The native resolution gives a nice 16x24 inch print at 300dpi, and incidentally, most printers will give improved detail by printing at 400 dpi - try it on a very fine detail item, and you will be amazed how good they can be - enjoy the new camera!
LokTo: no 50mm equivalent lens is total fail!
I bypassed Canon and bought a yashica 28mm f2.8 manual lens and an adaptor for my Canon 400d. The lens is actually very good sharpness wise, at f8 is my favourite, but has some CA. I like panoramas, and find that using the camera portrait format, I can print a 30inch wide x 11.4inch print at 300dpi, and get very nice shots indeed, which sell. My first shot paid for the lens. Their 50mm f2.8 lens is as good as the Carl Zeiss Planar 50 T* at f8, but not bigger apertures. I have both, and am a pixel-peeper, and was shocked to find this. But as Yashica used to make lenses for Carl Zeiss, I guess they learned something vital. Since I use almost always the f8, I am very happy with either. I wish manufacturers would concentrate on making bigger sensors cheaper - I love medium format, but even hasselblad messes about with smaller sensors, 120 film is nearly 2 and a half times more area than the Hasselblad back square format costing thousands - lets have a 6x6 sensor camera for £1000 - please!
petepictures: What I was expecting from Nikon was at least A full frame if not larger, mirorless system with a range of fast F 1,4 lenses. with a 30MP sensor maybe and combining those pixels by 2 and 3 to create a 10 MP image with great low light capabilities.I was expecting of the shutter to be able to sync with flash up to 1/4000 for great daylight flash portraits. Pity I was disappointed.Lately I am enjoying film photography anyway.
not my cup of tea - and I don't drink tea anyway. I want something with a bigger than 35mm sensor, to make pix about 4-5 feet wide, but not cost as much as a small car. I have actually bought a secondhand Hasselblad 500cm and love the image quality - pity it is still film, but using very fine grain Fuji slide film allows me to have my detail and see it all on the slide strips it produces, while the digi manufacturers all mess about making cameras which don't hack it in terms of quality. I think the smaller the sensor, the more tiny the detail needed for good pix, and the more lenses cost. I got the hasselblad for £100, including a standard lens, (with fungus), but a cleaning of the lens by a hasselblad trained repairer, who can also have the coatings replaced and the lens serviced, will end up costing me about the same as a low-end digi, while image quality is way up at the top end. I am 63, and can't wait while manufacturers catch up with my needs. sorry Nikon, Canon, Pentax - wake up