fmian: [sarcasm]I was really hoping for an ultrawide angle lens to take photos of bricks walls at f/0.95 in the dark hand held. Ideally I want the brick faces in focus but the bonding cement in between the bricks out of focus. This is a real requirement I have and is part of the essence of photography for me. I also need the lens to quickly be able to focus on black cats in case they jump in front of the brick walls at night. This lens is simply not sharp or autofocusy enough for my needs.Thanks for nothing Voigtlander, I'll take my pocket money elsewhere.[/sarcasm]
Tsk, tsk... photographing black cats jumping in front of brick walls is so cliché. Photographing grizzly bears running in the Black Forest at night: now that's original, and a technical challenge to boot. If it weren't for the lack of autofocus, I'd buy this lens in a heartbeat. Of course it wouldn't retain that much detail wide open: the bears' furs could appear a bit softer than desirable, with less than perfect discrimination of the hairs, but life is made of tradeoffs. You can't have it all.
Picture No. 1 reminds me of Karl Hugo Schmölz - which is not a bad thing. Not at all.And No. 9 is simply splendid.
DStudio: When Lytro released their first camera it was written off by many as a gimmick. But I think the company's shown they are serious.
Rosenthal clearly believes in this vision, and it's slowly coming into focus for consumers.
That 'coming into focus' part is an intended pun, right? ;)
Joel Benford: Whilst it is impressive that a dog can play piano, it does not play the piano very well.
"Impressive" as long as you lower quality standards.
I want to see this movie because I'm into independent cinema, not because of the equipment used to shoot it. From the trailer it looked like there were some blown highlights and lots of 'stutter' in moving subjects such as people walking, but overall colour saturation contributes to the look of the movie, so it's OK.Not the death sentence for Arri, though...
CheersUK: Nobody should be worried by this. By the time Greece has finished self destructing, it will have taken the EU with it.In the UK at least: who listens to Europe anyway?? ;)
white shadow: the hungarian case is far worse than the possible consequences of this draft (should it be approved). While you will be able to shoot European modern buildings for non-commercial use if this draft becomes a Regulation, in Hungary you are forbidden to photograph people without their consent, even in public places. These are very different situations. I'm not condoning the EU proposal, but it isn't half as bad as Hungary's law.
Nuno Souto: One less region for me to visit, if this goes ahead.Europe can go to hell with this "copyright" nonsense!
Europe will miss you so!
Team Yeti: Welcome to the smoke and mirrors show. There are economies throughout the world on the brink of collapse (or in the process of it), terrorists running amok, starving people in third-world (and second- and first-world countries), environmental disasters, widespread pollution in developing countries, natural disasters, conflicts in many regions, health epidemics, religious strife, violent drug cartels, failed immigration policies, issues with food supplies, etc. The list goes on and on.
But certainly, re-examining copyright law should definitely be at the top of the "to do" list. Heaven help us if someone decides to take a picture of a building in a public space. *cue sarcasm and drop mic*
Team Yeti, that would be true if the public paid any attention to this issue. As far as I know, only the photographic community - which should amount to 0,001% of the European population, if that much - cares about this discussion. Its interest is strictly relative (which is not the same as saying it is not important). Let's keep things in perspective.
ThrillaMozilla: Let's see what happens if we apply this kind of rule uniformly and enforce it.
No pictures of the New York or Paris skylines. How could one possibly obtain the permission of all "copyright" holders.
An extreme limit on cinema films shot in public places. Almost no incidental views of public spaces anywhere. No skylines ever.
No publicly available pictures of the Eiffel Tower if they include other buildings. No picture postcards. Severe limits on travel books. No tourist brochures either.
Hmm, maybe no tourism.
If similar rules applied in previous years, probably no Ansel Adams photos, no Galen Rowell, no Eliot Porter, no Edward Weston. Probably no National Geographic Society.
It's not a matter of restricting freedom to take pictures, but one of selling pictures of buildings.That said you nailed with your point about cinema films. As movies have a commercial purpose, this kind of restriction could make filming in public places impossible - or at least very expensive, given the rights to be paid to copyright holders.It would be a sad spectacle to see courts flooded with claims made by architects against film makers and studios.
The controversy is getting somewhat out of proportion. What the regulation draft previews is that commercial use of pictures from copyright-protected buildings needs the consent of the architect. Photographing buildings for non-commercial purposes will still be subject to what member states statute, as it is right now.This is the logical consequence of having architectural projects copyrighted. As with a book, a recording or even a photography, the author holds rights over his creation. I believe no one here would like to see one of his/her pictures sold by someone else without his/her consent. Freedom of panorama is the way to make these rights compatible with freedom of expression (which allows for photographing).Whether an architecture plan is similar to an artistic creation, so that it needs this extent of protection, is a debatable matter; however, if you centre the issue on selling pictures of copyrighted buildings, everything might make a bit more sense.
Still no Contax G2...
Well, I was sitting on the dock of the bay wasting time when I decided to browse DPR on my phablet and found this article. I was stricken by the title, of course. It got me whistling. So soulful.This studio scene comparison puts Canon under a really bad light. Not only are colours oversaturated, but the images taken with the Canon camera and lens seem out of focus when compared to the Nikon-Zeiss combo. And the Nikkor does a great job too, on a par with the Canon-Zeiss coupling.Given this, I have to conclude one really needs the best optics available in order to take advantage of the accrued resolution. I also have to conclude MP's are not the whole story when it comes to resolution, but that's something everyone should know by now.
Valiant Thor: This camera is kind of like inventing an electric toilet seat. You could do it if you wanted to; but why?
An electric toilet seat! Now that would be an interesting idea. We men wouldn't care about forgetting to get the lid down. Ever thought of filing a patent?
Marty4650: Holy cow!
Not even a Silver Award!
Heads will roll in Seattle!
Lanski, not just you ;) Add 'Sacrilege' and (especially) 'Gold Lion' and you have three of the very best songs of the last ten years.
Horshack: I'd take it a step further - transcendence rather than convergence. MILC's true value is how they've shifted the problem domain from what is principally an analog construct (mirrors, levers, obtuse optical AF and metering sensors) to a digital, computational-intensive one (image sensor). This new platform affords a tremendous increase in the amount of data that can be utilized to better solve photographic problems like AF. MILC's have already surpassed DSLRs for AF speed and precision on static subjects, and the NX1 demonstrates that MILCs have now matched DSLRs for tracking as well. The teething, catch-up phase is over; now the benefit of all that image sensor data can be used to do things with AF that DSLRs could never dream of. The NX1 gives us a clumsy glimpse of this, like having the camera trigger a photo at the peak action of a baseball-bat hit. How about having the AF uniquely recognize your child and track him anywhere in the frame? MILCs are advancing at Moore's law now.
It is, thanks! It means that, once you've mastered the technique, you don't have to go through the mental process of recollecting your teachings before you press the shutter release button - they will come naturally when you need them. Again - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - it's like driving a car. It becomes natural over time. You don't go thinking "...a corner! Now let's see... I have to brake, then press the clutch and downshift, turn the steering wheel and accelerate..." The same with a camera. If you've learned your lessons well, you'll change settings instinctively.
My previoius reply was written while you were posting your own's... about the merits of the iPhone, there are people making great pictures with it, but the greatness comes from the photographer's mind, not from the camera. That implies using it to its full potential, which in turn involves knowing how to get around its shortcomings.It's perfectly OK if you feel technical considerations get in the way of expression, but please think about that car's analogy for a minute. You'll see there's some truth to it. The photographers I look up to - a lot which ranges from W. Eugene Smith to Ernst Haas through Mary Ellen Mark and Josef Koudelka, among many others - all mastered technique. They knew exactly what to do with the camera in order to get the pictures they intended to, and did it in a time when there were no SCN modes. And they weren't shortchanged in terms of creativity...Technique is something we have to learn - only to forget it at a latter stage!
Technique doesn't get in the way of creativity! Once you've learned how to use it, you'll forget all about it and won't let it distract you. Whatever you've learned will come to you when you need it, but it's not something you have to be thinking of all the time. Again, just like driving.If you have a little experience you don't think which pedal you have to press!On the other hand, technique can help you confer expression to your pictures - but that's something you already know, isn't it? Actually, until some two years ago I was incurring a mistake I had to put an end to: I was getting my pictures laden with technical effects. I was probably trying to prove myself I mastered the techniques. Those pictures were ultimately hollow and I admit feeling a tad ashamed when I see them. Now I have a simpler approach. The knowledge is still there, but it only pops up in an 'as needed' basis. I could never be bothered with SCN mode, though: I felt like it was the camera taking pictures for me.
tinternaut: Mirrorless is the garlic bread of photography. It's the future!
Bad for the breath?