papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.
This is getting silly.
And I shot Lee Harvey Oswald. How cool is that?
MayaTlab0: Has Panasonic finally enabled exposure compensation in manual mode with auto-ISO ? This could alleviate the issue to a limited extent, and would make sense because of the exposure compensation dial. Well, at least to me, but not to Fuji since recently.
Maya, leaving the camera to its own devices by choosing auto ISO can be detrimental to image quality. Hence what you interpret as manufacturers not realizing the full extent of exposure. I can accept it if you tell me manufacturers could be bolder in this respect, but they're just using common sense. I know all about micro 4/3 sensors and I can tell you that you don't want to shoot at ISO 1600 with one such camera - unless, of course, you want your photographs to look like Seurat's paintings. And don't argue that image edition can fix it. It can't. It just makes things look waxy. (Which is no worse than the crappy job the processor does when you shoot JPEG.)Also, being in 2014 is not that different from being in 1914 when it comes to the basics of photography. It is still about gathering light. There have been lots of welcome innovations, but it still takes a camera, a lens and a light-sensitive surface. And exposure settings. Some things never change.
Of course Earth is flat! Otherwise australians would fall into space...
Richard: not "conventionally": the procedure I described is the one we use in photography. It may be different with video, but then this is a photography site... I think.(You know, one day the concept of photography will disappear and pictures as we know them will be replaced by "stills" from videos taken at 4K resolution or greater. Until then I'll just cling to the sane principles of "conventional" photography.)
Exposure compensation is not meant to be used in manual mode. To get the effect you want, you either change aperture or exposure time settings.
Androole: Wow, I'm astonished at how much flak this lens that no one has used is getting.
At least take the time to look at the samples that ZY has posted before spouting off.
Yes, it's fairly soft and has CA . But at the same time, it's a compact F1.2 lens for $350 in a lightweight metal shell. Is it better than my Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 in real world results? Maybe not. But maybe so, depending on your needs.
There's a lot of people with high horses around here who seem to hate choice in the market place. And while it does have a somewhat Leica-esque aesthetic, that's about as generic as it gets for a metal lens shell.
Thank you for the link. OOF areas look interesting, while sharpness, colour accuracy and contrast are quite good for wide open shots. However, the pictures are severely hampered by noise reduction algorythms, which turn subtle detail into a mess. This is not a lens' fault, of course, but could be misleading.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Still not funny, Plastek. Try harder.
Even admitting that someone posted a comment while I was writing mine, thus pipping me at the post, why did you feel such urge to spoil all the fun? You've got the sense of humour as a funeral director. On duty. Whose wife passed away the day before.Tell you what: get a daily dose of Monty Python. They have a channel on Youtube. That'll cure you. (Eventually.) https://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
No, you're wrong. The count was at 1999, so...
Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Marty4650: This is really no different than what Nikon did with the Df.
Nikon just used styling to appeal to a different demographic (hipsters with too much money) than Pentax did (people who want bright bold colored cameras).
Karl, we're wrong. It turns out what defines a good camera is "AF, frame rate, frame buffer, build strength, and video." How could we be so naïf?
Oh, I see. You're just wasting my time. Ciao.
Albert, what is the relevance of all those features in terms of image quality? Is frame rate more important than the sensor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but image quality is determined by the sensor, right?
Really? Comparing the Nikon Df to these candy-coloured... hmm, things? That indeed makes a lot of sense...By the way, the 'hipsters with too much money' are actually buying a Nikon D4 for much less money and nearly half the size and weight. How stupid these hipsters are.
Tom_A: More interesting is the recently introduced Lomo with 120 film. In itself a rather cool entry to medium format cameras, and portable as well, but it is as expensive as a 2nd hand MF Fuji rangefinder...
Thanks, Tom. Sorry for the misleading reply. I wasn't aware of the existence of this Lomo 120.
That's the Lubitel, the only Lomography camera with glass elements in its lenses. Not quite sure about the price, though: the Fujis usually sell for about the double of a new Lubitel.
I love film but this is not for me. Even Lomography's best efforts to sell a serious film roll are a flop. I tried Lomography Earl Grey, an ASA 100 film, and it has the grain of an ASA 400 film, no sharpness and no contrast. I won't even touch their colour films, especially this one.However, I do sincerely admire the role Lomography and lomographers have been playing in keeping film alive. It's just that I don't share their viewpoints about how a picture should look like. Shifting colours can be nice, of course, but only occasionally. I don't dig lo-fi.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible. What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.
nerd2, you express yourself as if all film cameras were rudimentary. They aren't. By the year 2000 film cameras had all the functions and modes you can think of - including DoF preview. Even my Olympus OM-2 has a DoF preview button (which I don't use because what I see through the viewfinder is quite accurate). It's not like film shooters wear leopard skins and use spears to hunt mammoths, you know...