Frank_BR: Nano coating? Oh, no, another manufacturer who tries to tell other version of the same old fairy tale about lens coating!
It all started in the '60s when Asahi Pentax created a hype with SMC (Super Multi-Coating). Since then, the world has had to hear all this blah blah blah about the magical qualities of the various types of coating used in photographic lenses.
Some acronyms created since then by the fertile imagination of the lens manufacturers:SMC PentaxEBC: FujiT*: ZeissMC: Pentacon, CZJ, TokinaSSC: CanonC: NikonN: NikonSHMC: HoyaUMC: SamyangVMC: Vivitar
You're right. How can a layer of whatever material superimposed to the glass improve light transmission?
UnitedNations: A7 kills the DF.
Der: Hemingway sends HIS regards.Everyone else: an electronic viewfinder vs. an optical one. The latter wins hands down.
marcmasschelein: When i read thes I don't think these are the answers or professional photographers who earns there living with photography, correction or not?
I can see, after reading some comments, that the stupid anti-french feeling induced by the neoconservatives hasn't died in ten years... Freedom fries, anyone?
Leandros S: Is it nice or sad to know that even HCB wasn't above publishing mere snapshots?
I believe he'd smile if the saw this.
Todd Ka: Why I am a sucker for this stuff?
Because they're lovely.
AndreyT: At first one wonders what was the point of reposting these images again, after we have seen them hundreds of times already (they were making rounds around the Net for a few years now). But then one notices that there's an obvious political bias in the selection of these images: out of all those well-known Lego photo recreation pictures only the ones were cherry picked that fit certain propaganda-censorship agenda. And then a few "neutral" pictures were added to masquerade the original intent. Apparently someone at "dpreview staff" saw this veiled trolling opportunity and took it.
Oh, the Tea Party BS again...
Well, there are two ways to see these renderings: if you are narrow-minded you'll say it's sacrilege; on the other hand, if you take a more laidback approach to life, you'll find them absolutely irresistible, full of humour and imagination. And a spirited homage to these great pictures. I used to be a kid who'd be very happy to get Legos as gifts. These renderings bridged together those days and my incumbent passion for photography.
intruder61: IS 933 comments a record?
Not at all.
caver3d: Olympus is always the innovator with others following (Retro look, Live View, 5-axis IBIS, Sensor Dust Reduction system, etc.) . The Nikon DF and Sony A7 are retro ripoffs of the Olympus OMD series (E-M5 and E-M1).
The first retro digital camera was the Olympus E-P1, ack in 2009. All the others you mention followed the trend. So I guess caver 3d is right.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I want one.
You really didn't have to reply, abrasive reducer. Replying is allowed, but not mandatory. (At least I think it isn't.)
I want one.
bossnas: Pure photography? LOL! Digital photography more like.
Pure photography is using light sensitive materials that you can hold in your hand, cameras that don't need batteries to function. That's taking things back to the root of the invention of photography, pure photography. Making images without the need of a computer, making prints without the need of a printer or inks. That's pure photography!
So you're saying I can't make 'pure photography' with my OM-2 because it needs two LR44 batteries, is that so?
babalu: #12 reminds of Keith Haring .
Indeed it does!
Wow, a picture of a cat! How cheeky.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.
Sorry, but all those images are overprocessed and, worst of all, most of them are meaningless and deeply uninteresting. As for the price, €779 for the Lumia 1020 isn't exactly cheap (the 808 is soon to be discontinued, hence the low-ish price). Re the two devices issue, the typical smartphone consumer has usually two or three of them and he can't be seen in public without a tablet. So what was your point again...?
They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.
Chris_in_Osaka: At least this wooden grip blends in. The one on the Olympus E-P5 luxury edition looks like a glued on afterthought.
That's because it is a glued-on afterthought. Still it looks a hundred times more luxurious than the Ricoh.
FreedomLover: Still only f2.8.
You don't need much more with a wide-angle lens. f/2 could be convenient for available light, but for wide-angle applications you need all depth of field you can get. Forget 'creamy bokeh': you need 50mm and more for that.
The 'Hasselblad syndrome' has struck Ricoh.