Inane. If this is all Canon can come up with to counter smartphones' rising sales, I fear for the future of their camera division...
Superka: ____________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!________________________________FILM (and its grain) IS MORE ABOUT SCANNER (and its light source), NOT THE FILM!!!!!!! LOOK AT:6300dpi scan, Velvia 100f, Fuji TX-1, Hasselblad X5 scanner.
Dean, thanks for the input. I'm light years behind you in what concerns photographic knowlege, but my experience tells me any ASA 100 film will do great night photographs with the camera mounted on a tripod and set at, say, f/8 and 2,5". (Incidentally, that's also what I do with my digital camera: I keep ISO as low as possible to avoid noise.)
dave_bass5: Can't see the point of this really. Why not compare what modern tech can do? Show people how well (or not) a modern DSLR stacks up against a modern smartphone. No one buys those old DSLRS anyway, so what relevance does it have.?Slow news day by the looks of it.
I'm lost for words...
Superka is right. Scanners induce a grain pattern that's all too similar to digital noise. I've noticed it in scans made with an Epson V750. On the other hand, colour transparency and high sensivity colour films aren't the most widely used, making me doubt the validity of the comparison: the average 35mm shooter would normally use Kodak Tri-X 400 or Ilford FP4 for black and white and Portra 160 for colour, thus getting less grain. And it's no surprise for anyone familiar with both film and digital that film cameras capture a lot of detail.Re. the smartphones, comparing them with a Nikon D800 is too unfair for devices which are used for their convenience rather than for extreme image quality. However, it must be said smartphones' image quality has come a long way and has made (comparatively) greater progress than digital DSLRs.
qwertyasdf: I guess, without question, combo of the year =Pentax K3 + Sigma 18-35
O...wait...the Sigma doesn't come in PK mount ;)
"I guerss, without question"How articulate.
Great. A bunch of people who probably never experienced either of these cameras giving their well-founded opinion on them. I expect a record-breaking number of comments...
belard: My 2014 resolution:
Ditch the word 'phablet'.
Partially yours,The World
Roland Karlsson: Do Nikon provide a split image focussing screen for this camera?
No. It is clear from the review. Shame...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The best DSLR of the year? How the hell do I know? I've never tried any of these models!
Frankly, Pntxdan - what a stupid reply.
The best DSLR of the year? How the hell do I know? I've never tried any of these models!
ManuelVilardeMacedo: For "photographers"? Really? Do people who shoot with tablets deserve that name? What exactly is a "photographer" these days? Anyone who buys a smartphone?Photographers - I mean *real* photographers - deserve more respect. Photography deserves more respect.
Patrick - exactly. And you buy a Lego kit and you're an architect! These days anyone armed with an iPhone feels entitled to call himself/herself a photographer. Yet they wouldn't recognize a good photograph (let alone make one) if it bit them on the leg. As for the ones who like to reply with foolish remarks about us being in 2013, actually it's almost 2014 and they haven't grown any wiser. You know that old saying: Oh well...
For "photographers"? Really? Do people who shoot with tablets deserve that name? What exactly is a "photographer" these days? Anyone who buys a smartphone?Photographers - I mean *real* photographers - deserve more respect. Photography deserves more respect.
raybies: That study is correct but your conclusion is wrong. Memory recall is best achieved by creating an organization structure to support it.Going around taking pictures of objects is forcing a structured that's relying on the photos so you will NOT remember them without the pics.
Eliminate that structure and instead your brain will rely on another structure... you can have perfect recall if your structure is good... like a story that incorporates the objects.
Also while taking pics, your brain is creating a memory structure for that act, and not the objects.
But for the average Jo, taking a picture captures that moment, and so you're not relying on an unstable structure to hold that memory.
So conclusion is: without the pics you will remember less, but with them you'll recall significantly more for much longer.
Not really. There's a thing called 'visual memory' that will stop being stimulated if you rely solely on pictures. I believe that's more to the point.
Makes sense. If we photograph everything we'll tend to rely on the pictures rather than our brain to memorize things. Our visual memory must somehow get compromised. Maybe we should start thinking whether we really need to photograph everything from birthday cakes to monuments, rather than whining 'nonsense' about a study carried by people with better knowledge than us.Incidentally, the other day I went to a photography exhibition. The pictures on show were from a photographer who'd won an important photojournalism award. There were lots of people attending the exhibition carrying their gear, from Nikon 1s to professional DSLRs. I noticed the people who were actually seeing the photographs hanging on the walls had no cameras...
I'm one of those who prefer the real thing. No amount of editing can emulate what can obtained with a good film camera loaded with, say, Kodak Portra 160 or Ilford FP4. However, if Sebastião Salgado uses Film Pack, it can't be that bad...
Holger Drallmeyer: Oh give me a break now. There is just absolutely no point in emulating film. It's like making Filet Mignon out of chuck eye. Get a film camera and shoot some film if you like the look of it.
EricAotearoa, what a nice idea to start a business: kosher and vegan film!
celipessoa1971: La souffrance des autres nous rassure sur notre bien être momentané.
Ma famille est composée de personnes bonnes, sensibles et intelligentes. Je ne suis q'un parmi une bonne dizaine, et je ne suis pas le plus brillant, ni le meilleur. D'autre côté, ta famille semble d'avoir géneré un pauvre d'esprit...
Joel Benford: "A police officer looked me in the eyes and said, 'You shouldn’t be here. Another bomb could go off.'"
Yep, journos risk their lives to bring us the truth (how many reporters killed in Syria this year?), and dpreview readers moan.
About normal, then.
You people are more depressing than the pictures.
Kurt, it's because people like you exist that the horrors of the world need to be reminded to everyone again and again. The world must be aware the things captured in these photos are actually happening. Being unaware of them, or pretending they're not happening, won't make those horrors go away. On the contrary, it will only make things worse because their perpetrators will believe the world isn't keeping an eye on them. Of course I don't expect you to understand it, but hopefully NatGeo will pick the beautiful photographs you're craving for. Time magazine is about politics and society, so it would be stupid to expect they'd pick beautiful pictures of giraffes mating in Uganda's savannah.
Oh la la, il parle français, il doit être trés intelligent...
People who come here actually prefer pictures of cats taken with full frame cameras and great, creamy bokeh. That's comfortable to see, of course - abstracting from the fact that's utterly stupid -, but there's much more to life than technically perfect, but ultimately shallow and pointless pictures.Do the pictures TIME selected portray violence, misery and death? Yes. They're part of life, too. Not everyone lives in a perfect world where the most extreme violence is the one exerted by trolls who believe the 'aperture equivalence' theories.