jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.
HowaboutRAW, that's not minimizing the role of the USA in WWII: it's putting things in perspective. And I was deliberately excluding the Pacific front for the sake of brevity (and not to have to write the words "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki", too). We Europeans have always been brainwashed into believing the USSR had little to do with WWII victory and the crucial moment for European liberation was D-Day. The latter was important, as well as the covert effort you mentioned, but not to the extent we were led to believe. (You see, I belong to a generation that was raised during Cold War.)Otherwise thanks for adding all those dictators. I didn't want to be exhaustive, but even with your contribution the list is incomplete. There was a time all of South and Central America countries were ruled by american puppets: Somoza, Sanguinetti, Videla, etc. All, as you know, great democrats and freedom lovers...
The role of the US in ending World War II has been largely exaggerated. By D-Day time the USSR was already winning the war at the eastern front and closing in on Berlin. Germany's position was weakened by then and D-Day was a relatively unimportant push that had the tragic effect of rushing the 'final solution'. Of course the US war effort in Europe was and will always be celebrated, but there's a substantial difference between a rather tardive intervention that only took place to prevent the USSR to play an influential role in Western Europe and what is touted as the military action that liberated Europe.As for democracy and freedom, the US have been quite busy deposing legally settled governments and replacing them by dictatorships. Think Noriega, Pinochet and other democracy and freedom lovers. Even Saddam Hussein got USA's support in the war against Iran. So the USA are not the freedom and democracy champions some believe them to be.
Christom: please stop! I'm laughing so hard my belly hurts. Your next reply may make me actually roll on the floor laughing. You should do stand-up comedy. You're that funny.
DStudio: don't steal the show.
@christom: I see what you did here. You really got me laughing now. You're just kidding, right? And all the while people took you seriously... including me! You really fooled us. You're a naughty, naughty boy.So what's next? Are you going to tell us about how flat rate taxes will help the economy develop? Global warming having no relation to human activities? Ban the Tesla Model S? Or... freedom to bear arms? What's it going to be? I'm impatient.
We've got to love people like christom. Whoever doesn't concur with him is a communist.And then he has the nerve to talk about dictatorships... can you imagine a country ruled by people like him?(OK, there used to be one: the USA under George W. Bush's administration.)
Why do conservative people always speak on behalf of "freedom"? Their ideology precludes freedom, save for speculators and greedy CEOs. What freedom do they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, now that the 'tyrants' were ousted?Oh, wait, I know: "freedom fries..."
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?
Using a camera is just like driving in that you have to understand how a car works before becoming a good driver - unless, of course, you're the kind of person who looks forward to autonomous cars.And I didn't imply anything when I mentioned your gallery, other than that making pictures just for the sake of sampling the camera's abilities leads to nowhere. As Kertesz pointed out, you have to 'feel' what you're photographing. That's how you can evolve. Automatisms just mean you're allowing whoever programmed the camera's processor to make the choices for you. They don't really free you. On the contrary, they get in the way of expression. Which might be fine for many, but not for others.You'll learn much more about photography by looking at pictures made by the generations you tried to ridicule than fiddling with the mode dial of your camera. You can quote me on that.
Well, well, Horshack... looks like you're getting defensive.The problem with people like you is that being a gearhead doesn't equate to being a good photographer. Automatisms? The most significant pictures of all times were made at an era when there wasn't even autofocus, let alone digital sensors. Autofocus, IBIS and editing software were a substantial step forward in photography; face detection and smile shutter are only gimmicks, despite what someone said before. Of course, after having been through your gallery, I don't expect you to understand any of this.
Oh, Chris, the Sony is still too imperfect for my tastes. Hopefully the A7III will block the shutter release when the person being photographed points the middle finger. And when someone farts during a group portrait.See? Cameras still have a lot to evolve.
StefanD: Let's nor forget that the mirror in a (D)SLR is just a mechanical solution to achieve a number of goals:- See the scene as it will end up in the photo- Perform accurate exposure metering- And in a later stadium: AutofocusAs soon as these goals can be achieved at least as good by an electronical solution, the (expensive) mirrors will be totally obsolete. (Except for nostalgic reasons)
Why should electronics be the solution to every issue? As for myself, I'd rather shave in front of a mirror than having my image taken by a camera and projected in a screen... But that's just me, of course.
In my experience, nothing can substitute for a proper optical viewfinder and mirror. It's true that electronic viewfinders have come a long way, but still can't match what a proper SLR - 'D' or otherwise - has to offer.It's interesting that DPR has chosen the Nikon Df to illustrate this article. I had the chance to sample it and it has the brightest, clearest viewfinder I've ever laid my right eye on. (Second is the Nikon FM3A.) I never got quite the same feeling when peeping through an electronic viewfinder. (Still an EVF is a thousand times better than composing via a screen.)
Rooru S: no mention of the QX100...it has a 3.5x zoom with a 1.0 Type Sensor too...! and a better bracket to mount it on several types of mobile phones... Perhaps because DPR doesn't want to hurt DxO?
Right, now that Olympus sponsoring is gone you have to make do with whatever money they throw at you...
John Thawley: https://flickr.com/photos/38348003@N05/sets/72157654328514118
Not bad. Not bad at all.
I find all the hate comments hard to understand. This is a perfectly valid product, but I can't help noticing whatever DxO does is always followed by this kind of bitter criticism. Again, I can't understand it. Is it because DxO are a french company? Some neoconservative hard feelings still hovering around, perhaps? The 'freedom fries' brigade up in arms? People should save their criticism for a time when there are sample images to evaluate the merits - or lack thereof - of the ONE. Claiming it's not good because it won't fit when iPhone covers are on is ridiculous.Hélas...