deltaskyking: 10 frames per second - check65 point wide viewfinder filling autofocus - checkClass leading fast autofocus - checkPro level weather sealing - checkExcellent low light autofocus and image capture - checkAnother B.S. "Silver Award" for Canon cameras from dpreview - check
So you got the camera you wanted, yet still whining
Love Photography 888: This camera makes the D750 look like the bargain of the year.
mg_k no it's all about the glass for wildlife and surf; L 400mm on a 1100D would get you killer results; cheap 70-300mm Sigma on FF camera would still yield poor images..
ok then the 1970 Pirelli calendar is worth 50m and Helen Levitt's pic of the 3 masked kids is worth 100m.
For me, this nice photo is like something you see on deviantart but hey, this is the art world, anything goes. I mean, i still think Rothko is crap yet it sells for $$$$$$$$$$
his point is still valid..
sten eriksen: Hi All
:-) I have the LX3 which I think is pretty god.
95% of the time I shoot in Auto mode.
I would like to udgrade to a new camera with a bigger sensor and better image quality.
I will most likely still shoot in Auto mode and JPEG. I am interested in good pictures but not in spending a lot of time learning about photography.
I am confused as to which camera to buy as reviews focus mostly on expert photographers and not 'Joe Doe' like me.
Which camera should I get when I want a noticable increase in picture quality?
I hope you can advise.
hi Sten, if you are going to be shooting in auto mode + jpeg, and IQ is the all important factor, then hit ebay or amazon for a used Sony RX100 - you'll be very happy and also save money.
NiallM: sorry but at f/3.5 it's not worth giving up the constant f/2.8 on my main walkabout, Tamron 17-50mm, as good as anything else and better than the Pentax 16-50mm. I don't live in a sunny bright part of the world so lens speed is kinda important for me. Absolutely PERFECT focal range, 16-85, but alas, too slow.
Sorry you've had bad luck with the Tamron - If it's any consolation, Sigma + Pentax is more often than not a good match, and if you haven't yet bought the 17-50, i'd go for the Sigma 17-70mm instead, which performs really well on a Pentax, especially the new batch of dslrs (k3, k500, k-5II etc)
Phenixburn: These photos are great! They evoke a real sense of timelessness, or rather the impact of time. I would get into the composition, tone etc...but really that stuff doesn't matter at all. What matters is that you took some great photos and you should be proud of that! Consider me a fan.
Over-photographed? First i've heard of the place, or seen it!
Picture no.6 is is unreal, pic of the bunch for me - brilliant.
reply is for Richt2000! my bad.
citrontokyo: Love all the complainers here.
This is the perfect landscape lens. It's DC, not SDM. It's WR where the 17-70 is not. It's 16mm where the kit is 18. It's 85mm where the 16-45 is, well...
Anybody who claims it doesn't do this or that clearly isn't thinking.
If the optics are good it'll be a great multi-purpose lens for a lot of shooters, even a wedding photographer, but at 16mm, it is not 'perfect' for landscape. The Pentax 12-24 already does a great job for that.
sorry but at f/3.5 it's not worth giving up the constant f/2.8 on my main walkabout, Tamron 17-50mm, as good as anything else and better than the Pentax 16-50mm. I don't live in a sunny bright part of the world so lens speed is kinda important for me. Absolutely PERFECT focal range, 16-85, but alas, too slow.
timo: I don't think this announcement is of any significance whatsoever. Although it is quite surprising how long it has taken them to reach this insignificant decision.
agreed - not of the 'Marathon' to 'Snickers' proportions..that was fairly life changing it was..
Klindar: Adobe's decision may very well provide competitors with the business they need to develop their products into complete/superior alternatives. For many years I used JASC (now Corel) Paintshop and switched to CS a few years ago only because I needed support for 48 bit images. Corel then announced support for 48/16 bit and I was happy being able to go back to Paintshop a couple of years ago. For me, it is the technically superior product with a similar (but better) interface to Photoshop, accepts the same plugins and is 10% the cost. The scripting is more flexible and easier to do than Photoshop "Actions". A single license lets you install to 3 machines ... my main unit, backup and portable. I'd have to buy 2 licenses from Adobe to use Photoshop that way. I realize you can transfer a Photoshop license but it's a nuisance. Unfortunately, no Paintshop Apple version but the way Corel has ramped up support and been promoting Paintshop suggests that may come.
@ Just. Even if Corel followed suit with with Adobe-style payment, it's so cheap it's not as if one is actually buying into Corel in a deep way; dump them, go onto Serif or something else, no big deal.
The shock/horror factor is for people who are paying and upgrading $$$$$$$$$$$ for years into Adobe then faced with the creative cloud fiasco.
I purchased Corel PSP X5 a few days ago and haven't been disappointed. Lightroom 5 or Elements 11 would have been my only consideration a month ago.
Joellerealtor: Looking for a pocket size only 20 x zoom with phot stitching And fast shutter sped fr a safari. Is the rx100 right ? Thanks you
Get a Pentax Q, laughably underrated, tiny, very cheap now, and huge huge huge gain in zoom with the crop.
..and i reckon LR will eventually get sucked into the creative cloud, so instead of purchasing LR 5, which i was absolutely most definitely certainly going to buy (i'm still on 2!), i'm looking at alternatives like Zoner instead. Corel Paintshop Pro X5 looks good too, and it's cheap...and once i buy it, if i do...i own the damn thing and do as i please with it.
GIMP just got serious..
mandophoto: Wonderful images and a great story. Thank you, DPReview.
Maybe it's me but it seems we don't see quite as much photography of teens as in the '60s & '70s. Can someone point out the Bruce Davidsons & Mary Ellen Marks of the current generation? Yes, I would like to know (other than Mike Brodie.)
Martha Cooper covered the hip-hop scene in NY in the 80's
a google image search should get you some results ..
raincoat: If I turned up on a forum with these kinds of photos, would I be hailed as a genius, or booed as a noob who is still using auto mode?
Klein doing blurry misfocused images is acceptable not because blurry misfocused images are acceptable. It's because he's Klein and he's famous, so what he does is acceptable.
nope - because he has a good eye and his images are striking and memorable, even the blurry ones.
Everlast66: How can this come so close to the mighty RX100? - 77% vs 78%And why can it not be compared to the RX100? they are the same category and similar price ranges
Whether you like one or not, a VF is a huge plus for a camera and in this rating system it's worth about 10%, considering 99% of the X20 market competition has nada.
Another huge factor regarding camera rating is ergonomics and in my big hands the RX100 is a bar of soap. I'll probably buy the Samsung EX2F over the Pana LX7 for that very reason, and the articulated screen, because i'm tall and find that i do a lot of low perspective/close to the ground stuff. See? Everyone has different needs.
Speed of use is another factor and the RX100 requires a lot of menu surfing. This issue alone can take a lot of the fun out of photography as well, especially for the older gits out there.
SRT3lkt: Ireland is lovely, so I can live with odd composition and tilted horizon.
@juck hi junk, go fk yourself :)
micahmedia: WHOA...another important piece that isn't stated above: Getty has been selling the image. Starting in the past 10 years. That's why it's an issue now.
Getty--you know, the people who's business is suing people for images they own? Yeah, they're doing what they sue other people for.
After reading through the filing, I'd say there's much merit to this case. Please read it before commenting either way!
EDIT: this lawsuit is about lots of folks trying to sell work featuring the picture without compensating the photographer, who never sold the copyright to anyone. The list is long and it's in the filing. And it's all within the last few years. Sounds like his gripe is legit.
The picture is worth money today and people are selling it--that sounds to me like whoever owns it deserves a cut. That's the original photographer in this case.
There's a specific time lapse in your US law regarding keeping copyright 'active'; he's no case if he's let it slip unfortunately..what's written in law stands.
If Newson did anything, he at least got people in the photography world talking, particularly the conservative old bags. It's different, no VF, not really that compact..yet it takes pics with outstanding IQ.