LensBeginner: I'm looking for a bridge camera - no pressure here - and this is definitely the polar opposite of what I'm looking for: stupid zoom and no RAW but most importantly no EVF... how am I going to hold the damn thing at 1200mm FoV equivalent!?!?The bad part is that every major player is following this trend... last good one was FZ200 or am I mistaken?
"Panasonic Fz1000 was a great one."That one!
P900 really is too much in fact...
I'm looking for a bridge camera - no pressure here - and this is definitely the polar opposite of what I'm looking for: stupid zoom and no RAW but most importantly no EVF... how am I going to hold the damn thing at 1200mm FoV equivalent!?!?The bad part is that every major player is following this trend... last good one was FZ200 or am I mistaken?
Very peculiar looks, especially in portraits.
amatoer: From Apple's own homepage:
'And you can view Live Photos on your other Apple devices, too.'
Isn't there a law against the trade of live photos, or something?
Richard Murdey: Sensor size?
GoPro seems to be rather cagey with that info, and the aperture, but Googling suggests it is 1/2.5", standard P&S size.
Legit question: why do people pay so much money for a battery powered web cam?
If you had a webcam that could be easily powered by a battery, let's say via a USB powerbank, what would you record on, and how big would that contraption be?
I'm not ok with paying 300-400E for a "battery powered webcam", but I'm fine with spending 80-90E to get an SJ4000 with a good quantity of mounts/accessories.
IQ is on par with a phone, but it's definitely easier to mount where you need it, and it's quite expendable, while my phone is not.
As a Pentax user, I'm sorry to hear that.Samsung was pushing some groundbreaking stuff with its latest models.
However - if the rumor and its implications are true - I can't understand why a big company would invest so much money in a long-time venture (building a camera system), and then leaving at the first hint of trouble.
I tought that in a field like this you were /supposed/ to lose money in the first years while your products slowly become established on the market, and it was something to take for granted.
Armchair industrial planning, I know, but I'm baffled nonetheless.
LensBeginner: Much "mercial", little "info"...
And, just to clarify, I'm ok with the commercial part (be it subtle or not), it's the way things are and how websites earn their living nowadays.Was just underwhelmed by the content, that's all.
Such as?Don't want to sound blasé or anything, but I believe that all the information in that article is common knowledge.It's presented in a clear way, with helpful images and charts, granted, but it didn't say anything me or the most part of dpreview readers (at least those even remotely interested in video) didn't know already.
Much "mercial", little "info"...
Tungsten Nordstein: The masses! They have to get in on everything! Where's the fun in that? Show me something totally elitist that the mass CAN'T join in on!
Shooting proper pictures instead of self(ish)es and snapshots...
Well I don't like overcooked HDR images in general, but there are some things HDR is good with, even when taken to an extreme.This one is a good example (even though I would have done it differently).
All in all, very nice picture and congratulations on your win! :-)
LensBeginner: Garbage in, garbage out...
I'm not "people", and those look bad even at web size...Plus, those have likely been taken under controlled conditions and ideal illumination in order to promote the product.Just make the proportionsmartphone advertising shot : facebook average shot = this press release : what you'll get
Boy are your standards low...
Garbage in, garbage out...
Those who surrender freedom for security etc.