This looks to me like it doesn't make any sense... it's like a stripped down smartphone camera in some coloured case... and the lenses are different compared to those of the film Holgas.And why MUST everything become digital?Holga cameras are not my piece of cake but I see something in the point of using them... making this in a digital option makes it stupid.Just continue using your instagram app on a smart-ass phone... makes the digital Holga obsolete. And if you want to use a Holga then go use a real one, with real film in it. And with real lack of depth of field.
Well it looks versatile and easy to use... so when you have enough money to spare and are busy making video's with your DSLR this could come in quick and handy.
Vermeero: Beautiful scene... enormous trees!
You're right, in this case telephoto gives it sense of depth and scale
Outstanding photos displayed in the article, some I find mind boggling.
Beautiful scene... enormous trees!
Really like this black and white photo, love the serenity.
Really nice. This can deliver some useful and interesting shots while making a video.
Very good... I really like those photos! Great use of light.
Michael MacGillivray: This nonsense has gone far enough. Consumers should be in revolt with camera companies, almost across the board. I'm expecting bad news when I buy new gear and guess what? I'm buying less.
Two suggested articles for DP Review would be a comparison of both the quality control records of individual companies and their customer service. Taking it a step further, it would be great if customer service ratings and QC issues could become part of full reviews and scores, several months out.
That's zero tolerance.Not that it is alright, but if a company does acknowledge the problem and compensates we can all move along.
Hugo808: What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
"And let's not forget it will be equivalent to an f/16 lens on a micro 4/3 camera."That is, regarding the depth of field and not the brightness of the lens.
Almost nice enough to play with... wait I'll grab my Hasselblad 501C, Canon FTb or A-1 and load one of my films... much more satisfactory. Heck it's even worth the wait from the lab.
sirrah: Why do so many entrants to these competitions insist on winding up the colour saturation to the point where grass looks like engine coolant? It would be a great, and evocative, picture without resorting to this form of photographic hyperbole. Based on other photos of this location on google images the colours are not at all representative.
Saturated colours are to be liked more often, and stand out more so the picture sort of demands more attention. At least it works that way for many people. So if you don't realize or care that its colours are tempered with you might end up liking the picture above others!Well... I must say I love green so I'm a sucker for this one. Great composition here as well.Oh... and reflections do well too!
D Gold: Image is there, needs a tighter crop.
I'd say it's framed just right.Great sky, love the light too.
ottonis: I am sceptical because of two reasons:
In rangefinder cameras the VF is optical. Some people do really prefer to have direct optical view. This camera however is supposed to have an electronic rangefinder, which may turn off some potential customers.
Secondly, a FF sensor with a DR of 11 stops is quite mediocre as per today's standards.
So, the only truly compelling strength of this camera might be an affordable price that's not only much cheaper than LEICA but that also would compete with today's entry level FF cameras such as the A7 (mark I), which sells for a grand.
Anyways, competition is always a great thing, so let's sit back and see what this new gem will actually bring to the table.
11 stops of dynamic range... many DSLR cameras nowadays don't really have it... it's true just do the math on exposures and what's left to see in the shadows and highlights.
PowerG9atBlackForest: Where can I put my mark on "I had it"?
Yeah, I bet someone already 'had it' when it's to be announced for sale!
nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
You nailed it, #9 is indeed mirrored. The sky is artificially made to look like it isn't... it's just smeared. And I have seen those residential houses in real life. But that aside, it is visible that this picture is mirrored.
For me picture number 3, 7 and 11 are the best.
May I conclude that there is something going on with Hasselblad's sales? I see this as a bad way to nervously attract more customers.
webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.
""Slightly better optics"...!?
Either you're not a Canon user or you've not been paying attention to the last replacements or new designs in Canon "L" line."
I agree with you on the fact that the new Canon L lenses really shine and are among the best lenses available.
But I do know Canon... in fact I am working for them right now and as a technician I know the 100-400 from the inside out, and what it's capable of resolution-wise compared to the rest.I do fine adjustments on the optics and electronics of this lens too... officially authorized.The old 100-400 is optically already very good (alright there are copies that could use some adjusting) that's why Canon didn't saw the need to review it's design for such a long time... like is done with the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM.
The most awaited new lens?This lens is available since 1998, and is a lot cheaper than this second version. The original EF 100-400 already has good optics.The second one will have (perhaps slightly) better optics but it's bigger, heavier and more expensive and I bet that is not something everybody was hoping for.
Marty4650: Here's why schemes like this fail.
Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.
So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:
1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.
And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.
There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!
So true.Never understood why Hasselblad did this, even when I red their explanation.