oselimg

First, I am not defending the photographer. I am not surprised you decided not to go full time with photography. As you say you didn't have enough talent or you chickened out. Some people still prefer to do a job they like despite a low income. Ideas and visions make products not the other way around. Have you heard of a word "passion"? But you also say people will get "crap" if they don't pay. I fail to see where your argument starts. Photography isn't getting any easier but "taking photographs" is. Problem is, on what basis people differentiate a good picture from a bad one. And with the current trends and cultures the content is less and less important as long as the product is perceived to be good and trendy or "cool". So the lady who complained about the price of a photographer is probably one of those mindless consumer types trying to substitute her shortcomings in life with things without paying attention to content. I feel sorry for the groom. Or maybe they deserve each other.

Spot on and hilarious "munro harrap". Thank you for the post. Don't ever lose your sense of humor.

So you say if a photograph is technically good it's a good one and anybody who can hold one of the newest cameras and press the shutter release is a photographer. Like people who sing in their bathroom think they are talented singers. It makes me wander if this is the level people value any form of art or a unique talent they must be paying a lot of money for a piece of crap because the packaging is shiny. But hey! why am I surprised in these days content doesn't matter as long as it covers up any inferiority complex I might have.

Eerrmm...Maybe she is brave enough to do a job she enjoys doing and make money from it as well as other kinds of photography to come up with a total so she can live. Is it so difficult to work out how one survives? Or maybe people like her shouldn't exist or be allowed to live.

Most people compare apples with pears here.While the photographer's breakdown of expenses may or may not be flawed, the issue here is that someone is looking for an amazing,talented photographer but doesn't want to pay for it. Which of you amazingly talented people would settle for something as little as what a talentless person gets. It is also sad to see here that some people trumpet about market forces even when it is about photographs required to be aesthetically pleasing and captures the right moment so the viewer has an emotional response to them. Sure some people will do it better than others it is your responsibility to find the one before you judge how much a photo session should cost. But everybody takes pictures now and they even get the chance to exhibit them publicly on the net so we are all equally talented aren't we? While the corporate execs laugh all the way to the bank they will be so happy to have found some more people who suck up to their "free market" theories.

I wasn't comparing mirror-less with DSLRs. I am sure Sony NEX or similarly 1.5x/1.6x crop sensor mirror-less cameras have a lot going for them and they will get better in time sorting out shortcomings one by one. They might even replace the entry level DSLR segment completely. But I respectfully ask anyone if you are going to use one lens only and not take advantage of the sensor what is the point of buying ILC? Unless people are satisfied with a single mediocre range or/and mediocre quality slow glass. Compacts are cheaper with a wider range lenses.

Those who argue about whether the J1/V1 or Sony NEX smaller neither is small. Sure the the body is small but once you put a lens on it no longer pocketable. So what is the advantage of having a small body? Still have to carry in a bag, change lenses, not to mention ergonomics and handling. Then it comes down to weight difference only. Now that's one advantage we can't ignore and important if you have to carry your stuff for for extended periods and it will make sense for a lot of people. But small mirror-less will kill SLR argument is a wishful thinking by gear worshippers. I believe there will be big professional mirror-less cameras lighter than current pro-slrs but it depends on the evolution of continuous af and evfs. Until then gear worshippers will have changed theirs for newer models many times over, boosting the research funds for a perfect evf/pdaf. I guess we need them.

Those (at least half of them in my opinion) who bash the DSLR's are just gear worshippers who religiously spend money on every new product hoping that their photography will get better. They don't know what they are talking about or they have never seen a 100% ovf. Because they are stuck with the currently inferior evf's their narcissism stop them from accepting the mistake they've made or they don't need speedy operation. Maybe that they are not even aware of the delay evs's present. "Ignorance is a bliss"

These samples raise the question that will there be any point in buying budget SLR's? Though they may have the OVF but even my 40D's slightly bigger viewfinder I find not big enough. Anyone who is about to say "but you can use the screen for composing" stop! No thanks. Maybe at times even when remotely speedy operation is not needed.

I agree that, if Canon are to produce a mirrorless system this sensor will probably be in it. But it begs the next question what will happen to similarly priced budget DSLR models and to people who have already invested in them. Here is a new thought; the new mirrorless design will have the EF or compatible mount not to anger the existing users also reduces the cost of a new line camera not having to design a new mount for it let alone new lenses. I don't have much technical knowledge but would an EF mount be too big for this sensor?

Continuing from the below post.. All of my arguments/speculations have pit falls in them or Canon got their sums very wrong about the price of G1X. But leading companies like Canon or Nikon wouldn't make big mistakes like this and risque their future would they? Whichever way I look at it something doesn't add up about the launch of G1X. Either Canon are gambling or they have something unexpected up their sleeve concerning the future of budget DSLR section or mid/semi-pro range DSLR section. APS-H sensor might move in to the XD/XXD range thus being a good compromise/bridge between full frame and mirrorless budget models. I know sounds far reached but everything indicates to a radical change.

From the samples it looks an impressive sensor/processing combination. If this an indication of how the future Canon cameras will perform then for me the situation is not clear. Strange? I'll try to explain/speculate. One would naturally predict that future Canon APSc DSLR's with their slightly bigger sensors will even perform better. But they cost roughly the same as G1X with a standard lens plus flexibility of adding more lenses and performance advantages. In that case G1X will look expensive(even though it is a high quality portable camera) by comparison so, either the price will drop to 500 USD level or Canon will drop budget DSLR section all together and produce a version of G1X with a different zoom lens combination. Canon DSLR range will start from XXD class. Or Canon will produce budget mirrorles cameras around the G1X sensor with interchangeable lens mount.Then again current G1X will be too expensive by comparison. I will continue with a new post

I think you missed the feed back in my comment. If you read the main article carefully the Panasonic don't even confirm the specifications of these lenses in the final production process. So what is the this exercise about?? Are they asking whether people would like faster or slower zooms for their systems? There is a limit how small you can make a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens for any given system unless the manufacturers discover something new about the laws of physics or new, revolutionary materials. Here is my reply (again): This is just a attention grabbing exercise for a firm which didn't come up with something new for this show. But, according to you we should be pleased with whatever the big firms come up with and thank for it just like a bullied child. alternatively you can point out what is new about a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens.

What is the concept???? A concept product serves the purpose to toy with new ideas and observe peoples reaction to it. Are 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 new ideas? Who in right mind wouldn't want a faster lens? Looks like an exercise to keep people interested in their m43 system with the help of "concept" products may or may not be made for real. Almost like an inferiority complex against the big brands.

Only if it had reached up to 135-140mm, I think the long end of the zoom is a little short to get the compressed perspective needed when shooting with tele's...pity would have been a go every where camera for majority of shooting needs. Slightly smaller sensor to make room for a longer tele reach..We would have lived happily ever after.

Well you guys who called the others dumb,you've tested the new fuji sensor for sure even before Dpreview. Wow!!! how do you do that? Or are so you dumb so you believe every claim manufacturers make? Or are you so dumb as not being aware that you can buy a good second hand full frame camera for the same money. But for you guys only pixel peeping and pixel counting matter. Depth of field isn't the only difference between sensor sizes. It's granted the APSC cameras smaller and cheaper but if they were good enough manufacturers wouldn't bother with FF cameras. Sure the new Fuji camera looks beautiful and would be a discrete tool. Camera size is not everything but the sensor size is everything.

Excellent post "Tmurph". I guess the camera industry needs the "gear worshippers" ( of any brand) to keep the manufacturing belt rolling to a certain extend. According to these people photography starts every time a new model hits the shelves and before then photography sucked a big way. None of those film era guys with their manual everything cameras existed or what they achieved was 99% a "fluke". Well probably when an "artist" have nothing to say, no stories to tell through their chosen art they will either blame their tools or blame the public for not understanding them.

I guess it's very smart to reduce photography to sensor size without even being aware of the impact it has on the final picture. Angle of view is not the only issue when comparing formats. Same angle of view doesn't mean the same thing for different formats

I would also like to add that majority of visitors to sites like this are gear worshipers(just read the forums). Avery, very small percentage of buyers are actually aware of such websites and the buyers chose their camera on the basis of their budget limitations rather than detailed reviews on the web. Even a lot of enthusiasts are not aware of most of these sites. Hobbyists are not bothered with technical details. How long is the zoom, how many pixels, video facility, flash are what they want to know and understand. And that sort of information is readily available in the shop. So my argument is that by trying to broaden your appeal you will not make much difference to the numbers which will probably be evened out by the people who will no longer click on the site as much as they used to.

Thanks for the confirmation.