peterpainter: I went to compare the noise performance and checked on the eyes. Alll four have brown / dark eyes. I thought there might have been one with different colour...actually, was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes. Ah well.
That's true. It wouldn't have helped at all. I must have had an off-day yesterday, I'm afraid.
I went to compare the noise performance and checked on the eyes. Alll four have brown / dark eyes. I thought there might have been one with different colour...actually, was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes. Ah well.
owenleve: The most important part/weakest link is the quick mount. Hardly shown. Need to see more about this setup to be able to decide if it is something that would accidentally come undone while out shooting. Event/wedding photographers are always bumping their cameras on something. Another camera, table, etc.. This system made me immediately think of my camera dropping to the floor...
More info on this please.
It makes me think of banging the camera on a door-frame whilst walking through the doorway. I have an old Pentax lens that bears the scars from doing that. A definite no, no no.....
He he - he he, he hesnigger"Delaware-based company CAMS is raising money to create a range of mounting plates for DSLR users to carry their gear from a mount on the bottom,"ROFLgreat stuff, nice jeans.Oh dear....must get my pills...he heha ha ha......etc.
B1ackhat: That is a completely ridiculous defense to copyright infringement. If I set my camera up on a tripod remotely controlled by my phone and one of my dogs licks the screen thereby triggering the shutter, the photo then becomes the property of no one. That's ludicrous.
So the lesson is: don't tell anybody what happened or you'll lose the copyright. The dog is probably a good chap and won't tell, but do reward him / her with some nice biscuits or perhaps an extra large and meaty bone.
Just out of interest, has DPR been given 'permission' to use the images, have they / well, you, really, been asked to take them down (mm, not sure that's right)?????????
It's really unfair on the monkey too. He / she probably will never see the pics he / she took - possibly that's Wiki's reasoning so that if the monkey logs on somewhere he / she can claim the copyright?Incidentally, wasn't there a camera that could be set on a table somewhere on it's tripod and is was able to take photos at random times and in random directions?
It's really rather sad. Whatever the laws of copyright, and I suspect they don't really cover the situation, I would have hoped that Wiki would've considered the individual's point of view and desisted. Note to self, try to avoid Wiki anything, but that's pretty difficult on the internet - it's all-pervasive, too much power, even down to articles that seem to me to be rewriting history....
Cheng Bao: The interesting part is this camera's brand name.
Ricoh has dropped pentax brand on its fixed-lense digicam line, updates of old pentax wg line all bear ricoh name now.
Now this one use pentax brand again.
The clue as to why the Pentax name is used is here:"This lightweight, compact camera has an easy-to-carry body with a design resembling PENTAX SLR cameras..."I wonder if it comes with a free K3 sticker.
peevee1: Compared to Pentax X-5, XG-1 lost battery life (including the ability to use AA batteries), tilting screen and a few pixels off X-5's already awful EVF, but got much longer and a tiny bit brighter lens. I don't know why they even bothered, they could have just replaced the lens.
posted in error
peterpainter: Why this one? Are you going to test the other pocketable 30X(or whatever) zooms? Recent magazine (Chasseur d'Image) has Canon SX700HS, Nikon S9700, Panasonic TZ60 and Sony DSC-HX60V. Gives the nod to the Canon as (least bad) but as usual there are pros and cons so a comparison is worth reading as ones' priorities may be different. Also, someone else mentioned a Casio......Incidentally, for us unbelievers, the review did mention that the stabilisation made these extreme zooms usable in good light (speeds of 1/30th with non-shaky hands!)
Actually, I probably won't buy either - but if I did it would be the Panny because it has an EVF and being long-sighted I have to use glasses for screens. It's tempting - the reality is that I don't need top notch stuff as most of my pictures are either used as a basis (or bits taken from them) for paintings or put on the internet.
He he, couldn't resist it. Here's a Google translation:
"In the end, even if it does not immediately obvious in our notes, Canon is the least worst of the four "big zoom" tested this month that."
- almost as bad as my French:)
Like I said it didn't do too bad. As a reader of said magazine you will note the words under the Canon review:'Au final, meme si ca ne saute pas aux yeux dans nos notes, le Canon est le moins pire des quatre "big zooms" testes ce mois-ce.'No accents - not sure how DPR handles them. If you need a translation....
as a sort of PS - the Panny didn't do too bad, but they also had the lens as being pretty poor at the long end - rather odd to see a Leica branded lens as the weakest. As part of the reason for buying this one over an Lf1, for example, is the long lens it's a bit disappointing...........
Why this one? Are you going to test the other pocketable 30X(or whatever) zooms? Recent magazine (Chasseur d'Image) has Canon SX700HS, Nikon S9700, Panasonic TZ60 and Sony DSC-HX60V. Gives the nod to the Canon as (least bad) but as usual there are pros and cons so a comparison is worth reading as ones' priorities may be different. Also, someone else mentioned a Casio......Incidentally, for us unbelievers, the review did mention that the stabilisation made these extreme zooms usable in good light (speeds of 1/30th with non-shaky hands!)
Well, if I give up on having a car I might just be able to get this. Should I ...decisions, decisions....
According to this the major difference appears to be that the a3500 has phase detect AF (as well presumably not instead of contrast...) and the new lens is compatible.
Shamael: a3500 is a renamed 3000 with a more crappy lens, that's all what is about. If they had sold 3000 cheaper with that lens and updated the firmware, it had been exactly the same effect. Those cameras are toys for children, despite the fact that the IQ is just stunning with a good lens. If it had focus peaking, i would buy one for my daughter.
See http://pmrphoto.blogspot.fr/2013/10/the-sony-a3000-perfect-small-camera.html for how well the focus peaking works. I'm almost tempted...but read somewhere that the one Sony lens that this cam doesn't have distortion correction for is the 18-55mm...
Perhaps Fuji should produce a version of the XE-2 with this Beyer sensor and at $200 cheaper........
Some years ago I read a Zeiss article on manual focussing. Can't find it now, but it basically seemed to be stating the most consumer level DSLR PDAF was set to work at fairly small apertures, so getting the focus accuracy for say even an F2 lens would require a change of focussing screen. Well, I admit I didn't understand the thing, but it sort of explained why I was unimpressed with manual focus on a Pentax MZ5N when using old mf prime lenses. Anyway, I wonder if the some of the improvement being shown is due to the fact that the PDAF in the comparison is not set up for wide apertures.