Tom Goodman: I could not help notice the camera body sells for $1300 and the "kit" lens for $1500. Yikes.
Well, that sets me straight. I put "kit" in parentheses because I knew it was not a kit lens in the strictest sense but the one recommended for this camera, presumably by Samsung. As for the second battery, charger and grip, well those are usually very low cost throw-ins from Amazon, Adorama, etc. It's still a $2800 experience to buy this camera, which isn't cheap for any camera, especially one that isn't full frame.
I could not help notice the camera body sells for $1300 and the "kit" lens for $1500. Yikes.
If I put my mirrored camera in one of these bags will it develop an identity crisis?
RGBCMYK: I wish everyone new their photo history. They are copywork. Niépce was into lithography like everyone else at the time and when his son who was marking his stones went off to fight in a foreign war he turned to the camera obscure to make the marks on his stones.
It would be helpful if YOU knew your history, too. These images were "drawn by light", which is the point of the article, and not the nature of the subject matter.
Tom Goodman: 145 comments and counting and most of them are about what is wrong with Nikon's management and strategies.
Just don't buy their cameras if you feel that way and get a Canon, Sony, Olympus or something else, but why post about what Nikon fails to do for you? I guess it must be the urge to let the public know you are smarter than the folks at Nikon and by George you're gonna' let the poor slobs know it.
145 comments and counting and most of them are about what is wrong with Nikon's management and strategies.
Elmos: Wow.. so much hostility against the UK. What is being proposed doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Nothing is being destroyed or hidden or faked. The images were made in the UK by someone living in the UK and are now considered culturally valuable what is the issue here ? do we have too much time on our hands folks ?
And indeed almost every country now has similar prohibitions in place to protect national patrimony precisely because of the history of plunder...and not just by Great Britain. It would be useful if the axe grinders trolling here knew their history, past and present, but. then, why let the facts get in the way of a little anonymous internet breast beating!!
Unbelievable self-indulgence. Subscribe or don't, but spare us your bleats and bootless cries.
Sure it's a thing. There's an award for everything.
Tom Goodman: Don't like Adobe? Don't buy it. Like Adobe? Subscribe. Everything else is written selfie.
It would more than stretch credulity to imagine Adobe responded to the original outbursts here when CC was announced
Don't like Adobe? Don't buy it. Like Adobe? Subscribe. Everything else is written selfie.
Megapixels are to great images what keyboards are to great literature.
A news story only a money manager could love.
Mr. Hensel: You have my proxy.
An opinion piece that could only appear on a site devoted to the myth that the camera makes the picture.
You could boil this down to one sentence: the best camera you have is the one that took the picture you wanted to take.
Wow, a new twist in contests. For my part I won't enter this one, but should they ever announce a contest in which the prize is a chance to just sniff the camera I'll be there!!
Tom Goodman: Nice piece. Time to junk the Enthusiast label forever. It does not describe the full audience for this camera.
Well, apparently not you! Such a non-nonsensical reply only insures DPR will continue the category.
Nice piece. Time to junk the Enthusiast label forever. It does not describe the full audience for this camera.
For all the alleged inclusiveness (the word "roundup" suggests such) the omissions noted by many including the Sony RX100 III render this article not much more than filler.
Tom Goodman: At the end of the day this is a forgettable photograph, fungible like so many others. Those posters who say it is art have never seen art. Those who criticize critics of the image are simply jealous of the technique, not the vision, which is pedestrian. No matter how impressive the technique, this sort of photograph is the visual equivalent of an internet joke: read 'em (or see 'em in this case) and delete 'em!
There isn't anything indelible here. What most of the enthusiasm for is the how-to. That's great as far as it goes, which in an age of countless and relentless imagery ain't much.
If art were defined simply as work that moved somebody every save the child/pet/planet photo would be art and they are almost always not! Much of what appears on this site is not art, which is fine as long as the editorial department and readers don't insist it be seen as such.
Frankly, when the great American photographer Ray Metzker, a very important artist, died about six weeks ago, he received no mention on this site ((before you start howling, I did send an email to the editors lamenting the omission) despite having contributed significantly to photography in the last half century
In the end, let's not confuse how to with vision. And while on the subject, let's not confuse vision with a picture nicely seen.