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.
What you call "disparagement" I call a cursory appraisal. I say "cursory" because the image doesn't demand more attention than that!! If I saw the photograph for sale, I wouldn't consider purchasing it for a moment. If it were submitted to a juried competition and I were a juror, it wouldn't make the first cut. Your definition of art is meaningless. The article may be informative and even useful, but the image is one of a billion that sail through the ether one day and evaporate immediately.
I rest my case.
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!
Tom Goodman: You give this camera a higher rating than the Sony RCX100 III yet in virtually every respect the Sony has equal or better performance specs. 85% vs 82%, the percentages are, as usual, misleading and completely arbitrary.
P.S. I don't own the Sony so all of you poised to accuse me of being a fan-boy are going to have to do better than that!!!!!!!
Thanks for the replies and clarifications. I think it is very important to note that the target group all of us reading here fall within is the so-called "Enthusiasts". That said, the Sony appeals to me much more than larger models such as the Lumix because it can be carried everywhere easily without wishing one had a "better camera" along at a given moment.
These categories are obviously arbitrary if 4/3 cameras and 1" sensor ones are lumped together, but I am frankly less interested in benchmark peeking than in the ability of a camera to produce high quality RAW files that can be printed comfortably at sizes up to 16X20 and provide a good range of manual controls.
On these bases alone the Sony has far greater appeal for me.
You give this camera a higher rating than the Sony RCX100 III yet in virtually every respect the Sony has equal or better performance specs. 85% vs 82%, the percentages are, as usual, misleading and completely arbitrary.
The Photo Ninja: Awesome, but... It's not compatible (for free anyways) with my Fuji and Olympus raw files - boooooooooo. Maybe they'll get an update for this.
Also, I can't share everything all at once like Flickr.
Still, it's good for my wife to backup her iphone.
I cannot believe how many posters view this offer as strictly a photo and file backup system. I am not shilling for Amazon but it is worth noting Prime membership includes a lot of other things people want in addition to the storage.
RomanP: Hard to beat Flickr's free 1 terabyte.
Prime membership is hardly only about Cloud Storage. One doesn't become a member for that reason so comparisons to other storage sites are worthless.
ecm: Interesting news, but I'm very disappointed that my RAW files are going to be excluded - makes it useless to me as an off-site backup. Not sure what else I would use it for.
Agree with LegacyGT. It makes more sense to store edited files that will no doubt be much larger with layers and keep RAW files in another location. Also, after working on RAW files, I don't need to continue to see them unless re-editing, so who cares if one is not able to view them on this Cloud.
ChesterY: I'm sure it'll evolve as a platform over time but, right now, it's too bare-bones to be compelling at all, despite the unlimited, free storage space (if you're a Prime member).
Right now, it appears you just dump photos into a single "folder" and the only organization of them is by date, which is done automatically (appears to be file properties, not metadata, which is problematic).
No ability to organize by multiple folders or create meta-collections. Sharing is on a per-photo basis, as is downloading.
Glad to not have a dilemma between using it and sticking with my paid Smugmug subscription.
Tripodasaurus: The most convenient camera for a shirt pocket is a smartphone! I have the Nokia Lumina 1020. 34Mpx so can digitally zoom in if required. Picture detail quality can be breathtaking. Colour rendition is lovely too. It's slim with touch screen controls.Includes manual control options for Flash, White Balance, ISO, Shutter Speed, Exposure Compensation (brightness).Not to mention text messaging, internet (free at home and cafe WiFi hot spots etc) maps, GPS, sat nav. and apps galore if you want. Only £267 on Amazon UK today.
So a pocketable camera has to offer a much better camera shooting experience and or better image quality than a smartphone to justify carrying it in addition to the phone most people carry with them anyway.For more serious photography with viewfinders and larger controls etc. I'd choose a larger camera anyway.I'm my humble opinion the only way the pocketable cameras can survive is to take a leaf out of smart phones' book and include a phone circuit.
"So a pocketable camera has to offer a much better camera shooting experience and or better image quality than a smartphone to justify carrying it in addition to the phone most people carry with them anyway." NEWS FLASH: THEY DO!
lambert4: Some of the conceptual stuff is what differentiates the artists from the photographers. This is brilliant.
Exactly, though you have it backwards!
Take one shipwreck. Add models and stir. Blend in another photographer photographing the photographer photographing the scene. Yield: One serving with no taste or nutritional value.
As long as you are cropping, try perspective correction, too. As with so many challenge winners, a deeper investigation yields precious little.
OK, floor's yours!!
Conclusive evidence there is an award for everyone
In my experience art is never called "artistic"