I don't think the photographer understands the statement he's making. Using an iPhone for this is a lose-lose for him.
If people don't like the work, it shows that he is a poor photojournalist, and not necessary.
If people do like the work, it shows that good work can be done with an iPhone ... and again, the guy with the expensive camera isn't necessary.
I grasp what he was trying to say by using the iPhone, but he clearly didn't think it through. There is literally no way that this results in him looking like anything other than another schmuck with a camera phone.
HL48: From what I remember of an article about this lens (about 15 years ago, perhaps in Sky and Telelscope). It is somewhat radioactive because of the thorium, "it can't focus blue worth a damn", it is in fact an apochromat in infra-red, red and green.
(I'd keep this lens away from young children,)
Thorium-coated lenses turn yellow over time, which explains the problems with blues. But the 'radioactivity' is only present for about an inch or two behind the lens, and even then the amount found in lens coatings is minimal at best.
The colour issues are a bigger problem for photographers than the radioactivity. As amazing as most thorium lenses were new, I wouldn't use any of them to shoot anything but B&W film today.
The D800 already has a great reputation among fine-art photographers for its dynamic range and colour, which I've heard is "as good as a Pentax D645" by someone that owns both. He further claims that you need to make the print 20x30 or so to see a considerable difference.
If the tonal range of the D600 matches the D800, Nikon has a winner. As a salesman, literally all I have to do is say, "The images are just as good as a medium-format digital unless you make them massive, AND you can have long lenses, VR, high ISO, decent autofocus, and a movie mode. Oh, and you can also buy a really nice used car with the extra money."
Obviously only a small segment of the market is even interested in a medium format digital camera. But if you are, and you can afford a D600, and the sensor lives up to the 800's, then you've just bought a D600.
Polyfem: LOL - no sir, a Hasselblad is far from "just a camera". It's just like watching a Rolls Royce when you only imagine a bicycle. In the old film days I hired a couple of prof. photographers who used Hasselblad. Just handling the camera is like handling an object from another world. The price - who cares? - it's likely to be insane by standards not only set by amateurs.
You missed something. Some people carry tripods, and only shoot during the day. Other people are just really patient.
You gotta' pay an awful lot more to get a just little bit more back ... that's just how things work, whether it's cameras, cars, or bicycles. A top-spec Specialized may only be 1 1/2 pounds lighter than an otherwise identical model for half the price.
If you need the lightest bike there is, that's what it costs. If you don't, then you're wasting your money. Offhand, clothing and jewelry are the only high-end products I can think of where the pricing structure does not work this way.
guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..
You continue to make the biggest, and worst assumption of all: that what is is what will be. Your problem is that no matter what you know, how much you read, how much you consider yourself an expert on ... you lack the ability to dream big. You lack creativity, Joseph-San.
I'm not saying that this will happen now, or ever. I'll I'm saying is that the technology technically exists, and that if you think laterally, it can one day be applied to camera manufacture.
I asked you 'what if?' this things can happen. I did not tell you they would. The Lytro team may fail, but it began with a thought of 'what if?' Many failures begin that way, but so do all great inventions.
Microlenses can never be turned off? Bah. A microlens is designed to scatter night in a certain pattern. Many high-end homes feature special windows which act normally, but when a switch is flipped and electricity applied, they turn opaque. This is done by a thin LCD panel between the two panes of glass that rearranges itself with power is applied. Light is scattered, and the glass looks opaque.
This technology could be integrated into a camera. Cameras could 'create' microlenses by drawing extra power. Single-lens 3D could be created by automatically taking two exposures; the first recording data for one eye, and then the lenses reorganize to capture data for the 'second' eye. Assuming shutter speeds are kept above 1/125 of a second, this technology would allow single-lens 3D capture at 1080p60.
Joesph, you can Google information all you want. I'm assuming you're not an expert at everything, because you're obviously the sort of person who would have told Zdenek so.
If you were in the television business ten years ago, you wouldn't argue about whether or not there was a need for a flat-panel TV. For the military, or course. For consumers - hell no. But it was sexy, and a status symbol; at the time, an $8,000 LCD had a worse picture than a $1000 CRT, AND had no speakers. In fact, even today certain Sony CRT TVs have a reputation for having a better picture than most current LCD/LEDs. Another ten years before that, it was generally thought that LCD displays could never reach the level of detail that is currently available today, let alone on a $250 TV set.
Joseph, you've made some MASSIVE assumptions, and they are informing your entire argument.
What if the plenoptic feature ... could be turned off? Maybe it's possible; maybe it isn't. Also, there is a large professional market for 3D video cameras (for which there was also no 'need', until the technology was invented, btw) ... what if the second or third generations of these sensors could create single-lens 3D video?
I could come up with a long list of famous inventions for which there was no need, but sold like crazy. Flat-panel TVs and every single non-portable advancement in audio since 1970 or so, for instance. Oh, and almost every personal hygiene product ever.
Maybe this product is just a flash in the pan. But you'r assuming not only that this technology will never improve, but also that there will never be any more demand than what currently exists.
I'm sorry, but those are both very faulty assumptions.
This debate is uneccessary. It only happens because people think Instagram is a creative tool. It is not. You see more-or-less the same filters used every time, because 'old' is in right now - fashion, music, everything. The only reason that the above photo could even be an Instagram photo is because the same people that use Instagram would wear those glasses and buy old-looking furniture.
We need to accept that since pretty much everyone owns a camera these days, that photography will be affected by the same fads as everything else.
The use of filters cannot kill photography. If it could, photography would have died several years ago, when all the DeviantArt kids filtered the heck out of their photos - and that was way more garish.
jorepuusa: It´s great that professional photographers teach amateurs how to shoot. Then amateurs start taking pictures cheaply or pro bono and pros lose their jobs.Pros go to schools, four years photography there and then they buy expensive gear and use money to get clients. And then some of them teach amateurs in web which causes the profession to collapse, that has happened all over and photography is a dying profession.
At the higher end of the market, most 'professional photographers' have been letting assistants and second shooters do the bulk of their work for decades. "Professional photography" is unaffected by any of this. Most of those assistants also went to school. As it has always been, the people that get paid top dollar got into that position because they knew sombody.
Local photographers are hit pretty hard though.
jeangenie: I think the 'lighting' to which he is referring is the blank sky. However, the unnamed Magistrate (I didn't read the full article) can be excused for this, as unless he is a photographer himself he probably wouldn't know that your average snapshot of a city on a bright, overcast day will yield a blank sky.
Again, not reading the full article, I can only assme that context played a large part here. There is a MASSIVE difference between someone taking a photo similar to an existing one for their own use, and a company contacting an artist to license their work, being unable to reach an agreement, and hring someone else to copy that work.
In the US, Tom Waits set a precedent for this by successfully suing Frito-Lay when they hired someone to write a song that sounded like 'Step Right Up' after he told them they couldn't use his song.
Also, US patent law has a clause for "obvious" choices. When a solution is obvious, or there is only one possible solution, that cannot be patented/trademarked/etc. In the US (again, assuming the copyright infringement wasn't intentional), a court would likely rule that since Big Ben and the red double-decker bus are such strong identifiers of London, since the sky is often going to be white, and since the 'single colour on an important subject' effect is so often done, that this photo is probably too obvious to copyright.
In that case, it would probably only be illegal if the prosecution could show that the defendant willingly copied the photo for personal gain, since the 'obviousness' of the image means that anybody could have made it.
I think the 'lighting' to which he is referring is the blank sky. However, the unnamed Magistrate (I didn't read the full article) can be excused for this, as unless he is a photographer himself he probably wouldn't know that your average snapshot of a city on a bright, overcast day will yield a blank sky.
I find the tone of these comments really shows what's wong with photography these days. All these complaints that the apertures aren't large enough miss out on the most important thing: how many other major lens manufacturers are producing third-paty autofocus prime lenses for the NEX series? We should be happy that three years in someone other than the manufacturer is finally supporting these cameras, and not whinging about how the first companies to make third party mirrorless AF lenses shouldn't have bothered.
This obsession with 'more' and 'better' also makes me wonder how people would react to a Leica 2.8 prime. Would they say, "Wow, great images, and really sharp!" Or would they scoff at the fact that it's 'too expensive for its aperture'?
No, I don't work for these companies. But I've shot long enough to know that more isn't better - better is better. And any competition is good competition.