rialcnis: Why do they sell these? To make every other camera sound inferior?
That price is wild.
Perhaps she should have cared -- it's no secret she's experienced significant financial turmoil.
As someone with a wide format printer I would love to have the extra pixels. But the pricing -- while lower than P1 to be sure, is not the levels suggested by H5D pricing in December. So my enthusiasm is a little muted. Movreover, my knee-jerk response tells me I would have traded the new video capabilities for updated focusing and metering systems.
It appears Pentax discarded the low-volume-high-price structure and did remarkably well. While I did not even hope Hassy would have prices similar to Pentax, I'm disappointed they seem to have stuck with their small market structure without moving to enlarge it through aggressive pricing.
I would love to be part of this market segment, but I would need to see the prices in the $15-20K range to do it. Looks like I'm stuck on the sidelines watching the big kids play. Sigh.
Still too much strain. I'm really waiting for the stories to be read to me so I can enjoy the site with my eyes closed. But only the stories I'm interested in without having to strain by clicking on anything. And be sure they're read at a pace I like. Hopefully enough people will complain so that this is the next thing the DPR staff works on. I've already changed my entire workflow over to an eyes-closed process. It would be nice if my favourite sites get with the times as well. Fingers crossed...
Joed700: I would like to know how to take apart lenses so I can get annoying dust between the lens elements...
Are you sure taking it APART is the hard part?
Sean65: It's now got to the stage that it is cheaper to buy a new printer than to replace ink cartridges when they run out. Never seen such a rip off market in my life. Ink is more expensive than gold.
Well Bernard, looking at street prices from places like Shades of Paper and factoring in the print heads you'll probably need I too concluded a while ago it made more sense to replace my 44" iPF printers than buy new ink.
I had something that looked about the same -- but made out of canvas -- back in the 1970s. For me, today, these designs are just too heavy and uncomfortable. I have two lightweight and protective Kata backpacks (and a roller case) that are absolutely outstanding. And were cheaper. And no, I don't feel I'm missing out on quick access having a backpack style bag. I would love to suggest everyone look into Kata bags as I've been 100% pleased, but I believe Manfrotto bought the company. No idea what's going on with the product line now. Edit: just realized they claim this is made out of a waxed canvas material. It sure doesn't look like the canvas of my old bag. Regardless of whether it is some new fangled material or old school, it sounds heavy for what looks like relatively limited capacity and one shoulder carry.
vladimir vanek: Kind of steep pricing, I'd say...
Oh Canonpro, I'm kicking myself for missing that. Great deal. All gone now. Sigh.
Admittedly I'm not concerned about the video, but for me personally, with a D810 and D5 I would have little to no interest in Sony's finest mirrorless.
This is a non-starter if one has to remove the phone's protective case.
rjx: Out of curiosity, why does DPR share news about brands such as Hasselblad and PhaseOne, yet they don't review them? And before anyone says it's because the majority of DPR viewers are only hobbyists, then why even publish such articles? Just wondering.
Damien, I am actually considering taking advantage of this opportunity to go broke saving all this money. I realize the comparison of the Phase One, Pentax, and Hassy models all using the same Sony CMOS sensor is a study in one compromise or another. So I don't expect a clear "yes buy it" or "no it stinks" review. But could you post, or even PM a brief idea of which direction DPR's review is going to lean? The window on this sale may be relatively short and I would cruise this site if I didn't find your opinions helpful. Thanks.
You naysayers need to stop pooping on my parade. I'm excited about the leaf lenses and True Focus. Now my only hurdle is to convince my wife this is a better buy than that country club membership we've been eyeing. Thank goodness I've finished my Christmas shopping in case she has to hide my plastic until the sale is over.
That's an outrageous price for a compact camera. But I will be buying one. You pay to play -- and the IV has what I want.
faterikcartman: Going over most of these comments I get the impression a lot of people have no idea how much money serious hobbyists put into the gear for astrophotography nor what kind of results are achievable in one's backyard. Which is not to say this will replace an STX-16803 from SBIG, but some of the comments here are inane. I suppose there's people over on a Ford forum complaining that Ford shouldn't have bothered to build their new GT supercar because it is too expensive and has a tiny market. Sigh.
My hat is off to you for actually taking the time. And you clearly understand. The one negative I see against astrophotography is the cost of entry for top-tier results. We all joke about lawyers, doctors, and dentists, keeping Leica alive all these years. But those cameras don't make them better image makers. With some of the astro stuff you really need to be wealthy or committed financially to go for gold. But as I've noted in other posts, little is plug-and-play and there is a steep learning curve as well. Throwing money at it alone won't get you anywhere.
Going over most of these comments I get the impression a lot of people have no idea how much money serious hobbyists put into the gear for astrophotography nor what kind of results are achievable in one's backyard. Which is not to say this will replace an STX-16803 from SBIG, but some of the comments here are inane. I suppose there's people over on a Ford forum complaining that Ford shouldn't have bothered to build their new GT supercar because it is too expensive and has a tiny market. Sigh.
maverick786us: Why would someone spend 3300$ for just taking stellar photography, when its not meant for normal phorography?
Huh? Two nights ago I was looking at an astrophotography camera -- and it cost $10,000.00.
If you're at the point where you're serious about astrophotography none of it is cheap, and little has plug-and-play simplicity. If you're balking at $3,300.00 for a camera it's not likely a hobby you'll ever pursue as the mounts and glass run much more.
My only concern is whether or not my cat can sit still long enough during those multiple exposures...
The greater the likelihood a comment will make you look stupid or foolish, the more you're going to dislike comments.
showmeyourpics: I've been photographing for 50 years now (what?! I started when I was VERY young!). I recognize all these items and still own most of them. I remember with great fondness the nights in the darkroom developing/printing b&w and then Cibachrome. I also used to produce double-projector, fade in/out slide presentations with synchronized music and voice. I began playing with digital cameras in 2000 and converted completely in 2004. All the good memories and love for film are still there. I gave it up because, as a fine art photographer, the quality of my prints is my main priority. I have seen Canon comparison color prints of the same subject done state-of-the-art on film and in digital and the difference is significant in favor of digital (processing power and personal interpretation freedom are awesome). I also love the choice of lovely inkjet substrates including canvas which I can frame without glass (I still do all by myself from shooting to processing, printing and framing). Just me.
I too still have a functioning dual projector set-up (unused for a looong time so maybe I should say "was functioning when last boxed up". Then again, I still have a dichro darkroom in boxes sans sinks and chemistry. I got started in the 70s and don't feel that old, but it looks like we're dinosaurs. I've held on to all my film gear for the most part and it is my wife who forced me into digital. While I am nostalgic, and some looks are inherent to film and tastes are subjective, I agree the quality of prints from my iPF8300 are superior. Anyway, I haven't logged in for a long time but your post really brought me back. ThanksP.S., I must admit I missed #11 :(
The places in Africa where trophy animals are in the most stable numbers are where they're legally hunted. It seems the profit motive in an impoverished country motivates the stewardship of hunted animals. Where hunting is banned their is no incentive to protect the animals and poachers are decimating their numbers -- sometimes to extinction levels. Of course, many Left leaning people are more interested in how a position makes them feel about themselves rather than results. So they'll bash Nikon and big-game hunting -- regardless of whether or not that position actually helps preserve the animals they claim to love.