chj: Sorry, but this is similar to photographers who focus on shooting graffiti. The architects and graffiti artists may deserve praise, but unless you are really adding something more to it in your photo, it's not your art. In these photos, I don't see the photographer adding enough to call it his own.
I think that applies to the vast bulk of photography. Photography by it's nature is capturing what's already in existence. I think most of the featured photographs are excellent, and that the photographer can claim that they are their vision though not their creation.
Very nice, I like 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
It's certainly a striking image. If I'd been lucky enough to have captured it, and yes a HUGE chunk of photography is luck, I'd also have gone for the apocalyptic effect, but I'd have brightened the shadows on the storm side a bit more. Hardly a criticism though. I understand it's not everyone's cup-of-tea, but I think some of the negative comments are a bit much.
kodakrome: Cameras keep getting better...and the complaints keep getting louder.Someday someone will make a perfect camera, and everyone in the world will complain about it.
Aint that the truth!
Darren: Cheers, other than a tiny amount of perspective correction there's no post processing, no extra contrast or saturation etc., there was no need, and it's RAW not a JPEG. That's the look you get on a nice calm clear night with a slow shutter. I'd have expected the same look from slide film, which I wouldn't have post-processed at all!
petit58: Thanks, though I didn't know the bridge had soul : )
armandino: Question to Mirrorless experts:I recently considered to add to my cameras collection a mirrorless but I could not find out how you can keep your lens wide open while setting a small diaphragm. In other words, when I work in studio, I do not want to preview the exposure but set the exposure for the flashes, to say f11 while having a bright image on the screen with the modelling lights. Can all mirrorless do that? which ones do? Thanx!
I've wondered the same thing. Working with studio flashes is perhaps the main reason I still have a Canon kit in addition to my M43 gear. With mirror less, shooting products you can increase the ISO to see what you're doing and set the focus, then decrease it for the shot. It certainly wouldn't work for people though! With M43 you don't need the power so perhaps continuous lighting of some kind is better suited, but for a FF mirrorless it's another matter. If someone has a way around I'd love to hear.
50MP is more than I need, but it would come in handy now and then. If the DR is the same as my 6D (or EM5) I'd be happy. If I need to push an image more than they can take it usually isn't worth saving. ISO6400 is fine too, I seldom go beyond 1600. I have no interest in video. 5FPS is fine too, if shooting fast the buffer is more important, I wonder what that's like especially in the crop modes. I also wonder how my older lenses (17-40 etc.) would get on with it. As for all this use a tripod talk, I remember the same thing being said about the 1DsII! Finally the price, in typical Canon fashion it's a bit steep at launch, so it will be a few years before I'll take the plunge, and who knows what will have happened in the industry by then!
The people who are pointing out the progression from Canon 10D - 20D - 5D certainly have a point! I followed a similar path myself. As far as I recall EF-S lenses only appeared with the 20D and there was only the poor original 18-55 and a 60mm macro. However in today's context with sensors at the level they are now and M43 / APS-C systems having pretty comprehensive lens line-ups I tend to agree with the article.
I like the look of this, but not until the price comes down in.
We knew this one was in the pipeline for some time so the main things to look at today are price and weight. IQ will come later, and I expect it to be top-notch. The price is what I was expecting, so no complaints there. At 880g it weighs more than I was hoping for, so I'm on the fence about it. My E-m5/grip with this would be almost as heavy as my 6D/70-200f4IS. I know the merits of each and don't want to start another debate, but for me the main reason to use M43 is to save on weight, so I think I may go for the panasonic 35-100 f2.8 instead.
The faux leather around the pentaprism area and on the dial on the front looks horrid, especially on the silver model. Otherwise I think it looks ok, if a bit on the chunky side.
I'm not fond of the labels nor the long-winded nature of the piece, but I agree with the gist of it. It used to be easier to choose when there was less choose from.
Not exactly a guarantee is it?
shademaster: Who would choose this over OM-D???
The silver one kind of is, It was the I'd decided on, until I saw it close up
iaredatsun: I'm not clear whether a user has to keep updating* their software.
If you dont want to update what happens to your subscription. Will I end up paying more for the software after X years of use than if I had paid for it outright at the start?
*I generally hate updates as they rarely add anything useful and sometimes make interfaces worse (CS6, adobe!).
I don't give a monkey's about clouds. Take 'em or leave 'em.
As it stands, you only upgrade when you want to. Though not upgrading defeats the purpose of the subscription.
I don't have to always have the latest versions in my line of work. But, if I fall too far behind it eventually catches me out. Not being able to open files supplied to me becomes an issue. This has been the case for the past 20+ years. I've gone from illustrator 3 to 6 to 8 to 10 to CS3 to CS6.
The most recent of which is as part of the cloud subscription. As others have mentioned the term cloud is misleading. You download the software and use it as before. The software isn't on the cloud nor do you have to save your files there. My internet is poor, so if it ever goes that way, I'll be in trouble.
So, as I upgrade every 2 or 3 versions anyway, it makes sense to me. I like paying as I go rather than shelling out the lot at once. Some are saying that they have us by the 'you know whats' but haven't they always? some of us anyhow, that's my point.
To sum up, I like the creative 'cloud' as it is now, but I'm a little uneasy about what lays ahead.
Had this been available 18 months ago, I probably would have got one and not gone the M43 route (for a travel-light system). I'm not that bothered about the size, the weight is key for me. That being said, to take advantage of the light weight, I'd still have to leave my bigger Canon lenses at home, so for that purpose it may as well be a different system. Actually if Canon had a an EF-S prime in the region of 21mm that weighed under 200g, I'd have bought a 550D back then. I still think this will sell well though.
Function over form every time, though form isn't unimportant to me.