alexzn: For a fine sample of soviet war pictures see:http://baltermants.com/#/
BTW, Khaldei's photo was later retouched to remove one of two watches the soldier wore on his hands (evidence of looting which was widespread amend the victorious Red Army soldiers.
I just have to laugh about some of the NKVD posts... Every Russian family probably has some items that were war "trophies". The higher you were int eh army, the more you were able to loot. Top generals sent stuff home by railroad cars, soldiers took stuff back in suitcases. It was war and long and bloody war, so no wonder it had many ugly sides. I'd say it was by far not the ugliest side of that war...
alexzn: this is one of the iconic images of the WWII. It may not be so popular in the West but it is rather well known in Russia. Depite all the poor taste sniping on DPR this is a real piece of history. Khaldei, Baltermantz and other Soviet war photographers left behind a treasure trove of powerful images documenting a titanic event of the 20th century. Have some respect (maybe a hopeless cause at DPR forums these days).
Have you ever met anyone on an internet forum who willingly asked to be lectured? I have not. So, fine, my comments were not directed at you, but if you look at this thread, there are plenty of examples of sniping, trolling, the ever-present references to Leicas being too expensive, you name it. I think I have a full right to comment on that as well. Now lets go back to the subject of war photography, much more interesting.
For a fine sample of soviet war pictures see:http://baltermants.com/#/
this is one of the iconic images of the WWII. It may not be so popular in the West but it is rather well known in Russia. Depite all the poor taste sniping on DPR this is a real piece of history. Khaldei, Baltermantz and other Soviet war photographers left behind a treasure trove of powerful images documenting a titanic event of the 20th century. Have some respect (maybe a hopeless cause at DPR forums these days).
Great, thanks for posting
Black Box: Oh, for crying out loud! Buy her a bowl of rocky road ice-cream and put on Ray Charles' "Crying time". But spare us another "unusual approach to children photography".
Mcshan- what have you done lately that compares to these photos?
This is a non issue. People who go through the trouble of removing the watermarks will never buy the pictures anyway. We can debate why they seem to be entitled to get images produced with thousands of dollars worth of gear for free but that's beside the point. These people are just not the market for pro photography pictures. Trying to prosecute this is futile and stupid, it reminds me of record companies trying to prosecute people for copying CDs. Jobs invented the iTunes Store and made it a lot easier to buy music for an acceptable price than to steal it. Just face it- digital photography and cell phones made pictures very cheap. So it you expect people pay $$$ for your photos, think again, maybe special cases like weddings, but event photography is dead, unless people find ways to drop the price or find an alternative revenue source.
Pat Cullinan Jr: EVF? Sold! Hope it doesn't fall off, though.
If the first iteration had offered an EVF, it would've been reasonably exciting. Can't help feeling that the III is mildly anticlimactic. Did someone say boring? With 9 digicams in the sock drawer, I'm jaded. I'm torn -- should I buy the III, or should I enter a monastery in the Egyptian desert?
Desert. Go for it....
itchhh: I'm not sure the word "stunning" fits for these images in 2014. Maybe 10 years ago, but not today. With the rapid improvements in technology and more people with camera's, stunning shots are harder to come by than they once were. Kuddos to each of the photographers and their shots, its still an honor to be chosen.
Show me your work that is better, them you can harp on how those pictures are not stunning. Now go back to over-processing your garden flower shots taken by your expensive camera.
Wow, impressive for sure.
pwmoree: How to shoot RAW and at the same time send small jpegs to your tablet or PC I have never been able to find out. If you shoot large jpegs the transmission is rather slow. I liked the X2-pro but because of the above almost never use it.
The setting allow you to transfer only the JPEG files and RAW files will remain on the card. What you are really looting with EyeFi setup is the ability to shoot full-size JPEGs (assuming you want to transfer only the small size JPEGs). Presumably you can re-process the full size JPEGs either on a computer or if you like your built-in conversion, you can do it on the camera (clunky).
Lee Jay: "If you're looking for a Wi-Fi card that's simple to setup and blasts images off into cyberspace in a matter of seconds..."
Unless you are a real-time photo-journalist, there's no good reason to do this, and it's generally a bad idea for multiple reasons.
Oh, the breathtaking selfishness of the DPR forums.... OK, Lee Jay, you are a bit of a pedant and a privacy freak. Fine with me, no worries, no offense. But why, or why do you assume that everyone is like you? Also, have you ever heard about Snapseed? Gives you a fine ability to post-process an image right on your phone. Like it or not, the world around you has moved on. People snap photos with their cell phone and share them online. The ability to share better quality photos is a positive development.
A useless feature if I ever saw one...
Tamrac still does not get how a discreet camera bag should look like...
jimkh: I don't understand this vague putdown of the RX100 and the RX100II with the "unengaging experience" tag. While this is obviously a very personal reaction by the reviewer it cries out for a more detailed explanation. What is "unengaging" and how do other cameras reflect engagement?
I agree. If you are after engaging shooting experience you will use a bigger camera. Rx100 is all about fitting in the pocket and bringing back the best image. The only downside is the price. Knocking it because the wheel does not click is malarkey. Rx100 crushed it's class when it was released. It still crushes every other camera in the segment. Rx100II is supposedly even better.
Hugo808: I got as far as number 7 before deciding that if I'd taken them they would have gone into the bin and never been seen by anyone!
Pixel-peep much? What do you not understand about history and the value of candid pictures taken by someone who probably was close to the band. Go back to taking photos of your cats...
Well, if the image is correct, the achilles heel of this camera will be the bulbous lens front element. It will get scratched in no time and bye bye clean videos. It looks like a really questionable design decision. I don;t like GoPro, but at least there you don't have to worry about scratches.
To the commenters: what have you shot late;y? Give me a break, the comments on the dpreview are asinine... when was the last time you were sent out on the streets with a camera and produced a bunch of masterpieces? Those photos do the intended job perfectly well. Whoever shot them did a good job. Some aspects of the sensor are amazing, some are not so. Eagerly waiting for the full review...
oh... the pouch...
A consumer video camera done right. I bet this baby is capable is some serious high quality video shooting that would challenge the presumed consumer video king GH3. And I bet it can shoot decent photos too. If I had to shoot videos for a website, a blog, or a school newsletter, that would have been a near perfect option. As stupid as super zooms are, people are carrying them, and this one is probably as good as they come. The ony question is the price, and unlike the specs or hardware it's has room to change.