Tord S Eriksson: Illustration # 19 is not a helicopter, it's a hexacopter, a variation of a quadrocopter!
These expensive devices do away with a lot of the complexities of helicopters, by having no cyclic control, nor any in flight adjustable propellers. It simply uses finely adjustable power to control heading, altitude and pitch (in this case pitch meaning nose down, or nose up. Much steadier than a helicopter, but can't be scaled up easily! Small ones are agile, big ones fairly slowly moving!
You do bring up an excellent point about insurance. As use goes up, especially in populated areas, the number of accidents involving property, livestock, pets, and people will also go up. What kind of insurance is required to use these professionally and has any engineering on the copters themselves been done to reduce the injury they will cause when they run into things?
Birmingham you say! Up next: Photokina moves to Wolverhampton!
Peter CS: Wish it were weather-sealed! First advanced, weather-sealed APC mirrorless that also has a weather-sealed, ultra-wide zoom get my vote in dollars!
Ziploc and a couple of rubber bands. Done.
I'm pretty tired of Nikon's weird green color cast, I'll tell ya that. And the ugly way that highlights blow out on the human face. But I'm also being forced by clients to shoot video, and I would love to shoot with Fujis starting today but only stills/video camera that has usable autofocus at a reasonable price is the Panasonic G6. So there you have it, everyone needs a little different feature set.
D200_4me: Attention Pixel Peepers: Note that the photo is very high ISO and has plenty of noise in the shadows. Let that be a lesson to you as you endlessly debate who's got the best pixels and therefore can make the best photos. Go out and shoot and enjoy yourself. Don't worry about the noise. Just worry about making a photo that means something to you or someone else. That should be what matters. :-)
You could take this photo with a cellphone or pretty much any camera made in the last 10 years as long as you had a solid tripod and used a remote release.
A beautiful, touching, imaginative photo that looks like what Rembrandt might do if he lived today.
Just out of curiosity, about photo 0966, in what Stygian hole were you shooting that required the use of ISO 9000?
Beautiful and unique. What more can one ask of a camera?
Retzius: Nice work Olympus.
Maybe one of these years Nikon can find the time to come out with a wide angle DX lens. Just one, cuz you know, it is your biggest installed user base. I know you are busy and I know you don't care what the other companies are doing and I know it is hubris for me to bother you with such things. But look, it has been like 10 years. If you designed one lens element a year for the last 10 years you could have had designed one by now.
I really like my 12-24 f/4 Nikkor, it's a great value if you buy one used. But do you mean a wide-angle prime? Because you're right. They should have come out with a 14mm or 16mm f/1.8 years ago. It is inexcusable.
For God's sake throw up a silk! A 30-inch 1/2 stop white diffuser would take care of this, weigh only a few ounces and packs very small. What kind of monster shoots a beautiful woman like this with direct sun across her face and no diffusion. This barney-britton obviously harbors a secret hatred of either this woman or people in general to make a shot like this. I weep for her.
DPRDudes. Never shoot a woman from this angle. Get your camera higher. Women (and men) are precious jewels, they need to be shown at their best or not at all.
rkny: Wow. Is there there another site on the internet with a more pompous, arrogant, rude, and self centered community than dpreview?
These tips are great starters. If you don't know them, use them. If you do know them, STFU.
Sorry pal, you want the beef, you gotta take the b--------t along with it. DPReview is No. 1 in all areas: really helpful impartial reviews, easy-to-follow technical articles, timely news, and disappointing comments.
All real photographers know there's only one camera that's fit for street photography...the 4x5 Speed Graphic. Everything else is for wannabes or neverweres.
The thing that's puzzling to me is that everyone writes about how this camera can use "legacy" glass like all over America the cupboards are bursting with mint condition Leica and Zeiss lenses just waiting to be used. The only "legacy" lenses I see out in the wild are manual focus junk from Sears and Spiratone. Am I missing something?
DaveCS: I'm not a "fanboy" (or "fanboi" as some are want to spell it). I own a Nikon D600 (w/o the oil issue) and a Leica M7 and a Rolleiflex T and the Sony A7. I usually don't get hung up on reviews - I just do my own - if it's good enough for me, then I'm happy with the product/camera/item.
But as a photographer with about 35 years experience I'm behooved to understand how 1/60 shutter speed can result in "blurry photos". I'm more apt to believe this isn't the shutter speed's problem so much as the shaky hands of the photographer in question (or the fact that you're using 1/60 to shoot F1 race cars - people walking 3mph are not blurry @ 1/60s). Mind you, this issue occurs with Auto-ISO, according to the review, on the Sony - a feature which I don't use (either on my Nikon nor on the Sony) - perhaps it's due to my film days and how I was taught photography. I simply set the ISO for my conditions and work accordingly. Conditions change, and I change the ISO. Not difficult really.
They drink a lot of coffee in Seattle, so shaky hands are a definite possibility. The other thing could be that the camera just doesn't have enough mass to absorb the vibrations set up by the shutter at 1/60th.
plasnu: Who's OEM?
It means Original Equipment Manufacturer.
dagobah: DOF doesn't look different for f1.2 vs. f1.4. They also meter the same (200 iso, 1/2500s). Very slight difference in DOF comparing f1.2 to f1.8. Most sensors don't record the light past a certain aperture (due to the physical shape of the electronic pixel well), so that may be about f1.6 or f1.4 for gh3.
Are we sure it's not just a rounding error in the calculation of the f-stop value? I've noticed that most lenses are about a third to a half stop slower than their advertised aperture when tested. IOW most lenses sold as f/2.8 seem to have actual aperture values of 3.2 or 3.3. And most of the camera body tests I've seen indicate that the ISO values aren't calibrated very precisely.
Or are we saying the same thing in different ways?
Coliban: Hm, i wonder why no one of these images are really sharp. I can´t see the the portraits are sharp, even in the original size and even in the pallet transporter i can´t find a really sharp zone. Shutter speed is sufficing. Is it the aperture which can´t provide this sharpness at 1.2 or maybe it is the light which is irritating the AF?
This photo encapsulates everything that's wrong with contemporary photography. The photographer missed a great shot because it looks like he didn't have any interaction with the woman. (How could he? She has headphones on...)Yes, her eyelashes are sharp, but unless it's a mascara ad, that's not really relevant. The focus should be on the iris of her eye.It would have been very simple for scott-everett to say "excuse me m'am. I'm testing a new lens for my website. Would you mind if I shot you?" Then he could have directed her to lift her chin so that she'd have a little bit of light in her eyes rather than have them in shadow. But instead of a beautiful picture of a beautiful woman, he got a beautiful woman with a slightly aggravated/alarmed 'WTF??' look, missed focus, and with the highlights and shadows on her face in all the wrong place because she's looking down. Why? What is wrong with us that we don't talk to each other and ask for the help we need to practice our art?
zoranT: Who keeps buying this bulky, generic, plastic stuff?
All REAL photographers own a Manfrotto Magic arm and use it to attach inexpensive cameras like this to car fenders, airplane wings, trees, horse harnesses, balcony railings, basketball backboards, rope swings over lakes...in short any place you want to get pictures from but don't want to risk an expensive camera. It's also a great camera for throwing up in the air with the self timer activated like that wedding photographer who got famous for it. Send one to a soldier overseas. Push one through the bars of the monkey cage at the zoo (tie a string to it so you can retrieve it later). Hand it to people you're working with to get other angles of your shoot. For heaven's sake people, use your imagination. We are living in a photographer's paradise and all you can do is complain....
Will someone at CES please tape the Nikon seminars and show them here. That would be a huge reader service.