This one's been pushed quite considerably don't forget. The unedited version is quite clean.
ThatCamFan: It screams internal dust magnet.
Ummm, it's sealed, as are the majority of Pentax DSLRs.
afterswish1: In what way is the pricing on these and similar cameras silly? What other full frame cameras are significantly cheaper?
The msrp for the 6D and the 610 is both roughly 2k, and those are considered 'entry level' full frame bodies. These new models, based on the (msrp 3499) 5DIII body offer 50 megapixels as opposed to 20 or 24.
I still fail to see the huge bargain FF camera that makes Canon's pricing look silly or outrageous. Perhaps you got them confused with Leica?
In what way is the pricing on these and similar cameras silly? What other full frame cameras are significantly cheaper?
chj: To Sony (and all camera manufacturers)
Put a damn touchscreen on your cameras. It is by far the best way to choose a focus point. Anyone that says otherwise has simply not used one and is exalting their "skill" in getting around their camera's limitations. Technology trumps skill. You can't get faster, more reliable autofocus than my GM1 (unless you have another Panasonic). Don't tell me about workarounds. The GM1 nails focus more often.
OK, manual focus can get tighter focus on a stationary subject that's willing to wait for you to set up. But with that kind of time, ANY camera can get tight focus.
So stop listening to photo geeks that equate touchscreens with bad phone photos. On a GOOD camera, a touchscreen is an immensely powerful tool that has more impact on photos than pixel peeping details.
Feedback from DPR photo geeks is 0.005% of the market. The other 99.095% are using touchscreen phones. The camera market is shrinking, because you are listening to the wrong market.
What if you prefer to use the viewfinder?
I'm intrigued! Care to provide a little more info?
marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
The lines make sense to me and don't seem pretentious at all or merely to fill in space in the article. Perhaps the photographer couldn't have exactly articulated those things in the moment (or perhaps he could!), but it may well explain the thinking behind the original composition in the wild - and the final and presumably carefully considered cropping at home - fairly accurately.
Finally I also think it's a great image, thanks for the insights offered.
audiobomber: You can't tell IQ or build quality from a photo. Ricoh says this lens is intended for people who want higher IQ than a kit lens. It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms.
The DA 18-135mm feels like a pro lens; it is tight, no creep, no rattles or looseness anywhere. It makes a Tamron superzoom feel like junk. I expect the 16-85mm will be the same build, and hopefully IQ will match my 16-45mm. If so, I'll sell the others and get this.
One review says the 18-135 is crap? Well, case closed then. Even though if you look through their review of the 18-55 they seemed to be fairly happy with the optics, which of course perform significantly worse than the 18-135...
Back to this 16-85 lens I'm a little surprised by the RRP to be honest, regardless of how the tests turn out.
shutterbud: This is image drags your eye, but upon closer/longer examination there seems something off about it. I don't know what. Perhaps it is the unreality of the scene? That is its power but also its weakness, as if the photographer decided that what was in front of him wasn't interesting enought to shoot 'as is' and so had to manipulate both the frame and the viewer.
Liking the image isn't compulsory, but you're obviously going to be in the minority there. He did get first place for a reason, and people coming to this page may well have been attracted by that specific photo.
FWIW, the 'unreality' of the image is what caught my attention. Some of that is as was mentioned the fish eye, but I don't see it as a negative. Mundane or ordinary are not adjectives I'd like applied to my own work, and this photo certainly doesn't fall into that category.
forpetessake: The images are soft, and noisy, and lacking dynamic range ... and still they are pretty good for such a tiny sensor.
The dynamic range doesn't look too shabby in the shot directly into the sun (mountain on the right hand side). There's another one with a girl indoors sitting on the sofa to the left of the frame behind some blinds - the shadows aren't blocked up and the patches of sunlight don't appear blown.
Overall, it doesn't appear lacking to me regardless of sensor size.
Phathom: A fixed lens compact seems quite odd to me.
In my opinion the concept of this compact is image quality, followed by convenience.
Thinking about it though the fixed lens is not that strange, what about the Fuji x100 or the Ricoh GR?
This story has an error on the main page entry: "...since even more Aperture will be defecting..."
It seems to be missing 'users'.
'flagshop AZ65' (page 5)
Smiling allegedly uses fewer muscles than frowning (or looking dead bored?!), or something like that. Perhaps someone should have mentioned that to these folks before the shoot!
Then again, maybe sitting stock still for 30 minutes put them in a bad mood. I have to say though, this is probably quite interesting for dermatologists, for myself not so much. Each to their own.
fuxicek: back in film days I used compact minolta http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Freedom-Zoom-150-camera/dp/B0000AUFK7.. I wonder, how did they squeeze the full frame into tiny body with tiny lens and why its not possible with digital?
Does it have an LCD screen covering most of the rear surface of the camera? Is a digital camera's sensor, including power and data connections, as thin as a piece of film?
Is the lens on the Minolta interchangeable? The answer to the mystery is but a few seconds thought away ;)
Fantastic, so much detail there.
I like it, and can't understand all the hate.
Now I've seen the original too though I can't tell which one I prefer...