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...
They dropped one on the floor and smashed it, but that information has been classified until 2040 so keep it to yourself.
Very interesting is quite the understatement!
One thing to note though is, as you'll see if you look at the comments on YouTube, the proposed design will actually be in the 20 to 30 centimetre range.
JacobSR: Beautiful scene. I was wondering if you use artificial lighting, the rocks and the grass in the foreground are nicely exposed.
I'm afraid that argument is no good, since many people consider 500px to the the epitome of over-processed!
That said, I rather like this shot myself. Whether it involved a lot of post or not, a typical unprocessed alternative (nicely exposed sun and shadows everywhere else) isn't exactly 'natural' when you consider what the eye sees.
If this one isn't to your taste I'm sure there are plenty of others available for your viewing pleasure on teh internets.
WASBA: Please take 'SR' Logo off :D. Small 1.7 sensor is brilliant idea but Pentax should make it much smaller than this. If not. please use bigger sensor. I like Ricoh GR series and Pentax K-5 Series but not sure about this Q series so far. Idea itself is not bad but I still felt something missing... :(
SR stands for Shake Reduction I believe.
CameraLabTester: The last great appearance of Pentax was in Michael Frank's "Popsicle Toes".
These days, folks who knew the brand of long ago still use them, and with their next generation of siblings who were influenced by family preferences.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. I bought my K5 last year based on the reviews on this site. They just seemed to be offering the best camera for the money, I wasn't going by the brand at all.
Where is it, Holland?!
I had one of these but it broke :(
Be careful with it!
Oh, fantastic photo too btw, great imagination.
I wonder how many tries it took to get the perfect 'sloshing' motion with no spillage?!
Klein isn't dead. The wording of this article makes it seem so. Unfortunate."Klein was one of the most..." and so on. He's still alive and apparently still making images. Please correct the article to reflect this fact.