h2k: The headline is about the new lens's price, but then in the teaser text you don't tell the price, the reader has to click onto the link.
I understand that websites want clicks, still i find it a bit funny - announcing a price information, which is a very tiny piece of information (not like a camera test conclusion) and then hiding that information from the introductory text.
Websites make money (pay their employees and continue being websites) only through people clicking on the website. Are you really arguing that this website, or any other, should organize itself in such a way as to minimize the amount of money they generate, and thereby their ability to pay their employees and continue being a website?
Yes, while we're at it, you should tell your local grocery store to stock their produce in the parking lot rather than the store itself, so you don't have to bother going inside or paying for it next time you want an apple.
The complaint is needing to actually click on an article to arrive at the information contained in the article? That is a serious epistemological crisis. Please consider the consequences of your argument. Why should you even have to open your computer to know the price of Voigtlander lenses? Simon Joinson could sleep on the floor next to your bed to whisper details of new product releases into your ear as you wake up each morning.
AngryCorgi: This selfie nonsense is getting out of control. First off, people don't act the same way with legitimate cameras like they do with idiotic cell phones. Second, the average consumer of these products is NOT a 13 year old girl.
Camera industry: knock it off! Your market analysis is lying to you!
Everyone should calm down about the selfie screen. It's just a regular old articulated screen that flips all the way up to face forward. My Sony NEX does the same thing, along with about 40 other cameras. Should they limit the screen to flipping 90 degrees so it can remain a "true" camera?
It's telling and tragic that this photographer survived through years of a deadly, chaotic war, only to be killed carrying ballots to a "free" election.
Shocked and sad to read about this. Thank you for your good and difficult work.
Saffron_Blaze: Killing in God's name. How civilised.
Yes, because the "Great" civilizations have certainly never killed in god's name.
Musicjohn: So when are manufacturers going to design a photo-camera which excells in taking photographs (just as the word PHOTO-camera implements) instead of concentrating on video features? If I want to make superior video images, I'll buy a video camera instead.
Amen to that, EOSHD.
Just a Photographer: Hasselblad CEO Ian Rawcliffe said:"There are growing numbers of very keen and often extremely talented amateur photographers and photo-enthusiasts all over the world that are willing to invest in the kind of high performance capture products that elite professionals enjoy" . .These 'talented' amateurs better choose the A99 instead - Then keep the money in their pockets to buy good Zeiss glass.
Makes more sense then buying this Hassy.
Translation: global income inequality has created a market in which people at the top end buy things simply because they're the most expensive, and selling to them becomes a viable strategy. It's like the art market; the low end dries up, the middle stagnates, and the number of works selling for $75-100 million+ skyrockets.
cpkuntz: Disaster snuff porn is the best of 2013? I understand the journalistic value of such images, but not really the artistic value. To me, this is the most beautiful image captured by humanity in 2013:
First Runner up:
Second runner up:
Time is a news magazine, so their selections are clearly weighted towards photojournalism and global news events. At the same time, you wouldn't expect Scientific American to choose war images for a best-of series. I am a huge fan of scientific images as well, but I also feel that photographing war zones and conflicts is incredibly important, especially when photographers can present them in such a way that both humanizes the events and allows a point of entry and identification for the viewer.
sebastian huvenaars: Saturn looks dim/tiny from earth because we're looking at it through the relatively dense filter of the atmosphere, which filters and diffuses its light. If you were able to look from outside the atmosphere, it would be much brighter and clearer.
One of my personal favorite images of the year isn't even a photograph: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler-candidates-lined-up-4_0_2.jpg?itok=Um1Tna6h
Circular Lenses and Rectangular Photoshttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34346469
LaFonte: good thing: - sharp fonts and sharp images, crisp displaybad thing: now it takes twice as much power and the battery also has to be nearly twice larger to keep with last year MBP - and nothing inside is now user replaceable or upgradeable, everything is soldered.
I see this retina craziness really counterproductive with the much increased energy consumption.. The ipad 2 has 25w/h battery for 10 hr run, the ipad 3 needed 45w/h battery to drive the power hungry retina so it can still get 10 hours. Now an ipad 3 with non retina display would easily run 18 hours. If I have choice I would choose 18hr run time over retina display any time.
Same for MBP, yes retina is nice to look at but now we need to run the devices with twice as much power!
Or you could have a Kindle with 380 hours of battery life! I'm not sure I understand your complaint. There are plenty of tablets out there with lesser screens and longer battery life. If that's what's important to you, you're more than covered. For those of us that want high performance field photo/video monitoring and editing applications, we're covered too! Everyone wins when you have a choice.
That is an amazing photo/story. I especially love how calm everything else looks in comparison to the waterspout.
Softness? Come on now. Just how deeply do you want to see into his pores? Viewing a 21MP image at full resolution is like looking at a wall-size print from a few inches away. If you need more detail than this camera is producing, don't plan on using a compact.
I'm a Canon/Olympus shooter but this Sony looks to be the compact/fixed focus camera to beat at the moment.
Does anyone have trouble pressing the shutter button in portrait mode? I wasn't aware this was a problem requiring a solution.