webrunner5: At the entry price, I bet they will sell to about 1% of all the people on DPR. I give them B for the effort, but at that price they are going to sell less and less of those kind of cameras in this day and age than in the past.
That kind of money is just not happening in this time-frame anymore. If you need it you need it, but everyone, including me, would want one, but could never justify the cost. Divorce Court would be in your future LoL. So the cost would be even HIGHER.
Sorry but you're exaggerating to make your argument look better. 1800 is not common, it could have been a very beaten up model that has broken bits.
I clicked randomly in the pic and it looks like even the older Canon is better than the Sigma, except in the top left quadrant.
Copy variation you say?
The new Canon looks to be a clear winner.
RPJG: Question from a dummy: are these really just meant for video, or can they usefully/sensibly be used instead of a flash?
LED's don't produce red eye like direct flash does.
You're welcome. haha
noflashplease: $500? Really? Why not just buy a Shanny or Yongnuo for around $100? These days, I even see professionals using Yongnuo speedlights.
YMMV. The YN560 i had were scrap in two years despite little cosmetic wear and no accidents. Buttons and build quality issue.
My SB800's may be cracking and leaving bits around due to abuse and accidents like a dip into an aquarium and coffee spilled onto it but they're still firing after more than 5 years.
Love them but they really look fugly now. LOL
2200 isn't 1800. Just saying.
ThePhilips: ... but still not even a tiltable screen.
Press photog may find the D500 better suited. Smaller lighter, tilting screen and much cheaper. At least the editors would see the economic sense. D5 vs D500.
Yep and it's a beast I don't see myself pushing, so can't justify the purchase as well.200 frame 14 bit+ jpg raw buffer is insane! 50 is plenty for me.
Would love the see a DF 2 version though. Get the D5 sensor with better AF at around 2500 street price. hmm
abe4652: If a manufacturer can drop a price by 40% for a camera like this, it shows how overp[riced it was to begin with.
1999 is too low even for body only. Realistically around 4000.
It's still MF and better than FX. FX are already in the 2000 range.
Silmarion: 50K images in 1 year and not a single one that struck him. Well, he surely does something wrong then. Just from my last trip I got at least dozen that struck me. And BTW I wasn't even shooting staged scenes like this Von guy. I guess to someone photography is a competition rather than a hobby.
Indeed, to each his own and bashing something you don't like a past time. :)
I like most kinds of works, least is the over processed digital darkroom stuff but the fact that he has taken his photography to encompass art/styling direction is impressive.
I really like the bokeh, front and back, smooth performer and looks tack sharp.
Inspiring work. Looking to the stars and the vastness of space with awe at how tiny we are in the scheme of things.
Yet the comments below we see we argue over really facedesk stuff.
quiquae: Your composition needs work--that nebula would look nicer if you zoom with your feet a bit more. And way, way too much postprocessing. This Hubble camera is old technology; you really should be using (insert camera here) for higher dynamic range and IBIS!
Did I hit all the buzzwords?
hahaha- you guys are silly
NCB: Wow!!! Nikon has a large chunk of the high end professional market (Canon has the other large chunk). Nikon keeps those customers informed of where it's heading, with a simple basic announcement. Makes sense. What else do you expect?
And cyber-space gets clogged with hysterical claims of the end for Nikon. You wish. How sad can some people get?
Till something better comes along. It always does. Needs change.
Don Sata: Maybe they should announce a 50mp sensor that has noise even at base ISO to please everyone.
I sense... sarcasm. dripping
2eyesee: Weird decision. My experience has been that it takes no more time to edit a RAW file than it does a JPEG.
it does take longer to edit raw because you have so many more options to edit. larger files, uploading to the server etc.
whereas jpegs sooc is it. cropping can be done by the editor in whatever page layout program.
lemonadedrinker: What is all the nonsense with the name across the image? Who cares who took them; they're beautiful pictures ruined with the distraction of the name thing at the bottom-saying to all of us Look at me,I'm as important as the whale.Eugene Smith never put his name on a picture. Nor did Edward Steichen. Nor any other genius of the arcane art of photography.
If they don't know how to sell their work then they should not be in the business of photography.
People who want to buy your work will pay for it.
People who want to copy or borrow or composite an idea may borrow it as there are creative commons laws for it and permissible.
Ethics? You never got any software you tried but never paid for? You never copied anyone?Please don't preach ethics.
I have seen this discussion argued to the end when Nazi's get mentioned and the discussion is over. That's why I thought you guys are just plain... naive & ignorant. Yes grow up or at least try not to remove all doubt.
Gosh, I feel like I'm talking to dungus. look it up.anybody with a little skill in photoshop can steal it.
you sound extremely naive to think otherwise. just dont put up any hi res stuff if you care so much about protecting your work.better still don't put anything up.
google, pinterest, instagram, facebook, flickr, deviant art etc- they're all gonna be places you're going to play the game of gaining fame or letting people steal your pic/idea.
i know what the other naive fella is trying to say about microstock as well. we do use microstock, but that only if it's for signages and commercial uses and getting in the hi res for the actual printout/media.
Gionni Dorelli: if you use lightroom CC you do not need these HDR softwares anymore.I have Photomatix and Nik HDR software packages and have not touched them since the last version of LR CC came out.
"not gaudy enough" says it all.
Different strokes for different folks. I prefer realistic but I have a weakness for artistic bokeh.
I'm sorry, I prefer not to pay for something that's already on google. It's a third world thing. Wait- we didn't invent google.
As for comenting 2 months later. I just bothered to reply because I'm free to do it now.
You actually sound very naive because it doesn't sound like you have done any quick presentations to any client that required some montaging photofit to describe your idea.
Having a few photographer's names on a photofit montage would look like you are very professional photo retoucher and give maximum confidence to yourboss/ client. [sarcasm font]
Sounds like you need to get that stick out.