xpanded: Please stop calling interpreters for translators. They require vastly different skills.
I just thought of a better analogy: this is like referring to a guy shooting video as a "photographer" or a guy shooting stills as a "cameraman." Sure, it's all imaging in the end. But if you want to shoot a video, you may have a difficult time accomplishing that by going out and hiring a freelance photographer who doesn't do video. Same thing applies to translators and interpreters. If you need an interpreter, looking up translators in the yellow pages would be a bad strategy to find one, although you may luck upon an individual who does both.
Hi Barney, if there was a joke in what you wrote, it went over my head. A translator works with written language exclusively. An interpreter works with spoken language. Exclusively. Some professionals in these fields do offer both types of services, but then they also refer to themselves as both transltors and interpreters. If there was a person sitting next to you speaking English with you and speaking Japanese to the camera guys, then that person was an interpreter, not a translator. It's like if I referred to you as a stenographer because well you write things down, don't you?
Barney, what xpanded meant is that you used an interpreter, but incorrectly refer to that person in your report as a "translator." I am a professional translator (I translate written language) and a writer, but I am an awful interpreter (I only did it once in an informal context and was terrible at it.) I can confirm that these are indeed completely different skills and completely separate professions and you've apparently mixed them up.
venancio: I look for revelations in each interview, whether there is that "you chose us, we didn't choose you, deal with it" attitude, or that transparent concern that displays affinity to customers. If the representative can't do but mouth corporate talk, at least the first attitude immediately displays itself so it gives you that period of adjustment or time to think about alternatives. The future is important, so I want to know where they're taking me. Don't want someone whose vulnerable to the Nokia syndrome, someone who does not believe that change is coming, or not prepared to respond to the change, even if it is dictated by consumers' needs and not by company vision/profit statements.
I understand that you would like confirmation that there will be new and interesting products for you in the future. The problem is that each of the interviewed companies is active in a number of different segments, any one of which could view a proclamation of focus in one of the others as its own death knell, rightly or wrongly. At the same time, coming out and saying 'we are going to have a very strong focus on everything' is exactly the kind of meaningless blather lacking any shred of credibility you (and I) appear to abhor. There literally is no pleasing everyone, and perhaps no pleasing you in this context!
Mazhe: So, no interview with Pentax representatives? Too bad, I would have liked a Q/A session in the same vein of the others...
I'm kindof glad they didn't. Pentax has a lot of explaining to do, but would likely refuse to answer the most pressing questions. It would have been an exercise in frustration for all involved.
Try to put yourself in their shoes. Regardless of what they say, it will aggravate someone. There are so many honest and forthright things they might wish to say but can't. Remember, this is not a heart-to-heart in a private setting, their competitors are also listening carefully as well.
Samuel Dilworth: I can’t predict the future, but I can tell you a universal problem with today’s cameras: they are pointlessly complex. I had great hopes the Df would offer another way, but if anything it’s worse.
The first company to make a genuinely simple, enthusiast-orientated, high-quality, fairly priced camera will have to beat people off its doorstep. Or me, at any rate.
I hugely enjoyed this series of interviews, but I was disappointed that the need for simplicity and reversal of feature bloat – which seem very urgent problems to me in 2014 – were not talked about by DPReview or the manufacturers.
Hi Samuel,I suggest you take a close look at the latest Fuji, the X-T1. It has all the photographic settings you need as physical controls on the top plate and on the aperture dial. I can't think of anything simpler than that.Matt
The strategy Olympus assumes the market leaders are following makes perfect sense according to conventional marketing theory (see Ries & Trout). The leader won't respond to a new development until they have to, at which they will release a product to "cover" the threat and take any increase in market share the new technology affords for themselves. This makes life very difficult for competitors and is one example of how certain constellations of free markets can actually stifle innovation. Then there is also the fact that DSLRs are a very mature market transitioning into decline. Here the accepted strategy is to harvest returns as long as possible without investing considerable resources. When those returns dry up, you divest. I'm seeing echoes of these principles in current developments in the DSLR and ILC markets.
DrugaRunda: How much larger is this combo comparing to RX1 as the price is about the same for A7r + this 35mm.
Too bad this 35 isn't also f/2 like the RX1. It's about the same size lens housing, you'd think they could have given people the extra stop at this price.
Razor-sharp wide open. Wow.
Scrozzy: Interesting to see he thinks Canikon making inferior mirrorless is damaging the credibility of the market. Perhaps it's a deliberate ploy to protect their DSLR sales. Maybe they're not as dim witted as people think.
Canon and Nikon will wait until the segment is popular enough to warrant their development resources and then dominate it, crushing competitors who have taken all the risks and shown them what works best and sells. It's the classic market leader strategy, and it is very difficult to beat.
I signed up for the preview. Awful lot of pictures of cats in there for an agency attempting to sell images. Hint: people aren't interested in spending the big bucks on pictures of pets doing what pets do. Unless maybe, and this is a very tentative maybe, it's their own pet and the image is truly extraordinary. Sure some of the other images there are great, but what's up with all the felines? Hard to take them seriously with curating like that.
Rod McD: Interesting that there's no 'reference' product for an FF camera - DSLR or mirror-less. Pentax execs have stated since the Ricoh takeover that the company is considering FF development and there has been endless speculation about the concept since. I'm not sure what we can deduce from this........ A lot of people have been hoping that 2014 would be the year.......
And then at Photokina, it will be next "definitely next Photokina". At least, that's how the last 8 years have been.
digiart: All photos on the first page of the gallery are taken @ ISO 400 or higher. The nighttime photos I can understand why, but why use noisier ISO 400 and high shutter speed on so many photos in daytime when you are using a fast lens?
OK, I see that. But when you turn extended dynamic range on, you lose some contrast by definition. Some scenes may indeed benefit, but others (with less range) will suffer low contrast. That's not a problem if you shoot raw like I do, because you can always ad back contrast in post (at the price of slightly more noise). But with jpeg, I'd default to off and only use it when absolutely necessary. Should give you better results straight out of the camera.
Just a Photographer: Too bad these 'real world' samples were made by a bad photographer.With these pictures shown you can't judge the camera - what a missed chance.
Barney: when it's a camera, what I'm looking for in the samples galleries are noise @ base and high iso, dynamic range, color response mainly. So I'm going to want to see images from the entire ISO range basically to get an idea of what the sensor can do. You missed base ISO here which was a disappointment for me. Also the extended dynamic range mode may protect highlights, but it also alters the tone curves of the images and gives them a completely different look. I think it's very important to show people what the images look like with this feature *off*. As for those requiring art, go look at a Salgado and leave these poor journos alone, I say. Barney's technique was sufficient to produce sharp enough images to judge the camera's resolving power and the scenes he chose let us know how the camera renders color, texture, highlights and shadow. That's all we can really expect besides maybe the other things I mentioned above (base ISO).
Cane: DPR should just suspend all sample galleries due to the fact that human beings suck.
I think he means human beings suck because we the forum members complain so nastily about their galleries. It's a sucky thing to do, especially the way we do it.
I was about to complain about the ISO 400 (wh.. what? why?) because I always look at a blue sky at base ISO to determine low-iso noise characteristics. Although it would still be very nice to see some base iso shots and I am surely not the only one (it's an omission if you want these sample galleries to be useful to us), I'm really amazed at the (lack of) noise in the deep blue ISO 400 sky. If base ISO is an improvement, then this camera is great for me at low ISO. Like it even better than my K5. Still, base ISO shots should be mandatory for any sample gallery in addition to high ISO shots. There are only two images in this entire gallery that may have benefitted from the extended ISO, the sewing machine and that bridge/ walkway against the blue sky.
Aww come on, these weren't half bad. As far as showing what the camera does, I think they were quite good. The camera does a really excellent job with highlights, shadows, general exposure, contrast, the works. Barney put it through its paces nicely IMO. No, they're not fine art shots, but those type of photos might not tell us what we want to know about the camera.
KL Matt: The limited dynamic range and low sensitivity of the sensor really hits these food images hard. Food photography is (to me) at least partly about texture, contrast, and detail. When nearly every single scene you photograph has a dynamic range that is pushing the limits of your camera at both ends, it's going to impact your results. Even at these magnifications, I'm missing details in the tardivo, I'm seeing blown highlights in the chanterelles, and I'm sorry but I'm not getting any sense of mis en place or a pristine kitchen from the one people shot at all -- the details that would actually tell that story are lost to blown highlights and blur. The photographer sees that story in the shot because she was there. Sure these are fun and interesting images to view anyway. But any number of photographic devices not much larger than an iphone, some of them decades older, could have been a superior tool to tell these stories.
Publications will do as they please. As for me, I will continue to enjoy those that publish photography of a much, much higher quality.
Kindof like trying to julienne a bell pepper with a pocket knife. Sure, you can do it. But what serious cook would ever want to?