Had to have a chuckle, seeing "real world" and "fashion" in the same sentence.
"No touch screen" is actually a point in its favour.
Daft styling (or total lack of it), daft price, totally impractical. Should sell very well.
mauijohn: I got same size like that one on my new laptop. Camera and etc. bag from Calvin Klien with lots and lots of pokers and compartments for just $35.00 and decent looking than that for men.
Oh, I like "pokers" more.
JohnEwing: I have some nice pearwood out in the workshop, could run up a grip like that for my RX100 in about an hour. Or maybe fumed oak would go better with black...
But you know, I think it looks better without.
"...with that authentic fumed-oak smell of horse-pee".
Great marketing, eh?
And once it was gone I could buy an RX100 III.
I have some nice pearwood out in the workshop, could run up a grip like that for my RX100 in about an hour. Or maybe fumed oak would go better with black...
These enormous prices don't reflect the value of the article, they reflect how little value the people who buy them place on money.
900 quid for that thing? Bloody hell!
HowaboutRAW: There's another softcore aspect to pict #1:
The woman's hands aren't behind her neck as if she's stretching, the hands are clearly placed to imply that they could belong to another person. This is very likely done with purposeful ambiguity.
I'd go so far as to say the hands were made a bit bigger via perspective control in PhotoShop.
I make the very same gesture after a bike-ride when I massage my neck.
Heigh ho. What a way to begin Monday.
Lassoni: uhh.. some painting is suddenly landscape photography?
I have seen a painted picture very similar to n°1. Also from the Highlands, I think.
It takes a few moments for the eye to sink into this and see the forms of the rock, the mist and the grass on the lower slopes. It's a bit like working out a Turner, albeit a bit easier.
I think it's brilliant: it took a great photographer's eye to see that there was a picture there to take, and a good hand to take and render it so well.
"Reached out to" is pathetic. "Contacted" is perfectly adequate: this is a technical site, not a charitable institution.
Hoo-bloody-ray. Damn thing should never have existed - dragged Hassle's rep through the mud.
The "I own/want/had it" questionnaire needs a "wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" option.
Compare this with the very next News item, the first Hassle to go into space. I know which I'd rather have.
But the Hassle should belong to the nation. This belongs in a brothel.
FBoneOne: It is April 1st, isn't it? It's gotta be, just gotta be...
Nope, Halloween. It figures.
If it began with a P rather than a B it'd fit the prospective buyers a bit better.
JohnEwing: Woo hooooo!!!! I must get in a sack of brown coal to power my Weston Hyper IV.
But seriously though, while a hard core will keep at it I think that for most nostalgics initial delight will pall after the first couple of shots, when the pictures fail to appear on the LCD the camera doesn't have. Retro look is great, retro tech maybe not so attractive.
Oh, I like the tech too: I have a couple of IIIs as well, a Nikon F, a couple of Oly OM1s and a bunch of others - my avatar is the taking lens of my Mamiya C220. They are lovely items of equipment and some of them gave excellent service for decades. But for power and flexibility, and above all post-processing, digital kit is hard to beat. I'll probably try Ferrania when/if it finally appears, but I don't expect I'll give up digital because of it.
Mind you, there is a certain Zen side to using film: you need to sink into the picture-taking process until what emerges from the camera is perfect. With digital you can just bang away (within limits) and bank on correcting the boobs in PS.
Woo hooooo!!!! I must get in a sack of brown coal to power my Weston Hyper IV.