There is a colour photo in Dpreview Challenge "Unusual Natural Formations" called the Ghost - the photo of the Upper Antelope is the same of this $6.5 million B&W
So it is hardly a $6.5 millions - Try $6,500 and see anyone cares to pay for this.
qwertyasdf: Didn't know people actually take pictures with their Leicas...
Possibly more to do with gear heads than "photographer heads"
What an environmentally unfriendly product - what do you do with the water when you finish - tip it out then what, fill it up again and again - a strong fabric net that could be filled with rocks or earth would be far more better and better still you don't have to worry about water leak.
Truly this is too early for April - didn't know April comes in December in Europe. This is the joke that keeps on giving.
May be the prize should be an all expense paid photographic weekend away - equipment supplied. Who really wants to be lumped with an uninsured expensive $50,000 camera for a whole month - you'd be too scare to take it out or even leave it unattended in your house or car.
proudfather: Ha they probably don't even include a lens. You have to pay for that.
And no included copyright data on your image?
What the world's best "scam" is made of.
Sure - as long as it were taken with a Phase One ! beside what would I do with that camera - taking picture of my cat ?
straylightrun: What about men? This is sexist.
Just don't forget to wear breast pack.Seriously there are backpacks made specially for women backpacker - I know because I was out shopping one for my high school daughter a few years ago
UncleLary: What, not text review?
Do not have the time, nor the patience for the video. Might be useful as a conclusive detail after analysis.
But not at first.
In my office we bill by the hour and every moment has value. And economically, we are the target audience for a camera like this ( or the D810 too ).
Nobody on our staff of 4,500 professionals wanted to view it either.
I only write this so that maybe you guys will go back the written reviews, with the video as augmentation. We like your tone. Approachable. Low key. Reasonable accurate-a rare thing in today's online world. We would like to continue to use DP for info. But life is short, and honestly, to many competitors that do give us the aforementioned format.
Hopefully, we will see the text back.
Exaggerate much - you have full control of your 4,500 staff private time ? what are you an Army ?
Me and my D800+24-120+SB600
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
I don't know what is like Metz products today but my Metz of 38 years ago still feels solid and going strong. They told me don't expect a long service life from flash because of the degrading of the capacity - accumulator - well I don't know what kind of capacitor Metz used in their flashes but needless to say no degrading none whatsoever. Most flashes of the same vintage would refuse to accept any more charge.
May go and grab a Mecablitz for my D800 before they all sold out, my SB-600 is long in the tooth now.
toomanycanons: When's the last time any of you bought a Metz product?
1978 - when I bought my automatic Metz 45 CT-1 and it is still working perfectly today needing 6 AA batteries - no wonder why the company goes to the wall. It was one of the most powerful flash for amateur - and a joy to use consider it will cover a distance of 17 meters or 55ft @ F4 on ISO 200, never fails. Cost me a grand sum of AUD$160 - a lot of money back then.
mais51: Now where is that Nikon 80-400 ? in stratosphere somewhere - wake up Nikon @1.5 times the cost of the similarly spec Canon is just not acceptable.
Nah, Nikon is not the only manufacturer where lens rotating backward Pentax is also in Nikon camp - when I switched from Pentax to Nikon the lens focus and zooming actions exactly the same other manufacturer in Nikon camp is Voigtlander.Back in the film days even if we could pick and choose the right film for the job majority of the shooters stuck to one manufacturer - Kodak or Fujifilm or Agfa.Currently the only universal lens mount is the Sony where with proper adapter you could use Nikon or Canon or other's lens on their camera body
Of course I would not change to Canon just for this lens, to me 100 or 80 is not that critical, most of us would have either a 70-200 or 70-300 or even 24-120 so as you said we buy this kind of lens for the long end. Look like Canon's has a much better spec sheet than Nikon's - slightly shorter, focus much closer and of course cheaper by $500 (in Aust the price different is approximately the same in AUD)
Look - this Canon lens is smaller than the new Nikon 80-400, focus much closer @ ~1m against the Nikon 1.75 m, shorter and cheaper, if I were a Canon shooter it would definitely be on my wish list - let's see how it performs
Now where is that Nikon 80-400 ? in stratosphere somewhere - wake up Nikon @1.5 times the cost of the similarly spec Canon is just not acceptable.
Stacey_K: " and successive cameras".... well that is unless Olympus decides to change the lens mount again. I'm done trusting this company to support the customers who invest in their system.
Through corporate mis-management and a partnership with a crappy sensor manufacturer (panasonic), Olympus killed the 4/3 mount right as they had a sensor (the one used in the OMD) in their hands that would have made their lovely ZD 4/3 optics shine. Instead they pull this bait and switch to m4/3. I give then 3-4 years before they bail on this format and switch to yet another mount.
Olympus's problem has never been their optics, and I'm sure these will be fantastic lenses. But I'm willing to bet they will decide in the future the 4/3 sensor is too small and ditch this mount, leaving anyone who buys these lenses left in an orphaned system. I would never trust this company again after what they did with 4/3.
The sensor may be produced by Panasonic but the 4/3 system was a joint effort by Olympus and Kodak back in 2001http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1261925083/kodakolympus
You are right, 4/3 also the format in Cine 4/3" as the Wilki article says but with today sensor technology the 4/3" is no longer necessary nor required. Silicon waffles were extremely expensive when Olympus devised this format. They were trying to get more sensors yield but now everyone is jumping on the FX bandwagon and even Nikon seemingly leaving the high end DX. Who knows it may be abandoned soon in favor of a bigger sensor
Yes 4/3 is the aspect ratio - the 4/3 sensor's image size is 17.3 x 13 mm or 4:3 ratio. The sensor itself is 30 to 40% smaller than the APS-C sensor and similar in size to the 110 film format - and you all know how tiny it is when compare to the 35mm film or FX sensor. Current 4/3 camera users can select other aspect ratio such as 3:2 or 16:9 at the expense of sensor real estate.
Just don't like the format - full stop I resize all my 4/3 to 2/3 matching my Nikon format - i sometimes use 16/9 for panoramic effect but I can not see any thing matching the 4/3 not the widescreen 24/27" computer monitors nor HD TVs.
mais51: Great photoOn the other hand it shows up a few dust bunniesWho say Canon don't have dust on sensor
Having noticed those dots I too want to know what are they. They could be birds at a distant - if Savolio could look at the original photo and identify them as the winning photo has been reduced in size to fit the challenge requirement.