Juhaz: I don't understand why anyone is using the ridiculous "X" ratings in 2015.
Most people hardly even remember CD-ROM drives, why on Earth should their first-generation transfer speeds be used as a baseline for... well, anything?
It doesn't make any sense. Let 'em die.
I agree, and in fact I suspect I have not bought a disc of any type this decade, much less a CD.
I think a bigger problem is the continued use by some of "35mm equivalence" statements when describing sensors etc.
The few people left shooting 35mm film can quietly go about their business until 35mm is finally extinct in the wild. Can't be long now.
If you post useful images online and I need to use them, I'm using them. You'll get a (C) symbol next to my best guess of your name. Adding DRM won't affect my use; only altering fair use legislation will do so. On the bright side in this case, at least someone is actually finding your images useful.
The aerial idiots are just an extension of the "street photographer" crowd. In their minds, nobody has rights except... them. Good news, bravo FAA.
forpetessake: Sony is responsible for a lot of technical advances. But even the latest and greatest (and quite expensive) cameras still can't produce good skin colors. On the other hand, Sony still struggles to produce good quality lenses, even the Zeiss badge doesn't help. Until they fix those issues they'll do better as a sensor supplier to the other companies.
The lens thing is an issue, granted (that, or everyone's subjects apparently suffer from icterus). If only all the "experts" and fanbois here would use their undoubtedly immense talent to go help Sony find a fix rather than froth on websites in Sony's defense, it would have been fixed ages ago, but alas...
Odd lenses aside though the body style is easy to use IMO and they've seemed to improve focusing with each iteration of their products, so I'm optimistic about this.
I like Fuji and I love the idea of a small cam -- I've been saying the best cam is no cam at all for a long time, and a small cam is second best -- but I do need to actually track moving subjects, and I'm underwhelmed.
Every year I get the feeling "next year will be better, mirrorles will finally catch up to mirrored for sports."
So, maybe 2016?
TN Args: I recommend DPR remove all comments that are overtly political -- including accusations that DPR are overtly political (because such comments are actually an overtly political statement by the commentator).
All I see is a bunch of interesting photos. I don't see any policy statements or policy position or implicit political endorsement in the article.
The comments I see are certainly against the forum rules on trolling (deliberately antagonizing other forum users, who may not share the political rage of the posts), and Bashing (in this case a political 'brand' to which many people would feel some loyalty or liking).
Seriously -- although my politics is a million miles from that of the people in the photos, I'm still offended by the comments.
I propose we wait to remove the overtly political postings until the proponents of removing the overtly political postings, and any enlightened commentators that have somehow managed to use the words "absolute fascist mentality" can be awarded the Order of Lenin.
Blessed are the self-righteous, for they shall be exalted in country clubs.
GT500M: Well the main reason I would consider this and other superzooms is for the focal length range. Try capturing Red Parrots high up in the trees in Costa Rica with a 200mm equivalent focal length. I just managed it with a Sony HX400 though the results were very grainy on an overcast day.
I have an A7r and the cost, size and weight of long lenses for such a system mean I like to complement it with a decent bridge or superzoom which I am on the lookout for again....
I love the RX10 but its' reach at the long end makes it less than a total travel all-rounder.
The Canon is on my list and I would get the viewfinder as I can't shoot using the LCD only.
nicoboston: that Luminous Landscape review is impressive. I'd say teh G3X looks ideal for me to audition as my next travel compact (ish) camera....
Without the VF, I have to wonder what happens on sunny days or in contrast-challenging (for the shooter!) days or angles. So that's an added expense IMO.
Richard Franiec: Was the second paragraph of the news necessary? Maybe "off topic" forum would be a better place to post it?
Is this a photography site or a camera site? I thought this site reviews cameras?
In fact, I thought the site had "digital photography review" as the title. These pics of Cheney were shot on... film...
The article seems to be clickbait given that the photos aren't digital, and this site reviews digital cameras.
I can somewhat understand the necessity (only a bit, frankly; Amazon is a huge corporation that doesn't hesitate to lose money in other ventures so I wonder why not go without clickbait on this site and stick to the actual useful content that made the site what it was -- but I digress...). Everyone's got to "feed the monkey" as the great Jeffrey Lebowski astutely observed.
Given the gravitas, I'll repeat my initial question and hope this site indeed can set itself apart from the other sites that covered the images: any bikini pics of Cheney?
No bikini pics of Cheney?
Remarkable achievement by Canon. Not only have they made a world-class $700 compact camera, they've also made it the only $700 compact that costs $1K. The reviewer then commented that an additional $250 for a... viewfinder would be "annoying." Wow.
Tom Holly: I use a rebel. I find they're a really good all round camera. My sony a7r has a better sensor, and I would use it for landscape over the canon. But if I'm shooting my club's local race, or doing a facade inspection, I'll go to the rebel everytime.
Never had to CTRL-ALT-DELETE the old rebel like I do with the infinitely superior sony, lol...
Thanks very much!
Gesture: More like 73. Please review your cons. $850 and I can't select the AF point? Is that so?
You could spend a lot more than $850 and not have autofocus at all.
This is very interesting.
Do you get better AF tracking at the club races with the Canon or the Sony?
Thanks for any comments!
rallyfan: The sooner we can use a video feed to select whatever still image we want, the better.
The sooner cameras become embedded hardware at, say, fields and racetracks rather than expensive kit that we have to carry around, set, and fuss with, the better.
The best camera is no camera.
The way forward in photography is to get rid of the camera as we've known it.
It'd certainly be better for the animals if you sent the money by wire transfer and remained at home, yes.
As for me, since you've speculated, here are my preferences for what I'd like to do in terms of photography:
1. Nothing. I'd rather just have the payment without doing anything or producing any images whatsoever.
2. As little as possible for the most money possible. If I can carry nothing, that's best. If I can carry very little, that's second best.
The more I carry, the more I do, the less I like it.
The smaller and more versatile cameras get, the better I like it. The ideal is zero gear. The sooner we reach that, the better.
Their local store keeps ridiculously short, "bankers" hours and their customer service is at best indifferent. They don't seem to want to sell us anything, so we have given up.
rallyfan: Looks very interesting. I see absolutely zero negatives with the specification and if it works as claimed, terrific!
I don't get why people insist on comparing this to other (lesser?...) cameras. If you have a better solution, go buy that instead. What's to object to here? Don't buy it. Simple.
Incidentally, is the person holding the camera body in the main photo for this page a guitarist? Are those string calluses, in other words?
The sooner we can use a video feed to select whatever still image we want, the better.
Looks very interesting. I see absolutely zero negatives with the specification and if it works as claimed, terrific!
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Hasselblad.
The Yanks pretended to use them when they faked the moon landings.
Then more recently the company decided to rebadge Sony stuff with wood grips and added a bunch of zeros to the price tag.
This looks really promising for anyone interested in violating people's privacy rights.
Does this allow an image to be shot in a sepia mode? The image will never be printed on paper, it'll remain a digital image, so that's not an option.