Internal focusing is great to have! That alone is worthwhile.
peevee1: Great job, American business schools. You teach how to gut market-dominant companies to nothing in a few short years.
Blaming Kodak's failure on unions and regulations when Kodak was (once...) a US company is -- I'm being very diplomatic and lenient here! -- desperately clueless. Companies thrive in organized societies that have actual worker rights and regulations, much less the US.
Management followed their textbooks. They made money. The rest was secondary to them. Tomorrow didnt mayter. Voila! Done deal. In the US, business schools are rivaled only by journalism and art schools for turning out self-absorbed, semi-literate dunces.
We still use our Kodak digital cam in a UV box setup. Thanks to the business school brainiacs it's now an orphaned product. Bah!
Page upon page of marketing babble to announce WiFi, a feature these cameras should have had for years. Did anyone here read all that?
WiFi always a welcome addition. Enough said. Really.
Mediocre idea by 2008 standards. Almost offensively stupid now. Nobody cares if they have image hosting. Everyone's phone can post images anywhere. Too little much too late and with too much marketing BS fanfare. You lost the market to mobiles, you lost the plot, give it a rest. Where were the fancy MBA idiots five years ago? Too late now. Bye.
We still use the Kodak in a specialized, essentially embedded application, with a UV setup. It's all controlled by a turn of the century PowerBook running OS9.
It's gotten quirky over the years but generally still works OK. Support, however, vanished a decade ago.
Mixing units (ounces and grams) shows lack of preparation.
Looks like a new way to scratch painted car surfaces. Why not just use a car key? Great scratches, less cost, traditional.
steelhead3: I have to say nice snaps; can we challenge the camera a bit; this is a very expensive camera. It probably is best camera for IQ of all and I want to see pitfalls, but an acknowledgment of its quality.is important to buyers.
Sorry second post.
I do agree with the OP, challenge the camera. Nobody's buying it for shooting passport photos here right?
mailman88: Just think, in 5 years or less....you'll be buying this camera or something similar under $1200.00 or about half the price of the RX1R.So just wait...
Price seems high but I'll wait.
Sporting events only. The rest is done. What? A pile of rocks with snow and a bunch of clouds? Or, to quote multimedia artist, Brett Bouchette, "a shoe... a doggie... a bowl of fruit?..."
No. Still life = still boring.
A small FF and simple camera for paddocks, lockers, pit boxes etc would be brilliant. Even there though it needs to AF in low light and track. Different slightly in use to a second slr body but somewhat overlapping too at times.
This may not be it I'm sad to hear.
Argh I was afraid of that... Dare I ask: how's tracking?
The question remains AF. The previous version had tomorrow's sensor and yesteryear's AF. Less "nostalgic" AF and it's a contender really.
rxbot: Pocket lint has a review with raw and jpeg samples. Their conclusion is E-P-5 wins on IQ but G7 wins on package because the Pen5 does not have the built in EVF so adding a finder adds a lot to the package cost.Auto focus speed both cameras are blazing fast. Personally I will wait till the next versions of XE-1 and Nex6 come out as I like 16MP APS-C sensors.
AF speed comment is very interesting!
Not a bad price at all actually. Let's see if they're solid. Interesting though.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The title is slightly misleading. Mr Ockenfels III didn't mean to make a mockery of film, but to set a reference against which to compare medium format image quality, which he deems too sharp. And rightly so: I, for one, don't like images sharper than real life.As for Instagram, well... I'm yet to read an interview with someone who actually finds something less than glamorous about it here at DPR, but I'm afraid that ain't never gonna happen. Oh well.
Adams and Cartier-Bresson are both dead.
If you like climbing mountains with big gear, don't let me hold you back. In fact take a turntable with you while you're at it. Maybe something with a sand-filled plinth and fitted onto an air-leveling table. Don't forget a carbon-fibre tonearm and seven-nines silver cabling.
Have a good trip.
rallyfan: So guys, if this article generates enough clicks, would you consider a follow-up on something like cannibalistic infanticide? It might get some click-throughs to the Gearshop site.
If your, um, "insight" is limited to such epiphanies as "the internet is not limited by size" it is not surprising that you cannot see the problem.
This "story" is "related to the subject of digital photography" only in the sense that there are photographs provided. The site's title is "Digital Photography Review" and whenever someone points out that a review of one model or another isn't there yet, or isn't there at all, a staffer will point out that "reviews take time" or "we have so many things to review" etc. -- provided of course they respond at all.
Given the excuses, I'd rather see more attention paid to reviews rather than fluff "articles" intended simply to drive more traffic to the site.
How about camera tests instead?
Wouldn't it be great if there were a website that tested digital cameras and gear?
samhain: @DPRPlease don't let the knee-jerk reactions about race by some people commenting in this thread prevent you from covering future stories about photographers who shoot controversial subjects. This was a great article about a great photographer. All signal, no noise.
On a gear review site?! This is 100% noise; it's an unabashed click grab.
capanikon: I always wonder if sites like dpreview get permission from the photographer to publish photos like the KKK ones on this page or if they just grab 'em and give credit to the photographer.
I've made a guess!
marike6: Some are trying to make this about free speech, suggesting that DPR is some beacon lighting the way for free speech by posting "A Day in the Life of the KKK" stories. DPR uses an expletive filter as curse words offend some users. Just like some don't want to read curse words, some users don't want to login to DPR to see "A Day in the Life of the KKK" images. Even though this story is more about photographing the secretive, typically clandestine KKK, some users may find these images offensive because of what the KKK stands for. In that sense they are not appropriate for DPR.
So I'm not interested in seeing stories dealing with extremists as there are enough great photographers covering more positive things to last a whole year of stories. Obviously others with different perspectives aren't outraged by groups like this. That's fine too. But judging by the extremely contentious comments I'd say that politics or ethics are not at all good topic for a site like DPR.
I come here to use the comparison tools for gear.
This is an article about... another article that happened to have pictures.
I'd have rather seen a review of the now-superseded Panasonic G5. Why? Because this was a camera review site.
Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?
Very useful comment, thank you.
I had pictured (no pun intended...) film at the microscopic level as binary analogue but I like your explanation much better