These aren't the strongest aeroplane pics.
That beta 747 is more interesting. Different series.
And number 1 in this series is basically an opening shot from the original version of the TV show "Hawaii 5-O", circa 1968.
jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.
So you don't really know anything about Vietnam, thanks for confirming what I'd surmised.
The USA tyrannically invaded Iraq in 2003. Don't pretend otherwise.
But how do you know that those precision bombs are only hitting the "bad guys", who deserve it? You don't.
cgarrard: Love the A10's Jon- it's unAmerican that they are retired from active duty. ;)
The proposed replacement for the A10 isn't an attack plane, it's a fancy jet that's barely flies and wouldn't be any good at killing tanks.
Also the A10 hasn't been retired yet.
How was the Vietnam war or the invasion of Iraq about freedom in the USA?
Also civilian casualties were horrendous in both wars, albeit the killing done by the USA in Iraq wasn't mostly from carpet bombing.
Because the US never killed children in Vietnam or Iraq. Not.
Paul Farace: So I see these images in the same positive light I see WWII Allied planes, defenders of freedom. And they sadly killed thousands of women and children. But my brain is able to comprehend complexities and nuances that some of your leftist brains cannot. All of the recent drone strikes have not killed more than one WWII bombing mission and at the same time have killed many monsters who would behead the dumazzez commenting below.
"at the same time have killed many monsters who would would behead..."
Any you're sure of this because? Who gave you the information, and how did you confirm it?
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Not much difference in all four RX100 models. I mean, not enough to make a difference in real world shooting, looking at the whole picture.
If anything, the RX100 Mk III looks noticeably sharper than the others at full pixel viewing. Not worth the requested premium price for the last model, in my opinion.
Just get an Olympus E-M10 or E-PL5, 6, or 7 for much better results and reach with the two kit lens for less money.
Differences between what and what?
For now, I'm not claiming anything about a difference between the RX100III and the new IV. I extracted some IV studio raws yesterday with Rawtherapee, but I'm waiting for ACR to catch up. (Used the raws from Imaging Resource). I don't go with what others have extracted if I can avoid doing so.
The 27" Mac only has an 8 bit screen.
samfan: Interestingly, Hasselblad used to be one of the biggest digital innovators, with early digital cameras and scanners, but the management of the time wanted to focus on film.
Who knows where the company would be today if they followed the innovative digital path from the beginning.
That said, I think almost none of us has to care, what's the chance of owning a Hasselblad? People harp on Leica but Hass is something even more unobtainable and more niche.
I'm more interested to learn that Polaroid got out of digital.
I'm not seeing big examples of Hasselblad being really innovative with digital, but yes clearly they tried some things and dumb management didn't keep digital projects going in the background.
Now, no, Hasselblad hadn't set itself up to work with digital and that furious pace of change between 2001-2004 was un-anticipated. Not the change, but the pace.
I'd posit that as late as the mid 1990s no one expected data networks to be fast enough to readily transmit say 200 jpgs from a 4MP camera. That changed. So there's this whole other development that occurred that made digital much more appealing in about the year 2000, and H wasn't ready with anything.
Then there's data storage, my late 2000 basic Dell laptop only came with a 5GB hard drive, it had been announced say in 1998 by IBM that hard drives could be made with much more storage than previously thought possible, but a laptop with a 250GB HD was absurd.
Stereodesign: We use the digital 'Blad MF camera and the Fuji designed and made lenses and it is a superb camera system. Big, heavy, a bit cumbersome, yes, but the results are stunning.The problem Hasselblad have is that for the majority of work a FF DSLR will suffice so their market has declined.Another poster commented that Hasselblad and Leica were once the cameras we aspired to, sadly as technology has played an ever greater part in the process and these two manufacturers were unable to keep up this is no longer the case.
That Hasselblad body is also a Fuji.
Fuji sold the same bodies and lenses a few years back.
Why are you bringing up Leica?
Leica sells cameras and lenses. No one is going to think to shoot a tennis match with a Leica M, but people aspire to own them.
theprehistorian: Hmm, not a massive leap forward to my eyes...
Wait for good raw extraction software to catch up.
There's a big difference between the first and II, III, and now IV; that's sensors. The first is non-BSI.
Then there are massive lens difference between I,II, then III and IV.
I'm not a huge fan of the RX100III, but the EM10 is a different class of camera, and has weaker video.
MSTR Photography: I think the mistake everyone here is making is not looking at what can keep Hasselblad viable in today's and tomorrows market. There is nothing wrong with branching out into the ILC market or the APS C market or even the full frame market to help the company grow. Instead of trying to bring the bling like Leica does to an over-priced product, they need to consider bringing the quality they are famous for to a reasonably priced product. I don't mean dropping their prices to Sony, Canon or Nikon levels (which are all making great cameras), but following the example of Pentax in making a product which is affordable to the semi-pro photographer while maintaining their ever-present quality standards would go a long way to keeping them in the ever trembling photography market and help to strengthen their position as a top of the line company with both the product and the photographer in mind.
The best Nikon, Canon, Pentax-Ricoh, Fuji, Samsung (okay really Optron), and Olympus lenses are made by those respective companies..
Fuji makes processing computers for several companies, Nikon and Leica for example.
That Sigma has made some lenses for the likes of Olympus and Panasonic is no secret, but you've brought up a giant false equivalence.
Hasselblad effectively makes nothing and engineers nothing.
winkalman: I'd love to see Hasselblad pull this off; we've lost too many of the old, stalwart camera brands as it is. Still, it's hard to imagine a niche they would fit in. Maybe a digital Xpan, a digital TLR, or a proper digital MF rangefinder? Despite their recent blunders I think Hasselblad could still put out a quality product, even if they had to buddy up with Fuji or Cosina to actually build it.
The XPan was from Fuji.
And "quality" isn't an adjective.
Examples of H digital innovation?
Those drum scanners are Imacon. And the H bodies are Fujis.
Did Hasselblad try something different in the early 1990s that's been forgotten?
GabrielZ: Hallelujah! They seem to have come to their senses. I wish them well and look forward to see what they come up with.
No, there is no evidence that Hasselblad has come to its senses.
They'd not have hired someone with zero camera experience if they had.
But Leica is a famous lens maker, H never made lenses.
And Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Pentax, Fuji, etc, all make bodies and lenses. H makes neither anymore.
Wild Light: Hasselblads Carerra is not the H. It is the original 500 and 200 designs, the best medium format design in history. It is, IMO, possibly the best ever camera and lenses ever and it is a design that the entire customer base was passionate about.
Hasselblad lost it's way entirely and to stick with the Porsche analogy, Porsche had enough sense not to follow it's 924, 928 design and go back to the 911. The H is the 928. Heavy, ugly, bigger and a mistake that should be ended!
If the 928 is made by Toyota.
JordanAT: Hassleblad's two core strengths, mechanical reliability and optics, are likely gone. Mechanical reliability on the level of the film cameras from 40 years ago are lost on the modern camera. By combining the film and body into one unit, you have created a disposable camera. Whether the life is 1 year of 5 years is irrelevant when compared to a product which previously could be expected to have a 20 year (or longer) useful life in a pro shop. If you have to change your body to upgrade your "film," the utility of old hardware diminishes much more rapidly.
As for optics, even if there are any optical engineers left at H it means they're probably woefully behind in creating the massively complex aspherical element design which modern sensors demand for sharp images. Poorly focused "art lenses" will always have their place, but to go forward with world-leading designs will require rebuilding the entire lens line from scratch. And I'm not sure there's enough alligator skin in HK to do that.
Even in the 1970s, Hasselblad was not an optical company. H used Zeiss lenses.
Now the meduim format lenses and the bodies are entirely Fuji. (I guess the new aerial body could be by some other party.)
Celsus: Come on Hassy, put out a medium format challenger to the RX1. Put a 50/2 fixed lens with H5D sensor and try your darndest to get all of that in under $5k. I will buy one. If it doesn't try to make the EVF optional for an additional $800...
Just a P:
Right. And I did know about the medium format bodies that Fuji builds for Hasselblad, and of course the lenses. (Admit that it was surprise to learn about a year ago.)
So you made my point for me.