Hilarious! I love the "digital lens". And "Wetzlar Germany" on the viewfinder. The Chinese workers who make these must get a chuckle out of it.
The plural of deer is deer.
TimT999: I think I'm going to avoid these "hands-on" features from now on -- especially for these over-hyped consumer devices.
Every other paragraph seems to start out with a feature straight out of the company marketing materials and then says, "...but we didn't get to actually test it to see if it works properly."
A bunch of marketing specs are of absolutely no interest to a thoughtful reader. I want to know if the "feature" actually works as promised and how useful it would be in a real life situation. If you didn't test it, it's barely better than vaporware.
The same goes for the specs. The fact that the unit has 13 MP sounds great. Wow, it must be as good as a lot of point and shoots out now -- almost as good as a 14 MP DSLR. Oh wait, but what if the sensor is the same size as the old 8MP one -- some tiny chip that can't touch even a point and shoot. If that's the case then the added resolution is almost useless. Of course DP doesn't give us that fact. Just more corporate marketing.
I would not object if DPReview continued to review enthusiast digital cameras. As it is, the reviews have slowed to a trickle, many months after intro, to be replaced by breathless "hands-on" marketing blurbs (as pointed out by many other comments) about new cellphones.
Lars, snide and rude answers to a reader's very reasonable comments are not a virtue. You've had a testable production Lumix G5 for months and you have not found the time to review it, but you jump on the latest toy camera because it's in a cellphone?
This artist seems to have discovered something that everyone else already knows. Is he aware of an object called "the automobile"?
OldArrow: I hope people can cope with their automatic associations and think photographically. This creationist vs. evolutionist banter is just laughable.
Old Arrow, it is quite clear from your previous posts here that you are one of us who is unwilling to "cope with your automatic associations and think photographically". This is a photo contest with a very clearly-stated religious agenda, and for you to claim otherwise now drips with hypocrisy.
William Woodruff: Indeed, this is a photo site, not a religious one. That was true until the attacks began on the host. When a challenge topic is "sexy," should we protest that this is a photo site, not a cheesecake site? "Ferraris" -- nope, not an auto site. "City of La Habana?" Nope, not a travel site. Cockpits? No, not about aviation. Etc.
Further, while it is true that there are many religious assertions that are, or appear to be, incorrect. Does it necessarily follow that all aspects of all religions are invalidated? Shall we apply the same logic to the sciences? Oops. In the end, there is no real conflict between science and religion. Scientific study is man's attempt to answer the question, "How?" Religious study is man's attempt to answer the question, "Why?" Both are important questions that warrant serious consideration.
In the meantime, why don't we let the host present a topic for interpretation, without the bickering.
Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word.
Borno said: "order never comes from disorder, or random chance."That is true but not complete. Evolution through natural selection is a combination of three processes: (1) Inheritance of genetic code by the next generation. (2) Random chance (genetic mutations); (3) Survival of the fittest.
William Woodruff: Mr. Rea, respectfully I disagree. 2+2=8 is a standard arithmetic equation, and under most circumstances would be accepted as simply, and demonstrably incorrect. (Note: I suspect that there may be exceptions in the world of quantum physics, but we need not go there.) Other aspects of our existence are not so neatly reduced to formulae; to pretend otherwise often suggests lesser, rather than greater of thoughtfulness. You seem to be suggesting that there were no insulting posts (except, of course, mine). Please consider the following:
"Intelligent design is a concept that belongs in the trash can"
"The OP hijacked a photography contest"
"I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of you and your challenges"
"It does not require a superstitious and paranormal explanation, except for those who can't accept that we are a normal part of nature"
"clear to educated adults who have put away the childish theory of a god or multiiple gods up in the ether tinkering with the natural world"
To take but one example among a great many: supernatural interventionists hold up the human eye as an example of the work of a divine engineer. If so, he or she should be fired. The human (and many other mammalian) eye has a myriad of design flaws: a blind spot, optical sensors behind the nerves rather than in front of them, protein deficiencies that cause cataracts. These would have been quite easy to fix if the eye had been designed by a god. However, each of them is obvious (I don't use the term lightly) to someone who has studied the step-by-step and 100M-year evolution from photo-sensitive skin to an encapsulated and focused light-gathering organ.
I can certainly comment on the quotes you extracted from my previous posts on this subject.
"The OP hijacked a photography contest": The OP chose to construct a photography contest whose purpose was not to produce the best photo, but to try to prove a religious superstition. That certainly looks like hijacking to me. This is a photo website, not a religious one.
"clear to educated adults who have put away the childish theory of a god or multiple gods up in the ether tinkering with the natural world": I agree with you that this statement was rather rude. I should have been more diplomatic. However it is an honest opinion. This is a subject of some philosophical as well as scientific interest to me, and I am struck at the lack of knowledge of genetics, the DNA mutation process, statistics, geology, and/or anatomy among the die-hard proponents of divine intervention (a different question, I am sure you agree, than the one concerning the existence of one or more deities).
Chris Noble: I thought contest entries are supposed to be anonymous?
It is a nice picture! Makes one appreciate an aspect of "vegetables" that non-gardeners seldom see.
I thought contest entries are supposed to be anonymous?
Additionally to the blind spot, the proteins in the lenses of our eyes have a deficiency that leads to almost inevitable cataracts as we age. Who designed that?
and what does the unhappiness of someone dying in their youth prove?
The daisy disagreed.
Are you suggesting that a woman putting on makeup in front of a mirror is as thoughtless about what she is doing as a rose?
A good example of the illusion of causality. There is no "clasping" or "suspension". The water molecule has very high surface tension because of its polarity. Walk outside wearing a fuzzy wool sweater on a misty morning and you will see lots of tiny beads on your sweater, "clasped" by hairs of wool.
William Woodruff: Mr. Noble&Changer, Your self-congratulatory narrow mindedness is your own business, until you show the bad manners to hijack a challenge thread to promote your own religious/non-religious views in a most insulting manner. No one, including this challenge host, has opined, required, or promoted your acceptance of their belief system; therefore, common courtesy should be enough for you to be similarly respectful to others.
Your apparent need to publicly demean total strangers in a pathetic attempt to bolster your own confidence in your chosen philosophical position suggests a sense of vulnerability that is just sad.
it is the OP who "hijacked" a photography contest to elicit support in "proving" (his words, not mine) a religious superstition (look up that term in a dictionary if it causes you offense). He has certainly "promoted acceptance of his belief system", which is apparent by simply reading his contest rules. This does not belong on a photo site. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to debate such topics. I am just calling a spade a spade, without resorting to the pathetic and rather hypocritical character attacks that you seem to relish engaging in.
Chris Noble: OldArrow said: "The craziest about this Challenge is that it is so enormously wide open to all kinds of belief, and thus, expression."
You did not read the Challenge carefully. It asks for submissions that "prove" (FNG303's own words) a very narrow belief in what is commonly referred to by its proponents as "Intelligent Design". I see nothing "wide open to all kinds of belief" about that.
OldArrow said: "Superstition is a funny word, and not exactly polite, especially when used in derogatory sense."
I use it in its precise grammatical sense: belief in supernatural causality. You chose your own cloak... now wear it.
OldArrow said: "Literally everything existing "proves" that "overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.""
Actually, that superstition was thoroughly debunked by Charles Darwin over a century ago, but superstitions are stubborn, and sometimes comforting.
OldArrow said: "The craziest about this Challenge is that it is so enormously wide open to all kinds of belief, and thus, expression."