bb42: The rules banning these kind of edits are ludicrous. Media networks worldwide are spending billions every year to design and bend our perception and define the reality according to their interests. In a text interview they would easily ask an author to cut sentences they do not consider meaningful or supporting the story. But for pictures one wants to keep up the idea of total objectivity. Ludicrous.
Esoz, what's so frightening about being able to remove a person?The photographer could as well choose a different position to avoid the person in the first place. And then, did the photographer record the attitude of the soldier, his motives or plans? So, the picture is a mere illustration to a story - that was chosen and edited to the publishers linking.
The rules banning these kind of edits are ludicrous. Media networks worldwide are spending billions every year to design and bend our perception and define the reality according to their interests. In a text interview they would easily ask an author to cut sentences they do not consider meaningful or supporting the story. But for pictures one wants to keep up the idea of total objectivity. Ludicrous.
Mirrorless Crusader: I guess the AP has never heard of something called common sense. Nobody wants to see that camera in the corner. I don't care how many other people were filming the guy and it is immaterial to the significance of the photograph. What is the AP going to do next, fire people for cropping?
16mpx, the decision to take that point of view, at that time, and press the button in that very moment - this all influence the message of any picture, news or not.So what are you missing in this edit - "reality"?
TonvicFoto: a powerful shot? it's a miserable photo showing a militant, a jihadist taking cover? so what? a pulitzer for this?
In Libya I met some of your "jihadists", they are simply people who are willing to take the ultimate risk for the common cause. This decision is not easyly made, so it's a kind of fight, mostly with your own fears. I'm not saying that I'd want to live neccesarily in the society they are thinking to build. But they still deserve full respect.
One great and unique feature of the HS-xx series is the manual zoom, I used the HS-10 and HS-30. They allowed me to frame moving subjects by quickly flipping from wide to tele, thus getting shots I would have lost with either any motor zoom or a SLR with lower zoom range.
Now, judging by the zoom lever, it seems Fuji has abandoned the manual zoom. That's really sad.
The finding of the study may be correct for shorter term memory. But from my experience the pictures clearly help me to remember places and situations I would otherwise forget within weeks and longer. And this is the peroid that counts more, be it work, study or leisure.
Sometimes I take a picture for being able to study an object on screen with more attention than I would at the time of shooting. So of course its a question of time economy.
MtOlympus: I took my NEX 6 on a trip with my SLR. The SLR never got out of my camera bag. When I got home I sold the big camera that I had been so happy with, and bought a second NEX 6. Now I keep one loaded with a 12mm prime and the other with the 55-210. Life is now good!
So you always have a unique perspective...
keeponkeepingon: Y'all need to read your own buying guide, this is not a superzoom and you folks are just about the only ones calling it a superzoom:
From the most recent buying guide: "Super zoom / Bridge'Very powerful zoom lenses - typically 20X+ zooms"
10X is not a super zoom. All we have here is a big inconvenient camera with (relatively) little zoom with a lens that is (relatively) slow on the not so wide end (where most folks use it the most) and (relatively) fast on the long end.
300m is what I use for kids soccer and it's barely enough, forget about birds etc.
It's hard to rationalize the cost and size when you can get a pocketable 7X LF1 for under $400.
Considering LF1 and stylus1 - I'd see the LF1 more as high-class take-always pocketable while you still have a decent Dslr in your shelf. If one wants only one camera the Stylus1 looks like a fair concept.
For owners of "real" i.e. pure-foto digicams the question is if the hires sensor delivers more detail than a current digicam of similar price.Too bad that this question is (again) not answered.
Sonys Alpha 58 has several advantages, the most important being a huge offering of third-party lenses, some of them excellent.The E-lens series made sense for small system cams, but I don't get the point for this model.
Samples show grease and smear even at brightest light and ISO100 - similar to the FZ60. Several other digicams with the same small sensor perform better, and the nice lens and other feature can not compensate for the inferior IQ.
A jacket-able system camera with an EVF .. nice. But the small size raises the question about the (smaller) lens quality again - Sonys 16-50 seems to outperform the Pana Vario PZ 14-42 in terms of IQ - and it even has more wideangle...
"70% improvement in signal-to-noise ratio" - fine to hear that about the microphone - how about the same improvement for the image sensor?
The FZ60 was so noisy with ISO100 in bright sunlight it really surprised and annoyed me.
pulsar123: Even though obviously a gimmick (I can't image what one would want to shoot at 1200mm equivalent FL; this is the domain for telescopes, with their massive stable tripods and star tracking motors), the lens's FL range is quite impressive from a lens designer's point of view. In addition, the maximum aperture is 36mm (at the long end), which is also impressive for a P&S camera.
Good point - what I wanted to reply to people complaining about sensor / diffraction: You can use that thing as a telescope - and it's even stabilized.
Maverick_: That's a lot of effort for $399. Lots of features for so little. What would they have to do next to top this. Where do you go from here camera makers? 16mm to 2500mm for $299? And what comes after that fish-eye, to 3000mm for $199?
This to me sounds like the beginning of the end. You can't support this growth in order to give people reasons to upgrade their bridge cameras. If someone buys this camera today and shoots with it a few times a year, he/she would have no reason to ever upgrade unless the camera breaks. This camera already belongs to a small market segment.
With compacts going away, as phone cameras taking over that responsibility, a tiny segment who aren't shooting with DSLRs and phones would still want a bridge cam true, but this segment will keep shrinking fast.
My guess is that we are looking at the last of this particular segment. A couple of more years and that's it.
The future is phone cameras and FF DSLRS.
"If the image quality is reasonable up to ISO400 and good enough for prints up to A4"... - I saw noise even at 100 ISO in bright sunlight on the FZ60 so I sold it after one journey. This one won't be much better.Anyhow, the 20 mm wideangle is a good reason for checking it out.
G0RD0: In comparison to the Canon sx50hs. The Canon can do 1200mm (35mm equiv) optically 24mm x 50x =1200mm. The FZ70 is 20mm x 60x =1200mm (35mm equiv). So the Panasonic is actually just adding 4mm of Wide angle, but no increase in actual reach when compared to the Canon. Panasonic is just using 60x as a marketing strategy. They have not achieved any greater zoom then what was already available
The 20 mm _is_ the really impressive achievement that I've been waiting for. After dpreview has often praised wideangle reach I don't see why they focus on the tele in the short report.
On the tele you can always crop and get the same prespective as with a longer zoom - but you can never get the wider angle.
Another camera that needs a strip of self-adhesive rubber as a handgrip to be usable...
dickg1: If Panasonic thinks this camera is going to seriously compete with the Canon S110 in attracting the "enthusiast" crowd, they screwed up big time!
In my mind, the feature that sets the Canon S110 apart from the majority of its peers is a 24mm wide end.
I recently sold my S95 and bought the S110 for just that reason. I'd much rather give up a 200mm long end to get a 24mm wide angle. The difference between 24mm & 28mm is much greater than the diffeence between 120mm and 200mm.
marike "4mm is greater than 80mm? No it's not. Need a slightly wider FOV, you can always stitch two images together"Not seriously, but you can always crop a 120 mm picture and get the 200 mm perspective, accepting the loss of resolution - you can't do that with a 28 vs 24 mm.But otherwise I agree that - from my usage - 200 vs 120 is more often preferable than 24 vs 28.
iudex: Another barrier broken: an EVF in an enthusiast compact. This alone is great. Of course the 200k EVF is far from good one, however it is still 100% VF and this alone makes it far more useful than 75-80% OVF on G15 & co. So kudos to Panasonic for doing what many have asked for.
Exactly, and one wonders why no camera maker had this idea before, instead always competing in segments with almost the same feature set. Looks like this could finally be a replacement for my Canon A720.Maybe some day we'll even see a lens starting at 24 mm in a pocketable camera with a viewfinder.
I dont buy the "unexpectedly", either it was completely staged, or the photographer influenced the situation, in whatever direction, by pointing a camera at the man. Domestic violence is a serious problem, if this report brought it to more attention, kudos for that. But with regard to human beings in media, we always should keep in mind that there is no such thing as an objective view.