Bhima78: Is this direct from the camera at 1080P? Or is this adding the $1,000 Shogun thing to record it in 4K then downsampled?
how do you know? no exif
bobbarber: Two thoughts:
2) Aperture was f2.8. There are a lot of cheap f1.4 film lenses out there that could be adapted, which would get another two stops!
very hard to focus though with moving objects
hirisov: I live in Hungary, maybe i can help you guys understand the reason of this law. Those who guessed it might be that politicans currently ruling Hungary aren't the best friends of transparency and publicity are close to the truth. The history of this law is so typical and says so much about the current state (capture) of Hungary that it worths to know. Since 2010 when they were elected, this government sistematically attacking the freedom of press, opressing opposing media, turns public media their own propaganda channels, and created the most questonable media law of europe ( see eg, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/07/hungary-media-law-endangers-press-freedom ), and now we are at that stage that reported frauds of the incoming elections are ignored by the authorities.
You didn't mention the anti-semitic wave in Hungary, on both mob and cultural level, including WW2 revisionism, the omission of the term "republic" in the constitution etc. - and then you are beginning to see the whole picture without taking any. Right wing "extremism" is non-existing in Hungary because it is the mainstream.
Getty are just bullies, and I don't trust anything they do. In many cases they claim copyright of images (e.g. where the photographer is unknown), but cannot prove it. I ll never work with them ever again.
Who keeps buying this bulky, generic, plastic stuff?
(unknown member): Really guys? Is this a bad thing? Photographers are usually used to the safety of being behind the camera and never really being in a picture. Why shouldn't we ever be a part of a picture that we're taking? Besides, the camera is great and if you don't like the cheesy rear facing camera then don't use it. This is designed for new photographers that don't always want to hide behind the camera and put everyone else on the spot.
Well, strictly speaking, all opinions are worthless, so is yours. This is an opinion forum - take it easy.
You edited your comment 32 seconds after posting for a reason.
Who has no story to tell, can now create one.
Ever new products help the customer to becoming dumber and dumber. At the end of this story there is a customer who doesn't have to do anything, but has everything at his/her disposal. Luxury for all, but also stupidity for all.
Retro does not mean that something looks good and justified by itself. it is a choice that can turn out bad or well.To me, this product seems wrong, but there must be a market for this, otherwise it would not have (had?) been produced.
fabgo: If we assume that camera ergonomics and usability have improved over the years, it's hard to understand why anyone serious about photography would buy a camera like this. It's a little like buying a 2014 model lookalike of a 1950 Chevrolet - without seatbelts, electronic windows and proper backrests, but equipped with 10 air bags and ABS brakes. You look cool with it, but it's not very practical.
you re missing the point. The new mini is too big. It is just a shell of BMW. The old cars had an entire interior concept that backed up the shell. Today, this is lifestyle, not a concept. Lifestyle is avoidance of concept. It may be good for some, but shallow for others.
CM WORKS: I'm waiting for Steve Huff's pics of the Rx10 tomorrow hopefully. This guy always bring out the best real world test images.
Why does it help to wait how Steve Huff photographs with it? That surely does not mean that you can do it as good as him. So, the above images are a good average example of the average consumer. And alternately - if you are better than Steve Huff, then surely you won't need anybody's opinion in order to buy a camera.
The review states that the RX100 II is "peerless". This is wrong. There is the cheaper RX100.
What s the point of this review, if the camera is not compared to the IQ of the RX100?
keeponkeepingon: I'v seen at least one review (digital rev?) trashing the ergonomic of the X-M1
issues included how you have to reach over a control wheel to get to the shutter button and a touch thumb dial on the back that was too easy to easy to hit accidently.
Could any users of the X-M1 comment on how good/bad it is to handle?
You guys sound like Germans – I mean the 'old' Germans. I am sure the Fuhrer also would not have accepted any kind of ease and humor in online camera reviews. Lighten up, it is only stupid gear for intelligent art.
Ricoh introduced this lens-sensor-module system. From a photography perspective it makes sense, since the sensor is perfectly adjusted to the lens. Still, smartphone business works differently, it is all about quick snaps, and if you get a decent quality along with it, the better. But smartphones are not for elaborate set ups in general. So, Sony's concept may appeal to some photo nerds, but it feels wrong in practical terms.
It doesn't look more impressive than the 808 or even the N8. The 41MP shots look way over-processed and blurred. Also there is an issue with dynamic range that was also the 808's problem. The 1020 may be better in low light though, but don't hype it only because it is a new development. In compact camera /camera phone business new developments very often lead to a decrease in IQ. For example, the N8 video is better than the 808 video. I am not convinced that this time it is different.
In a few years time this whole touchscreen business will turn out to be perceived as one giant mistake and misunderstanding.
Daniba: Nex-3NYOk guys, I bought it, tested it, and returned the thing. A lot of the pictures I took were wrong focused. Around 25-30%, with both lenses tested. The DOF is a lot of times terribly small: a picture of my son has super sharp focus on the collar of his T-shirt but his face was allready out of focus. The loss of PASM wheel was'nt a big problem, but every change of other settings require you to go deep into the menu. Multiple actions for the little settings weel, or even the lens, proved to be a step to much. For fun, try zooming in a bit, then manual focus with 9.6 magnification: you will need a third hand...Every 3 pictures I had to clean the screen, it smudges so easily. In sunlight it is hard to see what's on screen, even with the brightness turned op to the maximum.But most of all: the wrong focussing. When it is sharp, pictures are razor-sharp. But sadly enough there is to much chance of coming home with wrong focussed pictures...Dear Sony: the Nikon D3200 is on my list...
Focussing is the photographer's job, not the camera's. Above description has to do with dof, not with a particular camera fault.Wrong camera for wrong photographer.
meanwhile: Does everyone else read the review with Richard's accent?
what s his accent? Irish?