Another photographer, different results (or are we seeing only the good ones?)
As a 99% JPG shooter (mostly just for fun photography), the issue does not affect me but I support the need to include that option in the camera with the clear understanding of the performance penalties if any. Let the user decide.
I guess it is time for Sony or others to look into tiered pricing on their cameras. For example for this model - set a baseline price of around $1K with basic features and then for any added features, download and pay for activation. With my current SONY cameras and fondness for using manual settings about 80% of the time, I am probably just using 10-20% of the features; thus, I should be asking Sony for a refund on unused features :-). Just thinking out loud near lunchtime.
mailman88: I'm not riding the Sony wave. I need affordable options at 400mm and over.
I was waiting too but for now, Sony A6000 + 55-210mm + 1.7X Oly TCON17 or B300 gives me about 357mm (w/o crop factor). AF performance of the A6000 was very good for close distance hummingbird shots in a recent trip to Ecuador. I don't have recent posted pics but these old pics will do for some BIF shots with a mirrorless.
I am not a pixel peeper and the pics looks ok in my office monitor. Details were there at the size of my monitor and while colors were not outstanding, not bland or muted either. Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600.
tabloid: As usual we have usual cretins with their sarcastic comments.
We need more censoring on these sites.
Unless a person has something constructive to say, his post should not see the light of day.
I would love to be moderator on these sites.
I thought tabloids have less censorship than regular papers. Yes, I would love to see your kind to be a mod here :-).
Shoot Raw: Why some of these people are so NEGATIVE on there comments?
Think POSITIVE and SHOOT RAW.
If we think all positive and shoot raw, our handles would be the same and it would be a boring photographic world. BTW, I am a 99.9% JPG shooter and no regrets so far.
Dimit: Nice little thing,it seems to have everything accumulated over the last couple of years.By the other hand Pana always seems not to have this little ''something''.Call it ''put this on and this and this..'' syndrome but never go ahead of their competitors.Just 3 thoughts: Any good reason for the existence of G series? GF,GX and GH seem to cover the whole spectrum.And..what on earth this tilting vf is useful for?Really,anyone?The whole 90 degrees angle of the tilt can be easilyhandled by the respective movement of the camera WITH the eye on the evf.Last and least: Better looking and similarly equipped with its direct(uglier) competitors EM5 and EP5,the latter being damn expensive,considering the luck of built- in evf.For the time being best choise seems to be nex7,since most of e mount lenses are OSS,disregarding the 5 axis feature(overated?).It will sell well.Besides Pana prices tend to drop faster than those of Olympus and Sony,no?
To Hubertus on ground level macro. Unless one is 30 years old or younger or can lie flat on the ground, use of waist level finder or that tilting VF is a pain in the back as one has to stretch to get the eyes closer to the VF. Better is the adjustable LCD with easier/larger view but one still need to sit down/squat for ground level macro.
MPA1: Still don't see why they are teaming up with a TV manufacturer...
They could also ask Samsung who makes both TVs and sensors :). It looks like you are still in the 80s.
rjx: Luca Alessandrini can cry a Mississippi River all he wants.
If you want to sell expensive cameras, fine. But please don't play the photographers as fools. You might be successful selling amazing cameras that cost as much as expensive luxury cars. That's fine. Digital MF systems aren't cheap. But to think those same customers are naive enough to hand over large sums of money for a mirrorless camera that when it comes to image quality, will be no better than the competition (and there's a lot of mirrorless competition). The justification is the materials are more expensive for the lunar. Okay, I guess all the current mirrorless cameras on the market are malfunctioning and falling apart due to not using more "expensive materials." Not!
Hasselblad definitely has the right to do what they want to do. Customers aren't forced to buy one of these new Lunar cameras if they don't want to. But can Hasselblad please stop treating their customer base like naive fools that don't know any better?
By just sampling the different forums here, there are surely some photographers who are fools but will not necessarily buy this :). If they get their target volume/sales, Hassy is right and if not, the criticisms are well founded. Someone said before that it is easier to understand disaster when one experience it rather than anticipating for it :).
Antonio Rojilla: Whenever I heard or read the name Hasselblad I automatically thought of the 500s, the 200s, the Flexbody, the XPan... Of great studios and respected photographers... Of astronauts in the moon... And now they have almost ruined all those memories. What has been seen cannot been unseen.
At least they made me laugh.
At least there is the moon connection :).cheers,gil
Macro using AF and doing hand held is much more fun like in the links below but then this AF thing is mostly possible with P&S setup. Did some with DSLR and still doable but I have no processed ones in my site. Other than fun, being patient is another attitude I treasure for macro shooting.