Mike_PEAT: It still has the same fault of other similar straps...it goes in front of the neck causing me to gag (I can't even wear a tie). Another company came up with a gadget to pull the strap away from your neck, but then it feels like you're wearing a bra. No thanks, I'll stick with the tried and true traditional neck strap which doesn't bother me at all, and it's FASTER to pull the camera up to a shooting position than the neck gaggers!!!
Sling straps gag you?
You may be strapping wrong.
Jogger: "a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable." .. a lot of remote photography would apply to these.. e.g. those camera traps that are triggered by animals braking an infrared beam.
If ownership is dependent upon intent, and I accidentally drop my camera and it clicks a frame, I don't own it?
How can the photographer bringing his gear to the area to take pictures of monkeys not constitute intent to obtain pictures of monkeys? What if he'd specifically left his camera sit out to get the pictures?
Are you saying that because he didn't specifically intend to get that exact frame in those exact circumstances that he doesn't own the product of his equipment, effort, and presence?
So what if I set up my camera with a Triggertrap or something?
Are we saying that all bullet photography, and most photos of lightning and drops hitting liquid are not registrable?
drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
Pretty much where my train of thought led as well.
By Wikimedia's rationale, if a wildlife biologist fits a seal, shark, or whale with a camera, when they recover the footage they don't own it, but are rather stealing it from the animal.
My guess is that Wikimedia just wanted the threat of a protracted legal battle to intimidate him into giving them their way. Hopefully he gets his justice.
nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.
I take it you're only considering the post-consumer waste if you're saying that, which totally ignores the environmental impact of the mining, petroleum industry, and chemical processes necessary to produce many electronic components.
That's like saying your double quarter pounder with cheese & a large fry is a healthy meal because you got a diet coke with it.
mandophoto: Presently, film stuff is but a fraction of the waste that goes into the environment. Consider the billions of plastic and electronic devices that are tossed yearly. Yeah, all this stuff should be recycled but.... it isn't. Film now is the least of our environmental concerns.
It's good and cool to keep film going (for a few more years anyway.)
"Also before you imagined your math. Have you looked at the links I have included in my previous post? Before your next reply, please educate yourself."
Not only that, but you could at least bother to get the math at least mathematically correct...0.1% of ten gallons is about 1.3 oz.
hydrospanner: I'm seriously considering going to iPhone after 4 years with Android products, but this phone might keep me around for another contract. If it's waterproof, and there's definite specs out before my contract is up in December, I may well hold off until its release.
If it's not waterproof, though, I'll get an iPhone 6 in December.
Hey man, whatever floats your boat. You're obviously atypical and myopic.
If all you care about in a phone is RAW capture in the camera, just get a camera and be done with it.
If you want a useful tool, steer clear of Windows phones, and deal with the horrible agony of being reduced to JPEG output and no more 20x30 prints of your masterful cell phone art.
If the lack of RAW on an iPhone is a dealbreaker for you, then I take it you just don't own a phone then.
I feel pretty confident not valuing your opinion on such matters going forward, so thanks for clearing that up.
Again, a few might like it, but the majority have no use for it. It's likely just a feature that, for the market, doesn't add appreciably to their sales figures.
RAW on a smartphone is like having a towing hitch on a Mini: doesn't necessarily create a drawback, but if you're really going to make use of the feature, then the device it's attached to is far from ideal.
Obviously, from your name, RAW means more than just about anything else, but I don't think most of the rest of us will be losing any sleep over lack of RAW on a phone.
Yeah, I don't want or need RAW for my mobile photo needs. I just want to snap, edit, and share.
Same with the card slot. I never swapped them out when I had them, and when I got my current phone which didn't have a removable card, I was skeptical, but I haven't missed it at all, so that's a non-issue for me as well.
I'm seriously considering going to iPhone after 4 years with Android products, but this phone might keep me around for another contract. If it's waterproof, and there's definite specs out before my contract is up in December, I may well hold off until its release.
The Smoking Camera: I can only imagine how much better the IQ would be from those other mirrorless cameras if it got the shot I was able to with the V3.
Then I suppose the V3 is the industry leader in beehive photography.
Outside of that, though (and a few very specific other niches), the fps is at best a fringe benefit, that doesn't outweigh the cost/IQ ratio in any respect.
If you're relying on 20 vs 11fps to get your shot, i think it speaks to a fundamentally flawed approach to the photography itself.
Kipplemaster: Could DPReview please start listing lack of USB charging a a con rather than the current practice of listing "lack of included charger" as a con for cameras with have the advantage of USB charging. Particularly for cameras which might be used for travel, for those of use who are not fans of packing random proprietary massive plastic accessories USB charging is a major plus.
TIL that there are apparently real people out there who would rather plug their entire camera in and let it sit instead of just slapping a battery into a charger while they throw in a spare and keep shooting.
TylerQ: Still not signing up. Monthly fees for software? No thanks.
Flipside: If getting both Ps and Lightroom is no incentive to you (raises hand), you're getting no additional benefit, with the drawback of always being chained to that payment. After paying X amount for a disc, you have it. And as long as your machine will run it, it's always yours, no question...and if it continues to meet your needs, you don't have to upgrade.
This is nothing more than a corporate measure taken to ensure that its customers are forced to provide constant revenue, nothing more. And attempts to sugar coat it are unconvincing at best, and deceptive kowtowing at worst.
tkbslc: I might finally cave.
That's about 5 years of $10 a month to add up to the retail cost of buying the software retail before.
Better still, they could give the customer the option to decide what's best for them. The forced tradeoff of paying more for things you don't want/need is never a positive...same with someone else deciding what's best for you.
peevee1: What's the point? Cheaper than the lens alone, these days you can get E-PM2 (with IBIS and better sensor and EVF support)+14-42 +40-150, and that 40-150 is faster, sharp and 70g lighter and focuses with the speed of light.
What UWA are you using in the EOS M line vs the m43 offerings? There's no basis for comparison, which kind of proves the point.
Marty4650: It might have been interesting to see how well the Nikon 1 AW1 performed against these cameras. Compared to the four cameras reviewed, the Nikon 1 has a "huge sensor."
Mike, in 35mm equivalence, the AW1 is only 2mm longer at 27mm than the Oly's at 25mm. If that's a deal breaker, regardless of any other factor, well I guess that's okay, but you'd have to agree that's highly subjective.
Also, in terms of low light, the AW1 with the 10mm lens has more than double the aperture area of the TG-3. Clearly making it the better low-light option.
Robemo: Never understood these 'camera-phone' reviews. I don't know anyone who is serious about photography that uses a phone. I do know a lot of people using their phone for taking 'social events' pictures and then sending them to friends. They don't give a hoot about 'ultimate' quality images. It's about sharing a very basic image. Most of the time the images stay in the phone until memory runs out (and then they come to me ...'Help, my camera is not working anymore !'). If they ever print such an image, which they seldom do, it will be postcard size. The images in this review of the M8 look good enough for that for sure. Make these reviews more realistic by aiming at how almost everyone uses their phone and not by reviewing it for the rare geek that uses their camera phone like a Hasselblad.
Yeah, all except the fact that "your remarks" are based on your lack of perspective.
If you care so little about the subject, why keep commenting? Nobody here wants to know what you have to say after you've proven how ridiculous you are.