hiro_pro: it is interesting that cropping is allowed but cloning is not. i have seen too many photos taken completely out of context by cropping down to one dramatic part of a more mundane scene. you see it all the time when they crop down a few kids throwing stones to create the illusion of large scale civil unrest.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. The iconic napalm girl image is the classic example which is really no different to what was done here by removing the distracting peripheral objects. So if he had been able to crop the video camera out instead of retouching it in order to make the image more dramatic, what would be the difference? In fact, that's probably exactly why he did clone it out, because he couldn't crop it out effectively.
I still dispute the misleading notion the X100s should even be in the 'compact' category in the first place. It's even bigger than an m4/3 camera like the GX7, or even the OM-D body without the prism. Compact is not even a relative term for 'smallish' open to interpretation - the very least definition of a compact camera is shirt-pocketable, which the X100s is most certainly not by any stretch of the imagination.
Except the X100S and RX1 aren't compact cameras. I think the very least definition of a compact camera is it is pocketable, both in dimensions as well as collapsible lens. They are neither of these and not even in the same category as the Coolpix A or GR.
Antony John: And the new lens?At least I can afford that ;-)If it's better than Nikon's other 50mm lens offering it's a possibility for purchase - but maybe it's just the 50 F1.8 AF-S in different packaging?
"Just checked. Same lens with different housing for $63 more (± 30%) for the privilege."
Yep, that just about sums up the whole camera itself too.
steelski: I am waiting for Pentax/Ricoh to do it right. The Ricoh GR vs Nikon "A". Nikon are going backwards. :(Not small, not retro, just a D600 with a 16MP sensor and a shell.
I would also expect the Pentax full frame DSLR due soon from Ricoh to be much more appealingly priced compared to its equally featured Nikon counterpart just as per the GR vs the Coolpix A.
AngryCorgi: It's a shame that it shall be obscenely overpriced. :(
"Being the only retro FF DSLR basically gives it license to be overpriced, which is generally what happens in the absence of competition or alternatives."
Nikon proves you wrong on that theory. The Coolpix A wasn't the only APSC 28mm compact, yet Nikon still overpriced it $300 compared to the near identical, maybe even better, Ricoh GR competition.
Nikon simply price their new cameras to what they think the market will bear, and then some. Look no further than the Nikon 1 as a prime example.
Will the price be retro as well in 1982 dollars?
So why doesn't Nikon just make their own smartphone? They could even make it operate as a plug-in LCD/control screen on their DSLRs to get up/downgraders.
anthony mazzeri: Gaylord did not sign over his intellectual property rights to the sculpture when it was commissioned, so he can continue to derive income from it above and beyond the $750,000 he was originally paid for it. I need to get into the memorial sculpture business. And the number of Gaylord's manager/agent.
I think it would be fair and reasonable for anyone to assume that any sculpture they are paid to create for any national military memorial commemorating a major war will appear pretty much everywhere and anywhen the govt or its services or the American people deem they would like it to. And also being a public monument, it would be reasonable to assume the word public by the dictionary definition of 'shared by all' precludes him from having anything privately owned whatsoever about the monument to sign over or retain in the first place.
I'm wondering now if Gaylord actually used photograph reference for his sculpture as per the Iwo Jima monument? Or did he get life models to pose for him? So it could be a print/stamp of a photo... of a sculpture... of a photo...
psn: Did the USPS appeal this to the supreme court at all? I suppose it's probably cheaper to pay the award than to pay the lawyers for an appeal. Also, it sounds to me their lawyers are pretty weak...
I don't know how legal these two notions would be - 1: They would have sold those $17 million worth of stamps regardless because people buy stamps to mail their stuff and not because of the image on them, therefore the USPS did not derive that income from his work so he shouldn't get a cut of it. They just do as many public postal services around the world do and use their stamps as mini-billboards to promote public services or events etc. And 2: He was commissioned (and paid quite handsomely) by the public to create a public monument. The very premise of the word 'public' means owned/shared by all and so precludes private ownership as being its very antithesis, and so there was never any 'privately owned copyright' in the first place for him to retain.
Gaylord did not sign over his intellectual property rights to the sculpture when it was commissioned, so he can continue to derive income from it above and beyond the $750,000 he was originally paid for it. I need to get into the memorial sculpture business. And the number of Gaylord's manager/agent.
ppronovo: Despite being fond of Nikon products, this seems too little too late. I don't see what is superior in this to other options out there. I would never take this diving if it can only be used to 15 m. I know scuba diving isn't all of underwater use, but 49 ft seems limited. What am I missing?
@ppronovo, what you're missing is that Nikon already covers scuba diving with the WP-N1 waterproof casing for the J1 and J2 models or WP-N2 for the J3 model to a depth of 40 metres (130 feet).
Deleted pending purge: Not even close to Nikonos. Just another frustrating attempt to avoid building something truly usable to divers. Funny silicone underwear, whatever the color, won't help.
Nikon already covers scuba diving with the Nikon 1 with the WP-N1 waterproof casing for the J1 and J2 models or WP-N2 for the J3 model to a depth of 40 metres, plus sundry waterproof spares/accessories such as spare o-rings, zoom-gear sleeves, reflection prevention rings, and even desiccant and Nikon-branded tubes grease.
Doesn't look like avoidance to me. Or are you claiming none of this is actually usable to divers?
supeyugin1: 15m? They must be joking! It's not a camera for scuba diving. Must be at least 40m. Not a Nikonos at any measure.
There is already 40m underwater housing for both the J1 and J3 models to cater to scuba diving, so you don't actually need this AW1 for that.
Macintosh Sauce: This is interesting, because they come in both black and silver. This must mean that Ricoh is going to release black and silver versions of the new K-3/K-3s. :D
I'm waiting for the new K-3s - I will be all over that with the five DA Limited primes. :)
I agree, except I suspect it will be black and silver in the one camera with a retro SLR design.
citizenlouie: These are the killers.... Very good move, Pentax. But what I don't understand is why Canon Red on Pentax lenses.... What happened to green?
Yes, but green doesn't actually signify top of the line when it comes to Pentax. That's reserved for the additional gold ring such as on the DA 55mm. And on the FA Limiteds there're no rings at all.
Anyway the red ring already appears on the other two new Pentax HD-coated lenses - the DA 560mm and the 645 90mm Macro.
A red ring signifies the top of the line Ricoh 'GR' lenses, so maybe they've adopted this now for Pentax branded lenses as well.
They could equally have a ring of hands held in prayer positions with the line "praying isn't helping'.
So the Ricoh name replaces the Asahi name as the manufacturer of repected Pentax D/SLRs.
How are people reading into this as the death of the Pentax brand?