CopCarSS: It never ceases to amaze me how many grumps hang around DPR. Personally, I think it's an amazing project and that the kid has some very engaging portraits. I'm proud to be one of the backers of the project and look forward to the book if it meets its goal.
Agreed. The photos actually are quirky and nice, and unless he is being heavily coached, he already has a good sense of composition and interest in the subject. Most young kids to whom I have given a camera shoot without any real thought at all, one rarely can even identify a subject to the image, and they rarely get anything even 10% as good as what I am seeing here! All of these pictures are close enough to subject to be meaningful. And given the camera used, it is VERY close!
For the whiners, I would argue for his father to go ahead and publish. And through this publication I hope that other parents become inspired to expose their kids to photography. With digital, there is instant gratification and quick learning feedback. Fun is the path to interest and proficiency.
Game on, quit whining and put a camera in your kids' hands--if you have the courage!
Bernd M: I don't understand why I'll have to pay US$ 5.700 for a Zeiss 135mm F2.1 when I could buy a Zeiss Sonnar T 135mm F1.8 for US$ 1.800. What makes the Cine Lens so much more expensiv? Can anybody tell me?
As others have said, the manufacture, color accuracy and durability are all important.
But probably a little bit less so as the world has moved to digital. They may be looking at either a shrinking high end pro market, or a rising lower end market, where a few thousand bucks might actually make a difference.
The issues with color balance and T-stop were much more important in the film era when a screwed up shot would be very expensive. Digital is better that way, seeing what's "in the can" in real time. But subtle color corrections are still a hassle and costly of data processing, but not deal breakers.