Zvonimir Tosic: Everyone seems to ridicule Hassy about this and similar cameras. But in reality, all this tells more about Sony's own attitude towards their own IP and the level of respect, service and integrity for their own users. I.e., if Hassy is able to better Sony's user experience using same components, then what was Sony's goal in the first place?
Sony probably designed their product to suit the majority of potential customers. This Hassy is clearly aimed at a very particular and minor group of customers. Most of us don't need bullet-proof construction or a beautiful exterior to improve the user experience, wouldn't you agree?
It's the customers who actually pay for this stuff that are to blame. If nobody bought this sort of stuff, Hassy would stop making them. Apparently there is enough interest and market demand for them to create them, so more power to the manufacturer. No need to get ourselves overly worked up over this; just spend money on what really matters.
MichaelK81: As a portrait photographer, the quality of the bokeh was immediately apparent to me, moving-up from the 50mm f/1.4G. This lens has become an instant classic in my camera bag.
But is the bokeh worth the money? Just curious.
I just don't see the $1,000 difference. The real-world tests say that this 58mm lens does indeed do some things very well, but $1,000+ well? I guess users will have to respond with their wallets and purses.
Just my two cents: With all the talk about video focusing noise, I don't understand why someone would take video in autofocus mode. DSLRs, no matter what brand, aren't supposed to do that. There are things called video cameras for that purpose. And even the pro versions don't use autofocus, so this is really a moot point. The pro video shooters don't use auto anything, including focus, so focus noise is not an issue. A pro DSLR film shooter would know to use an external mic to get good sound, thereby rendering focus noise irrelevant.
Now, if external mics and manual focus are too much to handle and someone just wants a simple home video, there are tons of options out there much cheaper than the Df. Canon 70D does a tremendous job of silent autofocus with its STM lenses at a lower price. Even better, just get a cheap camcorder. Turn it on and go.
jenbenn: Impressive IQ but unfortunately only a toy rather than a tool. If I shot landscapes I would have much preferred a slower, lighter lens with image stabilization. For the travel, street, documentary and event work that I do the inconsistent AF renders the lens useless for me. I might as well use a slower, smaller, lighter and more inconspicous lens and shoot at higher ISO. After smoothing the noise in pp the result should be the same as a misfocussed image from this lens. In the end it seems the lens will not turn your Aps-c camera into something of a full frame equivalent.(Save for the dof )
Dont get me wrong, I admire the optical achievement. But without reliable Af, this optical splendour is just wasted for the majority of the practical applications this lens was designed for. My agency (alamy) rejects all misfocused images (however slight) and for large gallery prints misfocussed images are not usable anyway. What a shame.
Use the camera's microadjustment to fix it. We do that with other lenses, so I don't see why we can't do it with this one.
While I agree that the test shots were taken at a variety of locations, the actual shooting conditions didn't vary much. Outdoor daylight is outdoor daylight whether you're in the Sahara or Finland. There was one night shot, a bunch of outdoor daytime shots, and some indoor shots. Maybe a shot in a forest where the contrast is hell between the dark trees and open sky would be more telling of the camera's abilities.
Very good stuff!
I can't help but feel sad about this, even though I haven't used Kodak anything for 20 years. Any time you lose a landmark in history, it's sad.
Great skill on display. Forget the should or should not's for moment and just applaud her skills. Art is subjective so not everyone will like it. The fact that she made them look like the real thing is worthy of respect. Great job!
I'm sure they went nuts because this phone's camera has super sharpness in the corners and great high ISO performance! ;)
A lot of haters here. Obviously these shots are not perfectly exposed. It's his style. And I think it's the emotions and thought that he puts into these photos that make them different. Too often we overdress our shots but sacrifice human nature. In the real world, not every shot has perfect exposure. Shadows will be too dark, or the brights will be overblown. Why do the haters worship carefully crafted lighting but dump on what's "real"? Because you're so much "better" than him? Then it's not really about his photos, is it? It's about your ego.
I am struggling with the concept of mobile photography. I'd love to embrace its immediacy and intimacy, but I can't get around its technical limitations. Blowing up a phone shot to anything larger than A4 would require a huge dose of explaining to myself that the graininess is an "art form," not a limiting factor. Many peers have produced excellent images that look great online, so I am not doubting its place. I just cannot fathom it being a "real" alternative to the DSLRs that feed us. Would someone cover a presidential event with a phone, or with a top-of-the-line DSLR? Probably not, and that's my biggest problem.
I'm a realist. While I agree that a fine picture can be taken with any tool, the end result still doesn't lie. Imagine Da Vinci doing the Mona Lisa with a 2B pencil on a 3" x 3" piece of paper. Would it still look great? Absolutely! But wouldn't you rather it be bigger and in color, with finer detail?
It's obvious that taking great pictures isn't fully dependent on camera gear, but I don't fully agree with the romanticized notion that a phone can do a great job most of the time. It'd be like trying to cover the Olympics with a Polaroid. Limitations are limitations.
Small-time slowed down moments in time, yes. Usain Bolt going 100mph to break his own record, no way.
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, it's about how serious you want your pictures to be. If your priority is your honeymoon, leave the DSLR at home. If you want good pictures, no way any smartphone is going to be yield better results. Remember the guy who tried to cover the Olympics with a Lumix G5? Didn't work out at all. Likewise, pretending a smartphone can produce good pictures is being overly optimistic, IMO.
There is no way in hell or anywhere in heaven to justify its cost. A collector's item at best.
schorscho: Well some people judge from the spec sheet and never had a real Leica in their hands. I was one of them till I actually photographed with one. Everything is so smooth it's a real joy to use it one can not imagine without actually using one. I stopped complaining and I'm sure one day I will own one.....
@schorscho, I own an M9 and must say that the price is really hard to justify at times. You will agree that the C/P is nowhere close to a Canon/Nikon body. It's a wonderful piece to own, but it does far less for a higher price.
I own an M (non movie version, of course). I have to say that although the shooting experience is top-notch, I occasionally find myself trying to justify the cost of it versus my Canon. Sure my photo projects will pay for it, but while the Leica experience is excellent, it's also expensively excellent (or excellently expensive). More a collector's item than a real-world tool for me.
pannumon: The Panasonic site is showing shots of just one photographer with no prior experience of the gear he is using. It does not make sense to judge him or the gear by comparing his shots to the best shots of all the others. Even comparing portfolios of 100 best photos taken by a photographer at the Olympics would not be fair, because it's crucial to know your gear.
By the way, in my opinion Dean has succeeded pretty well. I'm expecting more action photos as he is getting used to the system. Maybe he will take more less challenging shots with narrow depth of field, as well.
I think he opened himself to this criticism by accepting this job, wouldn't you agree? I wouldn't go into a huge event like this without full confidence in my gear and then hoping people would get off my back. If he doesn't demand the best of himself, why should we lower our standards of critique and "come to accept this quality"?
OttoVonChriek: pannumon has a very good point. The problem of giving a camera like that to a photojournalist is that they will have no experience of using anything like that!
And to be fair, I think his shots are improving
Yeah, improving... with the games already done with the prime events. The men's 100M, the swimming events... Not sure what other signature events are left for him to redeem the G5.