What about the sickle? I saw an interview of the Russian who rased the flag. The thing I remember the most was, why did the American and English troop have nice clean uniforms, cartons of cigarets. And the Americans had rolls of money. Did we not also win the war? The peole of Russia leared how they were being taken.
Nikon, join the mirrorless club with a real camera, APS-C or FF. You still make MF lens! People who want small cameras want pocket cameras, they can careless about any of the mirrorless feachers. Nikon would be able to make an A7, with lens already-ready. Dump the V series.
DPJoe2: Please bear with me. I believe what we care about is IQ. IQ is determined by lens quality, sensor size, quality, and the sensors set sensitivity. The same is true for film. I'm treating sensor noise and film grain as equal problems. For each sensor or film sensitivity there is a built-in level of noise. How much is determined by the manufacturer. Unlike film, sensors can have there sensitivity increased electronically. But whether you use film or sensors, increasing the sensitivity increases noise. Noise and sensor size determine how much you can enlarge an image and get an acceptable result. The more you enlarge an image the more noise is visible. If you shoot with a high ISO you increase noise and lower how much you can enlarge the image to get an acceptable result. But if you shoot with a larger sensor, you don't have to enlarge the image as much, and as a result get better IQ. BTW, when I say larger sensor size, I mean the physical size of the sensor, not MegaPixels. Questions?
But, if you have 20MP image from an ISO, say 200, low. Even a "small" sensor will have little noise, what you are saying is basically true, but in the real world use not always. Back in the days of film, you may push Pan-X to ISO 80, get very low grain image that would easily be mistaken for medium format work.
Things will always improve, part of this game is to hold back just a bit, to make look like your always and improving. Therefore more money for them too. If this game is new to you, you should just take pictures and for get about new cameras.
Fuji is making some great zoom lens, 18-55mm zoom on a X200 with OIS would be great, even leave the leaf sutter. Eighter push to be a true F2.8 or leave at F/2.8-4.It may not replace the X100s, but if some want to travel light or have a simple system, two cameras like this may have some only wanting , later on a better sensor.
Why do they show what a photograph and 4k or HD video would look like under normal light. The black cat in coal mine society has had their moment, really beside looking for Al Qedia (sic) what Earthly good would these photos have.
The Canon does a good job of staying close to the Sony 7s, so does the 7R. The camera seems to have a very narrow use. I think Sony should have made a more conventional camera, used 16-18MP. Still a low light leader, with a more useful rate of MPs.
"PLease don't take my Kodachrome way", goodbye.
I my test, the 7s was the best by about 2 F stops to the Nikon D4s, the Nikon D4s was about 1.5 F stops over the Nikon Df and because I own one, A fuji X-T1. To be honest I like the Fuji X-T1 in Jpeg, better then the Df. Below ISO the Nikons and Fuji start to take over from the 7s, not in noise, but in resolution. 16MP can be considered low by some, just think were 12MP comes in. It must take fine movies. It is too bad Sony does not offer high speed lens that are native to the camera. An F/1.8 cuts near and F stop over the cameras performance.
Not every lens has the same curve.
What they should test is the Canon 35mm IS F2.0, it is a little nicer. The telling line in the report is that in a print, actual use. You cannot tell the difference from the most any other well made 35mm lens. Bottom line is that Nikon now has a good F2.0 35mm. The next step would to improve the old 35mm F1.4. For $600.00 it is a fine lens. As for architecture, you would shoot wider, with control lens.
The IQ of the Panasonic is about the same as the Sony up to ISO 400. beyond that the Pan takes over. Poor Sony Jpegs? The only thing the Sony has is F2.8, the Pan is at F4.0 @ 150mm and starts right off. But this only one F stop, not F6 or even worse. Both lens are made/disigned by a top company. But the Pan goes to F4.0 fast, but it does not stop a 200mm it goes to 400mm. It also has 1/16,000 sec, or is this a miss print or are my eyes getting old. the LCD on the Sony is a liittle better, the EVF the same. 4k movies out of the box. The Pan is much cheaper.....A week ago the Sony looked the game in town, the Panasonic looks good to this Fuji/Leica guy.
It is fast and has preset fixes. If you do a lot of portraits, I would say yes, if not.If you have a major program, Photoshop, DxO, Capture, ect you can do about the same thing.
Sounds as if it so automatic, it hates being told want to do. For me this would be a camera I would sometimes, therfore it would have to be intuitive when used. It sounds like it would work very well on "P". They say that is why movie works so well. Fuji is coming out with a new X30, rumors say it will have a 1" sensor. IT's got to cheaper. I will wait and see.
Photography from the being has been the closet thing man has to a time machine. The great artist and photojournalist will always give us a view of time and history. But it is the every day pictures meant to just record a personal event that will give a sense of the era. The Brownie and now the cell phone view of life. These were the days when my parents were teenagers. The comparisons for others are nearly infinite. I think that is why photo albums are fascinating, even if they are people you do not know. Great stuff. Fune work.
Weather seal would make it prefect. Hay this lens is made in Japan? Canon and Nikon better wake up. Simga will be their lens maker. This lens for real world use has few piers.
Leica needs to think long and hard, is this camera really worth $7-8k. Can we make it cheaper. If Leica got rid of the expensive RF system, replaced it with AF. The cameras would still be made in Germay. Lens ground in Germany and assemble in Japan. The costs would be a lot lower. The camera $3-4k. Lens would be less then $3k. The new APS-C Leica is a start. Leica needs to jump in with both feet. In the days of film, buying a camera that last you a "life time" maybe an investment. But with digital and changing technology. What is todays marvel is tomorrows doorstop.
I have only tried the WiFi at home. Do you have to work off some public WiFi, or do you just need the camera and phone.
webrunner5: Holly cow. The shot of the family in the car is one of the best shots of how unfair life can be I have seen in years. That poor women looks like she is 80 years old.
And here we are peeing away thousands of dollars on camera stuff while it looks like they live in that car.
There can be no god that lets things like this happen No way.
This part of a story of this family, in the 80's or 90's. How they lived out of this car. When they would get some money, I remember from the mag story. They would get a motel room. One of the pictures were of the children asleep on the floor of the shower. They were clean and fed and warm, they had a home. If for just a while.
Does this mean, I can process my X-trans, Fuji, in LR the send to DXO 9.5 and use the raw process, then send it back to LR?