Frank C.: Canon and Nikon must feel what Blackberry felt when S. Jobs whipped out the first iphone, you know, that 'wtf' moment lol
I don't remember Blackberry having a WTF moment until they looked at their balance sheet a year later. I remember their first impression being "Meh, our users will never leave us. It's too radical - no keyboard - bwahahaha" If Sony wants to go for the jugular, they need to step up the marketing. Stop the camera eye candy commercials that look like sensual skin creme adverts - and go balls-out in-your-face blitz aimed at Millennials.
Marty4650: If this lens was made from solid gold, it would cost $18,600 (15.5 ounces x $1200).
So it really is a bargain at $6,000!
(Hey, I wonder how much light solid gold can transmit?)
But Gold is 7.15 times denser than Aluminum. So if you made a gold lens at that weight, it would be as thin as paper and crumple in your hand when you went to put it on the body. So to keep the walls and mount as thick as the current lens....you would need a gold lens that was about 111 ounces, or 7lbs. 111 ounces is $133,200.
But you could save a little by subtracting the weight of the glass lenses - those you can reuse.
Fearless Spiff: It really is a joke. I am more than pi**ed.
Take your time to learn the product. The essential photo editing tools are still there. Do you think this wasn't the same song the choir of the hopeless sang when iMovie was remade, or when FCP was remade? Apple has show time and time they'll remake these products - their products - better in time. At their pace.
luben solev: I like all but No 6. That one looks a bit dull in both framing and colour/contrast. I'd be proud to have taken all the others.
I know that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but to me No 1 is a worthy winner. It's different, a bit surreal, has lots of detail and has that painterly quality many a landscape photographer aspires to.
A great selection!
Really? When I saw the rabbit and then the scene, I was like "Ohmigosh, England really does look like Watership Down".
Beeg vaatter! Kiaar....kiaar.
WolfyWho: This is what Fuji should do with their X100 line (been wishing on that for a while). Three different bodies with 3 different lenses. I'd carry 3 X100's, each having a different focal length (35, 50, 85 in 35mm equiv), and never have to change lenses again.
If it were an absurd idea - then by that rational, carrying around multiple prime lenses when 1 zoom lens can fulfill your needs - would be absurd. And yet its not because primes are perceived as sharper. Ah, but would not a prime lens matched to a sensor be even better? - yes. So it's not so absurd. It's logical. Maybe not practical, but it is logical.
I thought so too. I think it's a good business model for people that don't mind it. It's more like lenses with sensors rather than a body with fixed lenses. And the great thing is, each lens can be configured for its own settings. I think that Sony should do the same and release a RX2 and RX3 with fixed lengths.
RedDog Steve: A cease-fire in the pixel wars ?
I think it'll happen. A few years ago it was MHz wars, who was faster, Intel or AMD, PowerPC - PC or Mac? But now that doesnt seem to make a much space on a brochure. And now I think that the pixel count will level off.
camera lucida: How does the update work with OSX? The Camera does not show on my Mac when connected :-(
Don't worry, the FPUPDATE program will find it. And at least this update won't yack and spit like Sony's a55 Firmware v2, just because of a 64-bit kernal.