Rod McD: This is a fast lens, and may well offer excellent IQ, but 830gm and 15.5cm long in mirror-less mounts? Heck, it's not that far off Fuji's new 50-140/2.8 zoom! It might suit some photographers but not me...... just too big.
Indeed. I own an FD 135mm f/2 (and a whole bunch of other FD and C/Y lenses) and use it regularly with my A7.
lemonadedrinker: Wonderful images, what a beautiful country this used to be !Anyway, shot 23 looks to be taken from the bottom of Savoy Place, but Google maps has blanked out the brass work on the plinth just behind that branch so i have no idea who it is memorialised there.I think behind the tram is Blackfriars Bridge and St Paul's just visible.Thanks for posting and looking forward to more.
Waterloo Bridge was being rebuilt in 1939, which would account for the scaffolding that otherwise makes it look rather like Hungerford Bridge.
The memorial is to the novelist and poet, Walter Besant.
Bill T.: I wonder how many of the anti-CC ranters here are merely annoyed because they can no longer pirate the software?
I've never mind paying for good value received, and as far as I'm concerned CC represents fabulous value for the money, especially for those who use multiple applications.
If Adobe went back to old scheme, I couldn't afford to pay for a lot of Adobe programs (and their updates) that I now use. Just think...that would give us a whole new thing to rant about!
I've had a licence for Photoshop since v2.5, which I bought in 1993. I upgraded it every version or two, depending on how attractive I thought the new version was. Adobe had plenty of my money over the last 20 years.
There are appropriate places to rent software (I can see the utility when I'm managing my budgets for software at work, though I have to weigh it against the downtime risks) but I object to not having a choice in the matter. At home, I'll be sticking with CS6 for as long as I can and then I'll have to consider my options.
In this case, at least, it is nothing to do with piracy.
tmurph: As already mentioned, could you get away with photographing people in that manner today?The answer is yes, in a city like New York or as seen in the film around the Los Angeles/Hollywood area because of it being a tourist attraction. Try doing it in your local town and see what kind of reaction you get. Of course it's all down to the way you approach the subject and it's also a question about confidence but even so, today it's become harder to go about taking pictures without someone causing a fuss and calling the police.
Check out Mark Cohen in action from the same series of films as the Winogrand one.
Like Bruce Gilden, Cohen uses flash and is far more intrusive, 'trespassing' in his subjects' personal space, as he describes it
It's Wilkes Barre, PA
Garry Winogrand seems positively self-effacing, affable and human in comparison.
Fab! at first impression.
Gothmoth: is there a reason why you only report updates and new versions of some software and ignore others?
there are hundreds of HDR apps... yet you report only updates for some... but then ALL updates for these apps.
also i reported that there is a great new RAW converter: PHOTO NINJA.
yet nothing in the news about it.
and PHOTO NINJA is really a APP that should be mentioned in the news....
From your follow up reply I believe you already have your answer - DPR were sent a press release by the manufacturer and they were not sent one by the makers of products that don't feature.
At least that's usually been the answer given by DPR staff to similar questions I've seen here in the past.
s2eves: If we assume the minimum focussing distance is actually 0.41 m (41 cm), the the conversion to inches - stated in brackets - is incorrect.
I puzzled over that for a few seconds too.
I think it's a typo - should be 1.36' (although I calculate that 41cm = 1.345 feet so the MFD may be very slightly longer than 41cm)
bradleyg5: The problem with distortion is when you have subjects in the frame at different distances. If you have someone standing near the camera and someone 10 feet back, there really isn't a way to truly fix the perspective issue, the person near the camera is still going to be vastly larger than the person away.
Basically I want a version of this that also incorporates magic, giving me the perspective of a longer focal length with the framing and camera positioning necessitating a ultra wide.
Since perspective renderings were first invented.
Perspective is a 2D distortion of 3D reality - parallel lines do not actually converge. Things further away are not actually smaller than the same things nearer to the viewer.
Perspective is a convenient distortion that presents an illusion of distance. So convenient that we rarely thing about it as a distortion.
peweuk: I wonder if Sigma have done a deal with the Olympic Organisers to allow this.
The Olympics committee has special legal 'powers' to insist that any photographic or video content of anything that involves the games is removed from public view. This definately includes imagery taken at the games, but the 'grey' area is how far beyond that it goes.For example the two words 'London' and '2012' whilst OK individually, cannot be used together as 'London 2012' in anything that can be deemed 'commecially beneficial'. This competiton is 'commercially beneficial to Sigma.
Private individuals have been warned that to put images of the games on social networking sites is prohibited - so how are Sigma going to publish the results??
Unless of course they have paid vast licensing fees to the Organisers.
The big problem for this competition is not what camera you're allowed to use, but that any photos taken in Olympic venues ‘cannot be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes'. A competition probably doesn't fall under 'private and domestic'.
So, according to a Sigma spokesman talking to Amateur Photgrapher magazine when quizzed on the matter:
"[Sigma] are inviting you to submit pictures showing the people, the build-up and the atmosphere from outside the arenas - together with local sporting events inspired by the Games."
sroute: Great job, looks and sounds great in HD.
Oh yeah, the NEX-7 just looks... perfect. My expectations keep getting ratcheted higher. Please stop teasing me, I don't believe I've been this excited waiting for a camera debut... ever. Highly irrational I know, and yes, I have one on order sight unseen which is also equally irrational.
Here's to hoping your detailed review also includes a look at some legacy lenses. It would be most useful to scores of prospective users to have a look at some manual ex SLR lenses as well as rangefinder variants (like the Zeiss ZM 25, for example) and how they behave, and how focus peaking and magnification behaves for those of us who are not already NEX users.
Yep. I'm mostly interested in using the body with manual focus glass (a lot of Canon FD lenses in my case) so that's something that would grab my attention.
Conversely, AF speed isn't a major concern to me for the same reason :-)