Incarnate . . . AGAIN !
Steve,You hit the challenge bullseye with this shot ! The symmetry heightening the oppression. Good show !
Their Brochure:Get away from it all ! You are assigned to live in the relaxing atmosphere (until early onset respiratory failure) and intimate diverse architecture of this small, delightfully quiet (or else !) seaside community. Remember, China celebrates your individualism !
As among other things, a serious amateur astronomer, let me say that this is the finest artistic star-trail photo I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.
Your remarkably creative technique and flawless (and painstaking) execution aside--the result is nothing short of a triumph !
Congratulations on your first well-deserved win ! I, and I'm sure many others, await more to come.
PSNZ, already high on my list of "must visits" just moved up !
LITERALLY stunning !!
And handheld (!!) on top of that -- hats off to you, my friend !!
A bold and beautiful visualization, with brilliant execution.
A great shot !
Super use of composition an DOF !
The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.
The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.
2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings
3. Final assembly to, again, extremely high tolerances, alignment, centering and maintaining necessary super quality control.
As we go up and up in quality and performance so, PROPORTIONALLY, do the time and COST of all the above !
NOTE: The format is not a directly proportional factor in these
To think otherwise is like saying a Bugatti Veyron costs $3million just because the delivered metal, carbon fiber,and tires cost so much.
The Moral: You get what you pay for.
topstuff: Why do people care so much about a rating of a mass produced, inanimate piece of consumer electronics?
It does not define who you are. No pride or egos are at stake.
Yet people act as if they want validation over which "tribe" they feel they belong to. Its nuts and really quite pathetic.
And there are people here who spend a great deal of their time on this world collating and manipulating data to influence opinions. As if they are trying to cure cancer or something (sdyue -i'm thinking of you..!)
Maybe they are paid to this - in which case I advise you to look in a mirror, ask yourself why. Get a better job.
It does not matter if two different cameras get the same score. DPR has delivered the verdict that they are both very good and worthy of your cash, whichever on you choose. So they have done their job.
Are you all out of your minds !?
It is sunny outside. Take a walk. Get a life. Get some perspective !
Many points very well-taken topstuff,
But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are also many people (not the fanboys bickering over a silly score, or knee-jerk defending turf) who read tech reviews in order to get preliminary, professionally conducted test evaluations of performance, in order to intelligently weigh that in determining the appropriate choice of the camera most suited for their desires and performance requirements, before laying down their hard earned money. (in fact, sometimes it is essential to their very livelihood, that is especially true of cams at this level)
And many of those people require SPECIFIC (NOT final score) test result information in order to make their personal judgement, and thus it is not enough for them that two same-tier cameras are OVERALL, IN GENERAL, very good and worthy - which these two obviously are.
Good as they both are (I would love to own either) they have many differences that may be critical to a potential buyer.
openskyline: HONESTLY , I THINK DPREVIEW SHOULD TURN OFF COMMENT SECTION !!!!
Why wait for DPREVIEW ?Take your own advice.
Ben Raven: A MODEST PROPOSAL TO DP REVIEW: Re: The 30 minute video time limit(and the over-heating limitations)
Attention: Richard Butler, Andy Westlake, Amadou Diallo et al.,
To quote (and give proper credit to) Robbster (from a reply to me below):
" . . . until we can get the manufacturers to do the right thing, I think we should request THAT THE RECORD TIME BE A STANDARD SPECIFICATION ITEM FOR EACH VIDEO FORMAT SUPPORTED BY A CAMERA."
This would require only a few characters in a preview and review.
This is a video performance spec of precisely the same parallel importance as the battery charge shot capacity spec for still shots !
It is information ESSENTIAL in evaluating a piece of equipment for one's particular video performance requirements.
And I know that I do not have to remind you Noble Gentlemen of DP REVIEW how EVER INCREASINGLY important the video abilities of virtually all still cameras are --from the lowliest P&S (and cell phone !) to PRO !
Well said, trevmar!!
With all due respect, you're still living in the 20th century.
The VAST majority of people (and growing every minute in proportion to the video capabilities of every single still camera) are not going out like they used to and expending $$ for, and dragging around -- ANOTHER CAMERA just to take videos, when their own camera can take 1080p (of again, ever increasing quality), that THEY find is more than good enough.
The biggest growing overall sales and use trend, even in still cams, is SMALLER and LIGHTER, and easier to carry kit. People, and photo enthusiasts, increasingly find a simple DSLR is too big, for God's sake.
Sure a dedicated Video camera of high quality can do better -- but still cams are now capable of doing it well enough for most people, without them paying for, and lugging another piece of equipment around.
Your overall point is of course very well taken, and I agree with your witty analogy, but dear Maloy -- The Masses are speaking -- LESS IS MORE !
A MODEST PROPOSAL TO DP REVIEW: Re: The 30 minute video time limit(and the over-heating limitations)
Ben Raven: So let me get this straight,
Because some people MIGHT video a movie with a STILL camera, the REST OF THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH are now considered convicted co-conspirators. And without due process, must be assessed a penalty AND have our right to video ANYTHING for longer than 30 minutes straight revoked.Oh, and did I mention that this outrage is being imposed by a for-profit industry in conjunction with vulture camera manufacturers opportunistically using this pathetic excuse to attempt to squeeze more $$$$ out of their customers' pockets !!
One more important technical note--A quality HD video camera, unfettered by this limit, is capable of higher quality than the average still camera, and would be the obvious choice for intellectual property rights thieves.
Also, since more and more people are watching Blu-Ray level movies, the call for inferior video and wretched non-surround sound(with coughs) knockoffs is diminishing.
And we're supposed to be alright with this ?!?
Re: Recording time limits as a standard spec to be listed.
A most excellent and LEGITIMATE idea !!
Greynerd: Looking at the feedback over time on some cameras it might be an idea to carry a compact fire extinguisher with you when taking extended videos on a camera designed for stills, just in case the heat cutout fails to trip. Just a little tip.
trevmar and Andy,
I do not at the moment own any Panasonic cams, but . . .
Since the 30 minute limitation appears to be newer, it seems perhaps your two cams, both of which came out some time ago, pre-date it.
I might be a little leery, however, of any firmware updates from now on, and would check to see if they affect said video issue.
They even restrict the no. of batteries ?! Ay yay yay (not Chinese, I know)
Just returned from a brief wonderful trip behind the scenes in Shanghai (I'll take one of each of the eggs, please) courtesy of you -- thanks muchly !!
Let's hope the WTO does get these absurd and artificial limits lifted !
In the meantime, don't let the jerks get you down and . . .VIDEO ON MY FRIEND, VIDEO ON !
I assume this was a miss-placed followup to your heartfelt reply (above) directed to the insensitive,uninformed, and dismissive comment of rchg101.
For my part, I am TOTALLY with you about Panasonic getting onboard with the crippling, and your well-justified feeling of being betrayed by them as a customer.
I was also completely unaware of that Chinese restriction, but as we all know of China's repression of artistic and other freedoms, including the internet, I am unfortunately not surprised. Thank you trevmar, for letting us all know about it.
Well it's a dirty job and somebody's gotta do it.
Arbitrary restrictions on my and other's freedom, even technological and artistic freedom affects me, and I speak out about it in this most appropriate venu
At least I'm using my mind and doing it, you're just sittin' around reading it and complaining, and not even about the subject at hand, but about somebody else actually doing some thinking.
I am frankly surprised at this, zapatista, as I have noticed a few of your posts on other subjects in the past and have always found them on target, interesting, and at least on one occasion, laced with commendable sarcastic wit.
So let me get this straight,
Robbster, et al.,
WILL THE REAL VILLAINS STEP UP !
Who then are the culprit Manufacturers crippling their still cameras' video capacity out of opportunistic greed, and thus obstructing our creative control.
Let's make the list !
Robbster (you've obviously been on this for awhile),
What your reference has clarified for me, directly and simply, and which the ambiguous DP item above did not -- and please correct this previously uninformed soul if I am not getting this straight --is that apparently it is the MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES (and not the WTO as I initially thought) that are imposing the actual equipment level limits.
And that this is a profit based decision to BOTH avoid the tariffs and/or duties of many countries and the European Union on video cameras,
AND IMPORTANTLY:in an additional case of classic cynical Corporate greed and opportunism:
The said manufacturers, in order to maximize profits at the expense and cheating of their customers, are intentionally crippling the tech performance of their cameras, to in effect try and force people to have to buy video cameras in addition to their still cams, JUST IN ORDER TO VIDEO LONGER THAN A MERE 30 MINUTES.
Ben Raven: STOP THE MUSIC ! Just wait a cotton pickin' minute ! And excuuuuse me, and my uninformed naiveté.
But do you mean to tell me, that all this time: it WASN'T a technological obstacle ?it WASN'T the fabled over-heating problem ? it WASN'T a manufacturing cost issue ?
That right from the get-go, the 30 minute still camera video time limitation has been an artificial non-tech intrusion on our simple "we hold these truths to be self-evident" freedom to video whatever the hell we choose to video, for as long as we darn well want to ?!
Imposed by an international body of bureaucratic farts -- because of someEuropean tariff ???? As far as I'm concerned they're all full of, er, "duty" !
What's next, are we about to learn that all along there's been a tariff limit imposed on high ISO performance ?
Well, dear readers, pardon my PG rated profane outrage, but:
SCREW THE WTO AND THE TARIFF THEY RODE IN ON !
You and Me both, Robbster,
I read your reference (thank you) and your well-spoken points and, as you could tell from my "mild" comments above, I could literally not agree with you more !
FREEEEEEEDOM ! NOW !
STOP THE MUSIC ! Just wait a cotton pickin' minute ! And excuuuuse me, and my uninformed naiveté.