jonmcguffinphoto: It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of modern day digital photographers and their insistence that not using photoshop somehow makes them a "pure" photographer as this is simply a misguided assumption.
All digital files are processed! You are either doing it yourself with tools such as Lightroom, Photoshop, or others or you are allowing the Engineers at Canon/Nikon to be your post processor by running your image through their jpg processing engine and spitting out what "it" thinks is the best way to present the image.
To imply that there is anything truly "straight out of camera" is really absurd and does nothing but show their ignorance of the photographic process in a digital world.
I'd like to propose renaming this web site the "digital troll network."It's interesting to me that the "haters" are always the first to respond.
If he's Native his "costume" isn't accurate. Jeans with a war bonnet? Please!
supeyugin1: Is somebody still buying this junk from Apple? I don't see any reason of doing that.
Actually, quite a few people buy these Apple products, in case you haven't noticed. In addition, there are competing products that many people buy. Isn't it great to have a choice!
Neodp: Not even the best pocket camera. Not that any pocket camera is worth its price, today.
I agree, 8Mpx is more than enough, for such a tiny sensor; with today's chip sensitivities.
At this rate, in 2113, perhaps 20Mpx will be clean to ISO 6400, in this size sensor! LOL. As it is, it's just a web shot pretender. All these devices will be laughed at, in the future. They're disposables, and yet, priced like Gold. Why do we tolerate them?
Not to mention Apple is to be avoided. To much handcuffed. No freedom. Be careful what you wish for; because with Apple, you get less, for more. Only to find, it isn't the answer to technical issues. It's not even the least of evils.
As far as accurate color sensitivity, highlight, and shadow detail, (which if you think about it, that's what a camera does; gather light), then we have a very long way to go.
Where is the photographic innovation?
A Good camera:
Useability (controls)PriceIQ (Lenses then sensor)SpeedsSize[BALANCED]
Yes, I agree, every device we now use will be laughed at in the future, by some. That's why I advocate not buying or using any device until at least the year 2075 when all will be perfect!
The Nihilist: I love the people that give a product one star because the shipping took longer than the projected timeframe and they haven't received it. They seem to completely miss the irony of negatively reviewing a product because they don't have the product yet.
From awaldram: "Thats life you see the same fraudulent..." This is not a sentence!Neither is this: "... its more to-do with low self esteem..."[That's life.] [You see...] [...it's...] [...to do..."]So, does bad grammar mean it's a bogus review?
glutamodo: My question is... what page/link etc. will this regular feature be located under??
How do I hide this "cartoon?"I believe "cartoons" should be funny. Or at least insightful.
Octane: Let me get this straight, you take the idea that has been done many years ago, has been perfected in major movie productions, you wait a few years, take a few cheap cameras, do it over, just poorly and then people say, 'so cool', 'such a great idea'. Alright :)
Wasn't the idea that it was done so cheaply?
gtvone: Thanks for all of your emails - i'll choose a couple that I think might most benefit and be in touch soon (It may be a week or two as we don't have stock yet) I appreciate you taking the time to email.
Sounds like you've got a good market there JDThomas, you should do it! You could spend half hour looking for the Chinese manufacturer and buy them in 10,000 unit lots (their minimum) and make a killing! Haha.... [excuse my sense of humour, I just had to walk my bicycle 10km with my manic 3yo on the back.. he wasn't super happy and my legs hate me]
If anyone has any q's on the thinkTank stuff, feel free to get in touch.
simon at thinkTankPhoto dot com
JDThomas says: "You do seem to be a bit of a smart-ass considering you're supposed to be an ambassador of sorts for Think Tank.
Tell me, does your marketing team approve of you posting insults and wisecracks on public forums? Is that how they would like the Think Tank brand image to be perceived by the people that are your intended customers?
In any case, you can bet Think Tank won't be getting any glowing endorsements from me in any of the publications that I write for.
If anyone is looking for a dedicated camera bag that doesn't actually look like a camera bag, that's durable, and wants to deal with a company that has excellent customer relations I suggest NaneuPro. They've been making these type of unassuming camera bags for years. Long before Think Tank jumped on the bandwagon."
Seems as though you are reping for NaneuPro. What's your cut?And, could you please list the "...publications I write for."
GPW: Garbage as usual from Don't Think tank
"...have no idea..." This is just an opinion, not a fact. Back it up.
TylerBreeden: Not to offend everyone who's politely discussing this *camera*, but I can't believe how many a-holes are fighting like high school girls. I read all 268 comments because I'm interested in the GH3, and I barely made it through all the name calling and butt hurt ego tiffs.
Anyway, I'm excited to see what the image quality is like. Since this sensor is about the size of Sony's APS but has about half the MP of the a65/a77, there's a good chance the image will have a wider DR. I am split about 50/50 with photo and video, so both matter to me. The ability to record at a much higher bit rate is huge. I own an a65 and the video quality in decent lighting is just about equal to my consumer Canon HF-S200 camcorder. DSLR's give you a lot more control over DOF but you give up just about every useful feature in a camcorder. So, to me, bit rate is everything. I've graded/corrected footage with low bit rates and there's a huge difference in how much you can do witih the footage in post.
Is there ANY forum that keeps the discussion to facts and opinions without personal attacks?I have not seen one.
In the current format, my full name is used when I post. I don't want that. How do I change this. Believe me, I've tried.I hope the new format will allow me to have more control over my profile.
Charlie Jin: Whenever I see NEX attached with such a big lens,I just cannot help laughing... What a big joke...Why don't they make some nice quality pancake lens?
What's with the complaint about the big lenses?When I use my Nikon D300 with the 70-200 lens it's as "mismatched" as the NEX combo. So what?
Superka: Ok, we''ll wait for a man on Mars, with Canon.
I respect the scientists who achieved this amazing feat.I presume they know what they are doing since they are, after all "rocket scientists." And please remember, I believe they are getting the main scientific data not from the camera but from other devices. The camera is there to help the operators navigate, for one thing. I think it can do that quite well.
morey000: Interesting. None of them have had children. not one.
Thank goodness. Someone has to be reasonable.
Walter Rowe: When will they offer the 24-70/f2.8 with VR? This has been missing from the lineup for a very long time. I own the AF-S 28-70/f2.8G ED. I see no reason to upgrade unless a VR edition comes out. In fact I just had it repaired in Melville. It works great with the D800.
I second that thought. Waiting for one.
Plochmann: Very foreboding for Nex. I suspected, in my limited knowledge, that the flange depth of mount diameter were too small for these sensor sizes; and it seems Sony is proving my guess somewhat correct. Even if they manage faster, better lenses, they won't be significantly smaller than traditional SLR lenses and that kinda voids the Nex system. I'm sure e-mount can thrive on the cinema side because small lenses aren't favored, but as m4/3 sensors catch up and Sony keeps balking, it will seem like other systems will be better investments. No reason to have small cameras with big lenses.
"No reason to have small cameras with big lenses."
Then I'd better not use my Nikkor 70-200 on my dinky D300!
Chaitanya S: I want to see some good compact primes from tamron or sigma for the mirrorless cameras.
I am interested in the lens doing the job. I think it is close to ideal to have a large lens on a small camera like the NEX. I don't need it in my pocket all the time. I'd like to try some birding with the Sony Alpha SAL 70-400 and the LAEA2 on a NEX7. I'm only concerned that the lens quality might not be good enough for the sensor. A tripod or monopod would make this manageable and the tilting screen would make it easier to work with than a DSLR. Oh, and GPS so I'd know where I had found the bird.
straylightrun: If the 50/1.8 is a portrait lens for an entirely new system, what's with the 75mm fov equiv? A 60-85mm/1.8 would of made more sense (90mm-127.5mm fov equiv). This lens has the problems of every other 50mm on an APS-C sensor: too short for portraits. You'd think Sony would take this into consideration with a new lens for a whole new mount. Plus this lens won't be FF compatible, so what's the point? So much for their motto "like no other".
I need a birding lens for my Sony NEX-5. The 200 or 210 isn't going to make it. If they offered a 1.5 extender, that might do it. Anyone know of a third party extender?