Gavril Margittai: Hate to be a killjoy, but if anyone believes that possessing these two lenses will make them a better photographer he is wrong. Having these two lenses will not improve picture quality.
If serious about photography and with available money to spend I would rather buy studio lights if one works on portraits, or a good sturdy tripod if nature & landscape are your thing. Both these two will make much more impact. Oh and I almost forgot. Spend on Photography and Photoshop courses.
Exactly Dan_168. I don't think too many people who bought a m4/3 camera doesn't at least know the basics of photography. Probably they have a DSLR as main and m4/3 to compliment. I learned a lot with the stock lens and entry level camera. Then I got a few primes and one "L" glass and a proper external flash and tripod.
So if/when I decide to go "portable", you can bet I'll be looking only for faster glass than the stock lens. Not another "sturdy" tripod that I already own.
As for spending money on Photography or PS clases, I learned by "hands-on" training (and some by looking up free websites for basic tutes). That money I saved from going to classes is what I'm using to spend on better glass. Some people can actually learn by trial/error than someone telling them how to do it. Because I'm sure Henry Ford had someone tell him how to work on a car.
John Bean (UK): Fuji seems to be following Leica's marketing tactics, which given where that has taken Leica this doesn't seem to be a smart move. Time will tell.
Personally I prefer the aesthetics of the original (I have one) but in any case I certainly wouldn't pay a premium for a "limited" edition whatever the colour - it's just a camera for goodness sake.
How dare you say that some cameras are asking for a premium just for cosmetic upgrades! My Leica D-Lux 5 has more style the the near identical Panny LX 5, so of course it demands a higher price!
I pay for those bragging rights...
Now I can "accidentally" instantly share photos of me shaving my beard while in a spaghetti strap halter top and jean mini skirt, and black leather stilettos onto my Facebook!....
Disregard that... I was kidding about having a Facebook account...
Hmmmm.....I can see this being misused(?) for deviant purposes. If Ambarella doesn't play it safe, they could coin a new phrase (think "Google it" for researching, or "postal" for getting angry) that they might not want to be associated with.
maybe this?: I just " rella'd " Steve's sister changing in her bedroom...
But I'm sure no one would use it for those purposes. Aside from that, this could actually work well for less than desirable environments. You want to video record you and your buddy "muddin' after a good rain in a truck (hood mounted and water sealed), or place the camera underwater on a coral reef and snap shots of aquatic life that would otherwise be spooked with your presence.
rambler35: Some interesting pointers, but why the obsession with such shallow DOF?
For example, the shot of the halved orange. Is this really the best way to show it? In this photo no part of the orange skin (of both halves) is in focus, and neither is most of the flesh of the fruit -- so we hardly see those textures at all.
If the reason was to focus and direct our attention to an important part of the image, then in this case it is to the small central core of pith -- which is not the most interesting or appetizing part!
Also, why only cut in half? If you want to associate this with an orange rather than, lets say, a grapefruit, I would have had some "slices" sitting around for proper distinction. A juicy slice without skin or pit is much more appetizing.
Albino_BlacMan: I don't see how you can get that much better than spyder 3. My Spyder 3 calibrated Monitor matches my prints exactly as far as I can tell
I have the Eye-One Display 2. I think my version uses the same "calibrator" that Lacie used for a long time (maybe still?).
You say the Lacie software can use other brands' calibration hardware? I don't necessarily have a problem with X-rite's app, but it never hurts to try other software. Would I be able to try Lacie's version?
keeponkeepingon: I really wish dpreview applied the high standard they have for camera reviews to app reviews.
This little product blurb leaves a lot unanswered:
We need to know how this app compares to the other apps, how is it better (or worse)? What is unique about king camera?
Performance! How quick is the camera etc?
Will this app run on older IOSes and how does it perform on older hardware such as the 3gs?
Why should use this app instead of the top camera/ photo apps, (camera+, camera plus, photosynth, adobe, snapseed etc)
Since apps appear to be a recurring subject, perhaps a template similar to the photo reviews would be useful to standardize these reviews and help us compare against this market.
note: edited to be a bit less..... critical...
Actually, I think DPR is doing OK with these "app" articles (minus the lack of Android app articles).
They mention it briefly so you can either skip it or research it elsewhere on a site that's more attuned to these types of topics (I'm sure there's an Apple fan-base site somewhere that delves deeper doing direct distinct differences daily. Say that 10 times fast!). No need to steal someone else's thunder (let alone anger the DPR community that deems these articles useless).
You don't solely come here for camera/lens reviews? Why would anyone need to go to Amazon's user reviews or other sites to find out more details about them that weren't covered here (like that's possible). We want to come to ONLY DPreview for ANY and ALL reviews that encompass photography.
I WANT a full review on a MayTag or Kenmore washer and dryer set that will gently clean my sweat-ridden neckstrap!! Make it happen DPR!
Some people just don't get the enthrallment of taking photos of food. I used to do it all the time, till I turned into the guy that always took photos of food he ordered at restaurants/bars.
Yeah, THAT guy...(friends look at you funny)
Needless to say, I don't take as much photos of food unless there is something special about it.
xl5: Here we go again a new model comes out and we get the usual fan boy bun fight over Canon V Nikon. The funny part of this is REAL photographers don't give a S%$£ and here's why. A REAL photographer knows how to "make a photograph" with any camera and could get equally fantastic results with an entry level or a top spec Nikon, Canon or in fact Sony/Pentax etc.
It's the "all the gear no idea" crowd that spoil this site with the tit for tat garbage every time. Take some advice, stop spitting insults at each other, pick up your gear and go take pictures. That way at least you might come to realise that it's the skill and the eye of the person wielding the camera that captures the image which will turn heads not the camera on its own!
You're very good at misinterpreting and accusing people of things they don't/didn't say or do. You used "real photographers" condescendingly, I followed suit. I really don't want to spell everything out for you if you didn't understand that.
When I said "bring out something that will", I didn't think I would need to specifically mention your blessed Messiah Nikon D3s (I could have easily mentioned the Canon 1Dmk4, but that would still have made you cry).
HowaboutRAW, how about you stop being immature child and go do something productive instead of commenting on darn near everyone's post you don't agree with. You really waste a lot of space with your attempts to just be indifferent. Why don't you go shoot yourself (with a camera, of course).
Fearless_Photog: Man, the comments on here are ridiculous. Do you guys buy any other kinds of hardware? Do you want cameras themselves to be tied into a dated card format that limits their potential hardware performance forever when it comes to write speed? Maybe we should still use floppy drives too.
Shoot a baseball game once in a while and you'll probably appreciate how nice 100 frames of RAW buffer could be. It's also been known that a new standard was in the works for years, it's not like they just sprung it on everyone. If you don't want to use it, don't buy any new camera bodies either, you can use CF until all the CF card readers stop working.
With more MP's and higher burst speeds with each iteration of cameras, you're going to hit a bottleneck on the CF/SD card first.
Sure you could have backwards compatibility or two slots (CF/XQD), but waiting for the buffer to write to the CF card will only inhibit. Fine for us non-sports types, I suppose.
Let's go back home to transfer all your photos to the computer. Do you really want to transfer all those 100MB, 16 or 24-bit, 30MP+, RAW files (we'll have those specs eventually, Nikon should have it by, oh, 20 yrs from now) from the same CF card you're using now?
When I upgraded my camera body (only), I also had to upgrade to a faster CF card, and upgrade my computer to at least a quadcore with more RAM because it was sluggish with the new camera's specs. I didn't "need to" so much as "want to" to maintain a smooth workflow.
As Fearless_Photog suggested: don't upgrade your bodies if you don't want to upgrade your hardware too. Wait till the format is cheaper.
and you missed my point about using your cameras within the scope of their limits. You can't expect a G12 with a pop-up flash to take good photos in a theatre. Yes it could do it, but not well. That's why "real photographers" (using OP's wording) would use a higher grade camera that does better with noise to do it.
"don't think" =/= claim...I never claimed he wouldn't, but probably not since, as you mentioned, lots of grain.
What do I think "real photographers" do (OP's wording, again)?: Well like BMWX5 mentioned, they stay within the limit of their cameras. If THAT camera doesn't meet the specific needs of the task, then bring out something that will. Hence why you don't bring an iPhone to do the Superbowl coverage for your newspaper.
It works the other way around too: If you need to take a photo of a recipe to email to your sister, a pocket camera/phone will suffice. You don't need to pull out the full studio with 8 flashes and a 24MP pro camera to do that.
It simply amazes me on what specific feature a camera is touting/missing that gets people in a frenzy. From "we want a optical viewfinder" on compact systems to "LiveView and video capabilities are stupid" on FF cameras.
Insert another gripe: "We want GPS!"...
The stubborn photographer who pines about a "proper VF" will no doubt cry over "my old Nikon F3/ Canon A-1 took great photos without any GPS". A pen and paper was good enough plotting down your location.
I'll add to the list: "My Canon 7D has accelerometers for leveling...why doesn't this have it?!"....or "my smart phone has a touch screen! Why not this?!"
Beckler8: The extra controls for vertical shooting aren't needed. Why is a rectangular sensor still being used? Switch to a square sensor and either crop later, or in-camera with viewfinder masks, or whenever. Square also obviously captures more of the image from the lens--info. that is lost for no reason. Any possible reason not to do this, other than a slightly bigger sensor? (Though not necessarily). I don't think so, other than lack of thought.
The human eye doesn't see in "rectangles". A round eye sees in...wait for it...ovals (not perfectly round). Since we have two eyes in horizontal, we see more peripheral than we do above or below us. So your "magazine ads" wouldn't work either since they are vertically taller than what you can naturally see.
By your logic, if we had a third eye on our forehead, we'd see in "triangles".
"Few images look better in square". And fewer images look better in 16x9 crops. Too much wasted space on the sides that only detract from the subject/focus of the photo. Why movies insist on even cropping to wider (1.85:1) is beyond me.
4x6 just starts to cut out the distortion on the edges, while 5x7 works best (for me).
Your example doesn't reflect what xl5 is conveying. I don't think a "real photographer" would make posters from 6400ASA film.
You need to stay within the bounds of each camera's limit. Entry level cameras can take good photos even without 51 AF or 6400 ISO usability. You would be suggesting this "real photographer" would try to make 30" prints from heavily compressed JPEGs on a P&S camera.
Even the dumb iPhone (or any smart phone now) can take a decent photo. You just have to compose and have proper lighting (stay in ISO 100) and steady the camera. But don't try to make posters out of your phone.
The higher end cameras won't make better photos, but take better photos in less than ideal situations/environments (low lighting, rain, fast action).
Michael J Davis: Just curious - what iPad or other device has a focal length able to take the photo of Admiralty Arch from that distance? (And from where, a helicopter?)
That's not LEGO. That's heavy pixelization on the 3MP on the iPad. Cropped and zoomed in, no doubt...heh heh...
Canon EOS 60D: Not very surprising and innovative enough. If Steve Jobs was still alive, he would have mocked Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX engineers. He would have made Apple to innovate their own DSLR with built in mp3 player, touch LED screen, 3.5G capable (sounds like iPhone). Bwahahahaha
I think Nikon and Canon did not introduced much changes and competition in their flagship DSLRs so as not to loose their market in the professional photographers arena. Professional photographers don't worry themselves much with the camera specs, but rather with their crafts. It's the prosumer photographers that worry too much about the camera specs, the pixel peepers and mongers. Nyahahaha
It's not very hard to demand certain features and have other companies make the hardware or features for you. Apple didn't make the first multi-touch and Siri isn't the first voice-recog software. I've seen "tap-to-focus" before on pocket cameras before your "blessed" iPhone. And if Apple DID try to make a DSLR, they'd pack it with all these other features and forget to make it do the main purpose it was created. You'd have too many fingers on the DSRL and it wouldn't even take a photo. Sounds like a iPhone 4 dropping phone calls to me...
Don't mix buying someone else technology as "innovation"...
Earthlight: Thanks guys! I've been around since those early times, dpreview still rocks! I feel like you have invented and launched so much new stuff lately that it is amazing. Keep up the good work!
May I suggest and article or a series of articles? You guys could interview the top 'togs from Sports Illustrated, Magnum, some of the noted nature photogs and the like and get the feel from them about the flagship pro bodies and lenses they lug around every day. What do they like and what do they wish for. What are their favourite accessories? It would give us a view to this stuff from the top of the game. I believe that would be most interesting.
@Francis Carver: Personally, I prefer Commodore staying with just being a computer (and programming in BASIC) instead of trying to introduce the Amiga as a video editing or video game programming computer. Same thing with my Apple II. Just typing up reports and data has worked fine so far, why mess it up with introducing music and video hardware/software?
jj74e: This might just be me, but I don't see the point of the spec database and lenses database. There is a serious deficiency in lens reviews, and the spec database/brand and category pages seem to lack any real functionality other than prettying up the site with more content- filler content I would even call it.
These are things that can easily and arguably more informatively be found on manufacturers' websites or even Wikipedia articles, although I suppose it helps dpreview cover a more holistic material set if anything, to make the website feel more established.
But again, generic company information and lens specs without any meaningful, unique info/perspective seems rather filler to me. I do apologize if there are certain features I am [unintentionally] ignoring, but these databases seem to simply be catalogs that manufacturers' already have on their websites.
I do like the new comments/likes system, new categories in the forums, and more dedication to articles.
You're really going to believe each manufacturers' data and specs on their website? Like there's never been a case of them exaggerating features or fudging some numbers.
Also, having these stats on one site where you can compare them is a lot easier than having multiple pages/tabs up comparing each similar lens/camera from different companies.
Don Simons: Just read some of the miserable posts here and could just imagine these guys boring people to death at a photo club. It would probably reflect in the photos they take as well. So let us sympathise with their wives if they have them, and lastly remind them that they are not paying for dpreview. Or were they tongue in cheek posts to get me going?
You go to a photo club to talk about photography, Don. Not to ask how your kids are doing or how you cooked that turkey and side dishes for Thanksgiving. Don't be rude. We will ask you to leave if you bring up other topics in a serious environment.
We don't care about your kids, pets, or your excellent ticket price for your vacation to Hawaii. That has nothing/little to do with photography and wastes my time hearing about something proper like: still waiting for a review on the Pentax 645D.
As for my 4th wife, she says I'm impersonal. I really don't care.
Solarcoaster: Most of these are really lame. The only decent gift is the clock.
It's quite simple jimkh: you read the topic header.
It's not a review about a camera, so skip the article. Most the users complaining about these articles are ONLY wanting reviews of cameras or lenses (wah, we want our old DPR back!).
If you don't like seafood, then don't complain about "how do I know I won't like crab unless I try it...meh, I didn't like it".
Oh what a surprise. Use common sense. Don't flood the comments area with your useless rants.
"How do I know I won't like the complaining comments unless I read the comments area?...well, maybe I could just skip the whole comments area. Or maybe I just ignore them and toss some cheese to the whine?
(P.S. I've had my eyes on that lens mug for a while).