Equipment:Nikon D3s, D4, D800, Fuji X10014-24, 24-70, 70-200/2.8 zooms35/2D, 50/1.8D, 85/1.4G, 135/2D, 24-120/4 VR, 24-85G, 28-300G
Caonon 5d, 1ds mk370-200 2.8 IS70-200/4 IS70-300 DO IS24-105/4 16-35/2.8 II
No one wants to pay more money, but as a onetime financial analyst I have to ask does anyone think about he value of the time they learn using PS and LR? The cost of books, tutorials and classes? No one "needs" them, and no one can use them without spending time worth much more than the programs to learn them well.
Adobe's problem has always been an extreme example of being worth tons of money to some people and much less to others. It's a real pricing dilemma.
In advanced PS at ICP, we were told that PS gurus who are photographers use at most 1 or 2% of the program, and that no one know all of it.
Adobe did a wonderful thing in creating LR for photographers. But they still have a monster program in PS with a hybrid identity.
This article does a fine job of subtraction from the sum total of human knowledge and understanding.
We discuss it on Street Photography Exchange a little:
Just be aware that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a danger of photography that one can navigate it and be all on the surface.
The headline is highly misleading. There has been no mystery to unpack for quite a few years. ICP had a major exhibition last year. There is no news in the article that is linked to. Who edits this website? Do they not follow what is going on at ICP?
I don't thank any well-educated person is unaware of the Spanish Civil War and how equally vile both the fascists and the Communists were.
A good friend from college was named after one of the martyrs of the Abraham Lincoln brigade, but by the time I met him, he and his father were dedicated, idealistic anti-communists.
Looks like they were afraid to compete head on with fuji and sony.
fad: The problem with the "Download Original" button is that it makes it look as if the viewer is being granted permission to download someone else's work, when that usually is not the photographer's intention.
Yes, 'view original' would be much better.
The problem with the "Download Original" button is that it makes it look as if the viewer is being granted permission to download someone else's work, when that usually is not the photographer's intention.
fad: After reading the article now on LL concerning DXO mark scores, I recommend they hire a good technical writer to make all their testing clear to non-technical public. The LL piece does not simplify, but it makes things much more clear.
Writing and communication is just as technical as optics, and requires just as much skill. Engineers rarely have these skills. Clearer communications would increase the value of DXO scores perhaps 20 fold, and give the company much more good will.
The great novelist Thomas Mann once said that a professional is someone for whom writing is much more difficult than it is for other people. That's because a good writer sees many things that other people ignore and that they do not normally realize defeat them.
It's hard for people to realize that a university education and being a native speaker does not give one professional communication skills. But it's true.
I quoted a novelist, but said they should hire a technical writer.
Please don't confuse the engineering types. :)
After reading the article now on LL concerning DXO mark scores, I recommend they hire a good technical writer to make all their testing clear to non-technical public. The LL piece does not simplify, but it makes things much more clear.
Are there no photographers here?
ICP's latest Weegee show was called Murder is my Business. This is photography. All photography is voyeurism.
ICP's current show has photographs by South Africans showing Zulu's and Xosa's doing terrible things to each other as they struggled for power.
Magnum stopped a meeting in NYC to document 9/ll.
George Rodger, a founder of Magnum, was the first photographer to enter an extermination camp (Belsen, Belsen) and documented it graphically and with excellent technique.
News (and street) photographers make a commitment to document the world. That is their job. What they think about what they see, and how noble they feel, is their concern, not the viewer's.
The photograph in question did no one any harm. If you don't like this kind of photography, don't read the tabloids --and stay out of museums.
The lack of f4 zooms for Nikon kept me a Canon user for street photography until the D3s came out and made me pull the trigger for its low light capability.
At this point, Nikon has better lenses for street, at least for me, plus the ever sweeter 14-24/2.8 for other uses.
Now Nikon has the advantage with 24-85G, street usable 28-300, street usable 85/1.4G. Plus, in daylight, zoom ranges are extended with the cropping ability of the D800.
Ironically, Canon bodies finally seem to be up to snuff on focusing and low light shooting. But I know of no compelling advantage over the Nikon bodies for street shooting.
CameraLabTester: Crime does not pay.
Hmmmm... it just did, here...
16 Million Pezookas.
This was a career-ending move.
CEO jobs are few and far between and very lucrative. It's pretty much inconceivable that he would ever have such a position again.
He was being compensated for the loss of future income.
Just because most of us may not be used to having so large an income does not mean it is not normal for those who are used to it. People who were comfortable 50 years ago would be flabbergasted by the wealth of an ordinary lifestyle today.
I don't know what his motivation was, and do not care. He did a good and difficult thing. Can you think of another person who has done something like this?
fad: 24-70/2.8 makes sense as an indoor wedding/event photographer lens.
An f4 lens is really an outdoor lens, a walkabout lens. 24-70 is not a good outdoor zoom range, even with good IQ. 35-105 or 28-85 or even 50-150 would be more useful. It should also be as small and light as possible.
One could pair it with the 70-200/4, but why would one?
The Nikon 24-85 is smaller and lighter and goes up to 85mmThe Nikon 24-120 has much better zoom range.
This lens has better weight and size specs for outdoors than the 24-70/2.8, but the zoom range feels wrong to me for walkabout.
If I wanted a very high quality normal that is smaller, I think I would even prefer 35-70 2.8 or f4, and have smaller size.
For street/travel/walkabout photography, I'm not sure they thought through the basic design parameters of size and zoom range.
Kindly reread my first sentence.
Raise your hand if you have a 70mm FF lens.
You don't? Hmm.
Then a 24-70 lens only replaces wide angle and normal. So, as a main lens, it lacks portrait and telephoto functionality completely.
Raise your hand if you've ever had a prime between 85 and 135mm
Then my Canon 24-105 and my Nikon 24-85, 24-120 and 28-300 zooms are much more flexible for walkabout and travel. On a D800, pixel density gives a built in telextender as well.
The purpose of a 3X f4 zoom is to have excellent IQ on walkaround lens. 24-70 is just not a rational zoom range for a walkaround lens. It's a zoom range for studio shooting and events, or for a tripod.
24-70/2.8 makes sense as an indoor wedding/event photographer lens.
It has been pointed out to me that the new system is unsuitable for posting images.
The images as posted now on dpreview are seriously compromised and do not reflect the original image. You have to open the original image to see the photographers artistic intent.
It's easy enough to test this. Post a nice color jpg from your drive of 1024 or larger pixel maximum edge. Compare the posting to the original.
You don't even have to do this much work. Find a nice photo and compare the image in the post with the original behind it.
If this is not corrected, it may not be possible to keep posting images on dpreview.
Edit: I see that this is addressed below, but more information would be helpful. Is there a maximum pixel size that will prevent images from being mangled?
Both the S and the D800 have broken new ground in combining mobility with high resolution and IQ.
Even if one could afford the S, only a certain segment of photographers need its advantages over the D800.
For a Nikon shooter, the D800 lenses and accessories are free, and more various. It can be used in more environments. It can be, and frequently is, used as a general purpose camera, where resolution is secondary. The other day I was doing street shooting in a park, and found a lovely landscape/streetscape composition. Having the D800 was neat for that one shot in particular because it is a fine landscape camera for a scene with high dynamic range and a lot of details.
However, I'm sure the S would be its own unique experience as well. I kind of wish I had a use for it.
fad: Yikes. I could be the target market.
Doing street in Soho and downtown Manhattan, I quickly learned not to dress like a ninja. I dress like a slob (usual), an artist, a businessman, or a tourist, I get general acceptance from this wealthy and highly sophisticated crowd. Another persona that works is dressing like a fop, and putting on a Billingham photo vest. This would be the perfect camera for that disguise. But it should be FF.
Who cares what I look like as look as I take great images and my ergonomics work?
My wife and daughter. That's who. And the ladies at church. And maybe other street photographers.
And no, I grew up on the streets of the Lower East Side. And I dress like a slob. But my wife made me wear these limited edition hand made silk suspenders to church and one lady reminisced about how her dad maintained quality control for Begdorf's and another about how the design reminded her about her family history and another, an artist, asked me where I got them.
It's ok for guys to pay attention to design, really. It's a part of life, and a part of being civilized, which may not come as naturally to us men. But we shouldn't avoid it out of pig-headedness.
Living down here for many years we've come to appreciate modern design. And I've come to face the fact that all of my cameras (and yours) are butt-ugly. Down here, I've noticed the artistry that ladies put into their appearance. It is creative and beautiful. And I've come to appreciate the all too common tragedy of beautiful and classy women walking down the street with guy dressed --well, like me. Totally clueless, us guys. Disgraceful.
And that is why your camera is butt ugly. It's not frugality, or functionality. It the cluelessness of men who photograph and don't know any better.
Think how much nicer your camera would look if it were designed by Ikea even. It's time for us to get with the program.
Yikes. I could be the target market.
Hats off to Sony. What a milestone this camera is. To get a FF sensor in a small body has been every street photographer's dream.
Other specs may hold back sales, until version 2 or 3, for those of us who shoot people in low light. But I will certainly give this camera close consideration.