Laminated: Does NOTfitinyour pocket.
I'd like DPR to post a pic of it shoved into someone's jeans.
"People still wear jeans?" gets likes? Just to be sure I'm not that far out of it, I searched some current big event crowd pix, from USA, Brazil, France, Japan...gee, hard not to find jeans. Maybe no one on onlooker's home planet still wears them. ;)
Gesture: What happens when you carry it in a pocket and dust/sweat/humidity causes an issue. WHAT IS WARRANTY-SERVICE response? How durable are these modern $1K marvels proving.
Sony has great products, but in my experience their support has been abysmal. Just hope you don't get a lemon.
avicenanw: Shame to have this turned into a political forum. This piece can be found elsewhere if anyone cares to read about it. DPR is not the place for it. What have this got to do with reviewing cameras and photography?
That's because with the exception of the feet on the desk, none of the photos are remarkable at all. The photography is poor, and the content is pedestrian. Only the context makes them remarkable, and the context is political/social/human, and so that's what's being discussed.
CameraLabTester: Barely a week into its existence... The AP channel has a clip of an Alaska Bear injuring an Australian Tourist as the most watched video, so far, with 186,000 views in just 2 days!
The internet is a strange and unpredictable universe.
ThePhilips Just wait until networked VR comes!
lbjack: That foot on the desk makes me wonder if he was thinking, "Where's the popcorn?"
That aside, the complaints about the politics are well-taken. So, about the photos themselves...
Except for the foot on the desk, where we can identify the event by the TV screen (though the image may or may not be contemporaneous), the rest of the shots are non-descript taken out of context.
I recall my First Rule: Get the Shot. Regarding these images, with the single aforesaid exception, I should then say, What shot?
The quality of the shots are mediocre at best, but the subject can make them interesting. Here, the subject of only one shot is interesting in itself, so, unless one considers Dick Cheney and his wife/staff interesting per se, none of the photographs, save one, are interesting either as subject matter or photography.
Grammar police: The quality of the shots IS mediocre at best.
FodgeandDurn: These comments are so disappointing.
For better or worse it's a glimpse into an epoch defining moment in history, something we sometimes forget photography can do while worrying about F stop conversions.
I'm sure I wouldn't agree with half if you about the reasons for 9/11 or the decisions that followed the aftermath, but I'm not going to argue with any of you about it on here.
HowaboutRAW In many ways as disastrous. It casts as baleful a shadow over our history as the Twin Towers.
That foot on the desk makes me wonder if he was thinking, "Where's the popcorn?"
No built-in EVF? No deal. Canon is trying to hustle what it has instead of getting with it.
megafolie: Who cares about 4K. How many here have a 4K tv at home. Even then, true 4k content is nearly non-existent. Finally, the difference between 1080P and 4K on a 40" or 50" display is not that visible to the normal human being.
That said, nice camera.
The first rule of photography is GET THE SHOT, because the shot won't come again. And don't you want to future-proof the quality of that shot? Same with video. When all displays are 4K, do you want 1080 record quality when you could have shot in 4K?
Amazing all the carping here, that pulling photos from cine is useless or not real photography or that burst mode is sufficient.
The first rule in photography is GET THE SHOT.With continuous shooting your chances of getting the shot improve exponentially, even over burst mode.8 Mp is a benchmark for quality. It will get you "Photo Quality" up to 16" x 20" and "Excellent" up to 20" x 30".
Of course, all this depends on the sensor and the processing algorithms. But in principle, cameras like this are a watershed.
Mike FL: PRO:- As Retro/old as it can be as it looks like a LEICA M
CON:- OVF on an rangefinder has no accuracy - Can not be used for low angle b/c fixed LCD- As Retro/old as it can be as it has NO IS, NO WiFi, but Fixed FL lens- and ...
I like rangefinder b/c the classic Retro/old look, but I do NOT prefer Old/Retro on functionality/useability.
PRO:Good at being snarkyCON:Can't read. This "retro" camera DOES have WiFi.
abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 . Sick of it!
Reminds me of the old MiG fighters that were big jet engines with fins attached. I think this argument grows out of the evolution of cameras to lenses with sensors attached. Seems to me that there is an insurmountable restraint to how small you can make optics with a given speed. Until some breakthrough comes along, you can't make a 2.8 long telephoto that won't overwhelm a compact mirrorless like an X-T1. It's a state of mind: start thinking of holding up a lens rather than a camera to get the shot.
@Paul JM, I like your arguments, but you were wrong to go after forpetesake. He's on your side! The guy you originally were after is abolit.
Does anyone else see a thematic kinship between this and Avedon's In the American West?
By the way, the heyday of "freighthopping," traditionally called hoboing, was the Great Depression. There's an excellent book about it, Riding the Rails: Teenagers on the Move During the Great Depression, by Errol lincoln Uys.
This is the problem with editorial reviews. They are only critiques of the cameras out-of-the-box -- snapshots, so to speak. But to do like the car mags, and do long-term road tests would require DPR to buy and use over time at least the major cameras it reviews, and that's probably asking too much. Even after a top score, you still have to cross your fingers. One assumes finger-crossing isn't expected with the professional lines.
Typical editorial boilerplate. "What did I learn? Not much." And choose the one that suits you beat. Well, thank you for that.
rallyfan: I don't see the point in any sort of Nikon vs. Canon analyses at this market segment, and I mention it because so many comments are made about the 6D vs. the D600. My suppliers are generally fixed. It makes little sense now to switch a major provider. The questions then focus around what I can get, when, and for how much.
Of the "features" offered, WiFi is the most meaningful to me. My hope is the WiFi makes up for the lack of a second card slot by allowing images or videos to get OUT of the camera ASAP and on their way to someone that is willing to pay for them as directly and immediately as possible.
If I can get images out of my hands and sent to the recipient quickly, I can ask no more. The best workflow is no workflow. I'd rather shoot-send-repeat than shoot, go back to work, post process, introduce "artistry" (it's so cute to see the "artists" speak up, they're so quaint...), and then see who's buying.
A Canon shop is a Canon shop, generally; the issue is what's on offer.
Same here about WiFi. I love the idea. But I've seen angry user reports (on Amazon) that the D600 WiFi add-on (WU-1b) doesn't work. Maybe there's been an update. The 6D WiFi reviews read better. It comes down to the old question of how well the spec translates into real-world use.
For my money, the next worthwhile screen upgrade will be OLED. Perhaps ultimately 8K OLED, if i live long enough. I think that's what we should be working towards with the present technology.
itsastickup: Oh great. Now we'll all be able to to see their dreadful makeup.<br/>This HD business is not good for movies.
Maybe there needs to be a shift in the makeup paradigm. Or in the studio lighting that necessitates makeup. Or both. Good complexions will also become more important.
Joe Ogiba: I would rather pay $800 more for the FF Sony RX1, APS-C compacts are a dime a dozen but there are very few FF compacts under $3k.
You're hired, Gordon...as long as you don't "get too busy and forget." ;)