I can't tell the difference any more. Sorry. But that should make me easier to please when my camera finally breaks down (if it ever does....)
Very nice selection. The pics have a most pleasant look to them. I'd buy one.
shademaster: small body doesn't make sense without small lenses.
We are unfortunately slaves to the laws of physics.
I like it actually, it looks like an old Olympus OM with its tiny body. Cute and probably rather good.
I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.
You can't stop progress.....
Blimey, big files but not much extra IQ for your trouble. It must be a niche market...
Great photo. Make sure the band get a copy, they'll love it!
dgeugene1: Except for the man with the keys these lovely calendar pictures could have been made by any one of thousands of photographers. I suspect editors at DPreview prefer to anticipate the taste of the average consumer rather than risk a new idea.
Let's have a look at some of your shots then dgeugene.
icexe: This probably needs to be restated. If you have the money and like owning finely crafted things, then this is the camera for you. If you are not in this demographic, then owning one of these won't make any sense to you.
Are you saying you don't like the "lived in" look of classic cameras?
Hugo808: What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
Thanks, everyone. I can now buy with confidence. Oh, it's gone....
Robert Newman: This is roughly a 12.6 inch telescope. A used Celestron 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain without mount can be had for roughly $6K. While an f11 optic, it has considerably more light-gathering capability (23%) than the $33 f8 lens featured and is a fraction of the cost. As for the $180K used Canon telephoto, you can buy a large refractor scope tube assembly of similar size and f-ratio optic for $25K or so although you would have to wait for the right deal (i.e., no mount).
Dang, I wish I'd tread that before I bought it...
What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
Hugo808: What no OVF? Count me out...
It was just a little joke on the sort of comments you get here pretty regularly. It doesn't matter what some company or other has achieved, somebody will wish it had/did/was something else...
What no OVF? Count me out...
Hugo808: I had a go on a Pentax in a shop and it had really noisy autofocus. That was the end of it for me, but are all their lenses missing the ultrasonics of the competition?
"Try and use a Pentax Limited lens first then come back to us."
What a dumb and irrelevant remark, we are talking about kit lenses putting off customers not what a bunch of expensive primes might do for you.
I had a go on a Pentax in a shop and it had really noisy autofocus. That was the end of it for me, but are all their lenses missing the ultrasonics of the competition?
madeinlisboa: Correct me if I'm wrong. Lightroom still has a huge problem. There is no list of filters applied to images, which means that an user must navigate through radial, gradients, brushes, etc, in order to check which ones were applied to an image.
I've never seen the other method you've used so I cannot say but the "history" tab works for me as not only can I see what I've done but I can undo mistakes easily too (I use that function a lot....)
There's a history list on the right you can open that shows what you did and in what order. Will that do you?
Hugo808: Great to see these photo's. Would love to visit North Korea.
I don't suppose you get much freedom to wander about taking photo's. Escorted everywhere I should think.
Great to see these photo's. Would love to visit North Korea.