I would gladly pay *two* billion dollars for this. No, *five* billion dollars. Five *hundred* billion dollars. Five hundred billion *tonnes* of gold. The entire GDP of the Milky Way.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 21, 2012 at 07:54:22 UTC
as 16th comment
It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 17:40:32 UTC
as 71st comment
| 11 replies
Nice idea - seems a shame to block the hotshoe, though - but what I want, what I really really want, is a slimline vertical grip or at least a second shutter button in portrait orientation. Not just for the NX200 but for mirrorless cameras in general. Even if it has to be a metal arm, like this, with a lump of empty, batteryless plastic in it.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 16, 2012 at 17:15:26 UTC
as 6th comment
Damn shame they didn't go for broke and put this sensor in a medium format body. Most of the objections would become irrelevant in that context and, heavens, no-one would miss the SD lens mount. Three good new lenses, that's all they'd need.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 10, 2012 at 22:42:10 UTC
as 99th comment
And by coincidence I bought a Yashica Mat and some film a while back - didn't cost $1bn though. But it gives me square pictures and that's what matters.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 10, 2012 at 16:26:16 UTC
as 13th comment
Yanko Kitanov: What happened to the WB dear reviewers?
I think the purple is sensor noise - the corners seem to have the kind of amp noise that the ancient EOS 1D suffered from (albeit that this is ISO 12800).
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 at 15:47:45 UTC
Digital Suicide: Jees.. guys... D800 and 5Dmk3, that supposed to be an affordable FF (well previous versions certainly were) suddenly are becoming unaffordable.
On the other hand. I can't blame Nikon on taking easy money from idiots, that are buying joly expensive cameras and shooting flowers in the yard...
Shooting cats is certainly harder than shooting flowers - flowers can't run away.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 16:33:26 UTC
marike6: I paid $3199 for my 5d II kit with the 24-105 L and the same 5D III kit is now $4299. Seriously?
Fortunately I sold the 5D II, and ordered the D800 which is shaping up to be a monster of a camera. Anyway, I've always preferred Nikon and owned a D70, D200, D7000, but bought a 5D II to learn video. But with the somewhat incremental update of the 5D III relative to it's price, I know I made the right move. But in reality all of these FF DSLRs, and the APS-C have excellent IQ.
Based on your portfolio on Photo.net, you've spent your time with thousand-dollar equipment taking snapshots of wading birds, your family, and some tourist attractions.
Thankfully neither of us need to think twice about shelling out $4299 - it's chicken feed - but for the little people, don't you think it's demoralising that you have something they want, and might do something interesting with?
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 21:09:53 UTC
John Cusack is not Edgar Allen Poe, don't be silly. He's an actor from the 1980s. You know, if I was making a film about Nicolas Cage, I would cast John Cusack as him, and vice-versa.
As for the 5D MkIII, it's my firm belief that the kind of people who *need* this camera also *really, really want* uncompressed HDMI output, which it doesn't have. Odd decision by Canon there. Nothing about the still images in this preview make me want to smash my 5D MkII into pieces and throw it into the Thames. Perhaps the new AF is like night and day.
On a conceptual level it feels like the second half of the 5D MkII, if you get my drift, rather than a new whole.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 21:04:43 UTC
as 76th comment
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The best image is the one taken from the Olympus' cameras. The OM-D has a very familiar lens on it - the OM 50mm/f1.4. One of the best lenses ever made! (I have one...) Before you think I'm trolling, let me set into rights. This - I mean the Canon - is a hell of a camera. At least for now, I'm only allowed to dream of it (it's not only the 3K for the body; it is also what I'd have to spend on lenses to make this camera justice), but this is the best IQ I've ever seen in this segment. Kudos to Canon. All cameras from 60D upwards have fantastic IQ, and I definitely see myself buying one of these - at least if I win the lottery, or in the very unlikely case this camera's still around when I get the dosh for it. I couldn't help noticing this photo was taken at ISO 400, 15s exposure and f16. This is the way I like to shoot at night, despite this new belief high ISO is the only way to take night stills. That's wrong, of course, but deceitful marketing made its way into many people's minds.
Those old OM lenses were gems - the 24mm f/2 makes a super multiformat walkabout lens and it's pretty good on a 5D as well, with the right adapter.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:52:17 UTC
There's a bunch of chaps on the far platform giving you the evil eye. Based on this sample a combination of artificial light and ISO 10000 is pushing it a bit.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:49:37 UTC
as 2nd comment
nikonf2as: Hopefully this observation of D800 vs OM-D E-M5 will prove helpful to some.
Downloaded the 2 jpgs (switching the pentax 645 for M5) and up-ressed the M5 to match the D800 in Ps.
Firstly, the D800 FF inevitably has shallow DOF at f11. At f6.3, 4/3 M5 has focus front to back - have a look at the Queen of Hearts, or the text Eastman Kodak Company, 1997, top left on the greycard - the D800 is simply out of focus (as is the A900 and 5d mkIII at this focus point).
Secondly however, the D800 clearly has huge DR (compare the purples on the Q-60 colour target, and the highlights on the globe with the M5), and when it hits the spot focus-wise (the gauze to the left of the card, underneath the hairs) it trounces the M5 - as you would hope for and expect.
So what would you rather - a sharp result, with less fidelity, or an out-of-focus one (DOF-wise) with smooth colours? As a studio camera on a heavy tripod the D800 will excel - but forget hand-holding it at a 60th at f8 with a non-IS prime.
"the more MP, the more magnified the effect of camera shake seems to become" - only if you're reviewing the image at 100%; at conventional output sizes (a magazine page, for example), more megapixels will have the effect of reducing the apparent effect of camera shake, not increasing it.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 21, 2012 at 20:33:09 UTC
Reg Natarajan: It's amusing to me to see how backwards so many people here are about new tech. Lim is 100% right. Unconnected devices will be meaningless. They're already meaningless to me, now. Maybe some of you find the work spent getting photos off your camera and on to Flickr (or whatever you use) to be edifying. I don't. Even today, Eye-Fi gets my photos geotagged, archived and uploaded automatically by walking in the door at home and turning on my camera. The dinosaur is dead.
It's as if you decided that your left side looks a bit better than your right side, but your heart isn't in it. It's better than Mr Potato Head down the page, though.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 07:21:31 UTC
Dan4321: A printer? How about a review of the 5d3 or the latest olympus u4/3 (forgot the name). Something people actually use -- I haven't used a printer for photography in the last 5 years and I honestly only know one photographer who still makes prints, out of around 50.
Yes, they could do one of those silly "pre-preview hands on" things, where they photograph a Canon man holding a 5D MkIII at some event or other (it's hands-on! but not the writer's hands).
Probably get lots of pageviews; will be one more step along the path of turning DPReview into a kind of auto-generated news aggregator.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 14, 2012 at 19:00:33 UTC
Ithackermike: 2 Thoughts: 1 )It's a high powered app just like this that may best expose the differences between the 2 platforms. What good is a .4 inch larger screen if the app is too laggy.
2) is the 1600x1600 restriction in place to keep from overrunning the processor power? I wonder if iPhoto for iOS has a similar restriction. I don't think iPhoto and PS are competitors on the desktop but if iPhoto iOS handles larger images then Adobe may have a problem here.
"is the 1600x1600 restriction in place to keep from overrunning the processor power?"
I surmise it's in place to keep people buying Photoshop Elements for their desktop! If this could do full-sized image editing (and raw conversion) it'd be a steal at $9.99.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28:25 UTC
United Kingdom
"It's very cold, so wear gloves. Also, no-one can hear you."
I would gladly pay *two* billion dollars for this. No, *five* billion dollars. Five *hundred* billion dollars. Five hundred billion *tonnes* of gold. The entire GDP of the Milky Way.
It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
ThrashingMoses: My Holga has light leaks too.
Not if you tape it up with gaffer tape! And cover the red window on the back. You can add the light leaks back in with Photoshop (cough).
Nice idea - seems a shame to block the hotshoe, though - but what I want, what I really really want, is a slimline vertical grip or at least a second shutter button in portrait orientation. Not just for the NX200 but for mirrorless cameras in general. Even if it has to be a metal arm, like this, with a lump of empty, batteryless plastic in it.
Damn shame they didn't go for broke and put this sensor in a medium format body. Most of the objections would become irrelevant in that context and, heavens, no-one would miss the SD lens mount. Three good new lenses, that's all they'd need.
Sabin: imagine how much toilet paper you can buy with 1 bn$
The trick would be to buy $500m worth of toilet paper, $499m worth of norovirus, and a crop-dusting plane. Profit.
And by coincidence I bought a Yashica Mat and some film a while back - didn't cost $1bn though. But it gives me square pictures and that's what matters.
Oh, come on, the strings are clearly visible. You'd think Ridley Scott would have had them taken out!
Yanko Kitanov: What happened to the WB dear reviewers?
I think the purple is sensor noise - the corners seem to have the kind of amp noise that the ancient EOS 1D suffered from (albeit that this is ISO 12800).
Digital Suicide: Jees.. guys...
D800 and 5Dmk3, that supposed to be an affordable FF (well previous versions certainly were) suddenly are becoming unaffordable.
On the other hand. I can't blame Nikon on taking easy money from idiots, that are buying joly expensive cameras and shooting flowers in the yard...
Shooting cats is certainly harder than shooting flowers - flowers can't run away.
marike6: I paid $3199 for my 5d II kit with the 24-105 L and the same 5D III kit is now $4299. Seriously?
Fortunately I sold the 5D II, and ordered the D800 which is shaping up to be a monster of a camera. Anyway, I've always preferred Nikon and owned a D70, D200, D7000, but bought a 5D II to learn video. But with the somewhat incremental update of the 5D III relative to it's price, I know I made the right move. But in reality all of these FF DSLRs, and the APS-C have excellent IQ.
Based on your portfolio on Photo.net, you've spent your time with thousand-dollar equipment taking snapshots of wading birds, your family, and some tourist attractions.
Thankfully neither of us need to think twice about shelling out $4299 - it's chicken feed - but for the little people, don't you think it's demoralising that you have something they want, and might do something interesting with?
John Cusack is not Edgar Allen Poe, don't be silly. He's an actor from the 1980s. You know, if I was making a film about Nicolas Cage, I would cast John Cusack as him, and vice-versa.
As for the 5D MkIII, it's my firm belief that the kind of people who *need* this camera also *really, really want* uncompressed HDMI output, which it doesn't have. Odd decision by Canon there. Nothing about the still images in this preview make me want to smash my 5D MkII into pieces and throw it into the Thames. Perhaps the new AF is like night and day.
On a conceptual level it feels like the second half of the 5D MkII, if you get my drift, rather than a new whole.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The best image is the one taken from the Olympus' cameras. The OM-D has a very familiar lens on it - the OM 50mm/f1.4. One of the best lenses ever made! (I have one...)
Before you think I'm trolling, let me set into rights. This - I mean the Canon - is a hell of a camera. At least for now, I'm only allowed to dream of it (it's not only the 3K for the body; it is also what I'd have to spend on lenses to make this camera justice), but this is the best IQ I've ever seen in this segment. Kudos to Canon. All cameras from 60D upwards have fantastic IQ, and I definitely see myself buying one of these - at least if I win the lottery, or in the very unlikely case this camera's still around when I get the dosh for it.
I couldn't help noticing this photo was taken at ISO 400, 15s exposure and f16. This is the way I like to shoot at night, despite this new belief high ISO is the only way to take night stills. That's wrong, of course, but deceitful marketing made its way into many people's minds.
Those old OM lenses were gems - the 24mm f/2 makes a super multiformat walkabout lens and it's pretty good on a 5D as well, with the right adapter.
There's a bunch of chaps on the far platform giving you the evil eye. Based on this sample a combination of artificial light and ISO 10000 is pushing it a bit.
nikonf2as: Hopefully this observation of D800 vs OM-D E-M5 will prove helpful to some.
Downloaded the 2 jpgs (switching the pentax 645 for M5) and up-ressed the M5 to match the D800 in Ps.
Firstly, the D800 FF inevitably has shallow DOF at f11. At f6.3, 4/3 M5 has focus front to back - have a look at the Queen of Hearts, or the text Eastman Kodak Company, 1997, top left on the greycard - the D800 is simply out of focus (as is the A900 and 5d mkIII at this focus point).
Secondly however, the D800 clearly has huge DR (compare the purples on the Q-60 colour target, and the highlights on the globe with the M5), and when it hits the spot focus-wise (the gauze to the left of the card, underneath the hairs) it trounces the M5 - as you would hope for and expect.
So what would you rather - a sharp result, with less fidelity, or an out-of-focus one (DOF-wise) with smooth colours? As a studio camera on a heavy tripod the D800 will excel - but forget hand-holding it at a 60th at f8 with a non-IS prime.
"the more MP, the more magnified the effect of camera shake seems to become" - only if you're reviewing the image at 100%; at conventional output sizes (a magazine page, for example), more megapixels will have the effect of reducing the apparent effect of camera shake, not increasing it.
Reg Natarajan: It's amusing to me to see how backwards so many people here are about new tech. Lim is 100% right. Unconnected devices will be meaningless. They're already meaningless to me, now. Maybe some of you find the work spent getting photos off your camera and on to Flickr (or whatever you use) to be edifying. I don't. Even today, Eye-Fi gets my photos geotagged, archived and uploaded automatically by walking in the door at home and turning on my camera. The dinosaur is dead.
It's as if you decided that your left side looks a bit better than your right side, but your heart isn't in it. It's better than Mr Potato Head down the page, though.
Dan4321: A printer? How about a review of the 5d3 or the latest olympus u4/3 (forgot the name). Something people actually use -- I haven't used a printer for photography in the last 5 years and I honestly only know one photographer who still makes prints, out of around 50.
Yes, they could do one of those silly "pre-preview hands on" things, where they photograph a Canon man holding a 5D MkIII at some event or other (it's hands-on! but not the writer's hands).
Probably get lots of pageviews; will be one more step along the path of turning DPReview into a kind of auto-generated news aggregator.
Ithackermike: 2 Thoughts:
1 )It's a high powered app just like this that may best expose the differences between the 2 platforms. What good is a .4 inch larger screen if the app is too laggy.
2) is the 1600x1600 restriction in place to keep from overrunning the processor power? I wonder if iPhoto for iOS has a similar restriction. I don't think iPhoto and PS are competitors on the desktop but if iPhoto iOS handles larger images then Adobe may have a problem here.
"is the 1600x1600 restriction in place to keep from overrunning the processor power?"
I surmise it's in place to keep people buying Photoshop Elements for their desktop! If this could do full-sized image editing (and raw conversion) it'd be a steal at $9.99.
Superka: I LOVE THOSE BROWN RAT!!
He's looking at us and saying "wHy my sHoulders Hurt! My liFe is PaIN!"