Brett St Pierre: The important things with this compact is the optical viewfinder and the manual zoom, both of which are sadly hard to find anymore yet without them compacts are simply awful to use. I am not just being traditional, these simply work better. At the price I'd be somewhat tempted to get one for a bit of fun.
Remember that this viewfinder is only 85%.
I'm sure it's brighter and better than most, but at 85%-well-it depends on the user-it will work for some and definitely not for others.
There's always shooting much to wide and then cropping, I guess.
Advertising and Solicitation
For those who don't like soliciting and advertising in the "Comment" section, roll your mouse over the "Like" box and select "Flag."
Just sayin'.....do something about it.
" but more and more, images from smartphones are appearing in online publications and even the occasional newspaper story, that would traditionally have been the preserve of professionals carrying 'serious' cameras. It's not just the spontaneity of cameraphones or their increasingly impressive image quality that makes them appealing to photographers."
There are actually two subjects very clumsily merged in this brief excerpt:1. "the preserve of professionals"and2. "increasingly impressive image quality"
The balance of this excellent and interesting article aside, the reason these photos are increasingly appearing in publications comes down to two:
1. Free photo's are a lot cheaper than those from professionals
2. No one-including the editors and readership-have any notions or desire for quality.
No recognizes good layout or typography since anyone could put anything on a page.
Horrific audio and video abounds for the same reason.
As does empty poorly formed photography.
Fotogeneticist: I've just been waiting for a small body to stick on the end of my Nikkor glass to use for video in a package that can fit in a book bag. I've already got a D-SLR for everything else.
That camera is here. It is the Sony NEX. 'Not trying to be funny at all, but that is the reality-the adapters exist and are being used. Of course-there is the flange distance-the same "problem" as using any lens sourced from an SLR system.
JEPH: Good article that's relevant to lots of different areas.
Plus, it covers flash techniques, panning techniques along appropriate shutter speeds, effects of focal lengths, compositional devices-what's not to like?
forgot to mention:effects of shade under sunny conditions, white balance suggestions, and implications of focus techniques.
Lots for one article. Well done.
Good article that's relevant to lots of different areas.
Reading the majority of comments thus far, I am concerned about the knowledge and attitudes of Americans.
This was a useful refresher for me. I hope you continue this series on printing.
I hope the series continues.
b9346719: Next article:
Please!Say at least a little about Xerox/Tektronic Phaser solid ink (wax) technology.I've been using Phaser 8500 in my previous office. The results even on ordinary photo-copy paper are astonishing!Maybe u should compare one of them with 6-7 ink's inkjet beasts.
I'm glad to see this article on printers. It's perhaps nothing new for many of us, but I need a reminder or refresher course, and it's very useful and convenient to have it here.
Kevin Cheesman: Great products, but aren't these destroying photographers businesses?
As a school photographer and administrator of www.schoolphotopro.com, our members are all suffering because of this type of technology as parents can now easily run off copies of their school photos. When they can make copies so easily why would they want buy more than just a single print?
"Great products, but aren't these destroying photographers businesses?"
Forgive me, but this seems an absurd reaction to an article on printers.
Mustafa: Nice idea to have printer reviews. Also good that you seem to be editing Vincent's syntax, which can sometimes be a little wayward. That's not to say that his site is not well worth visiting, though.
Oh, his syntax was almost instantly recognizable to me!
Good to have him here again.
sankos: What I miss in the review is some info on how the photos were printed -- using factory defaults, canned profiles, or maybe they were profiled individually? I can't seem to spot that bit of *essential* info.
Where is Vincent?It just struck me: Vincent is the master of the "interactive review," as anyone who has visited his site would know.
Would someone from DPR invite him to comment here? He is both diplomatic and matter of fact.
In short: perfect!
Addendum to previous post:
Also, since this is a "multi-function printer" test, the paper used for the text printing evaluations should be described. Essential is one is to use it as a *multi function* printer. (I know, this strays from a photo website, but still.)
In keeping with this sentiment, perhaps there should be information on stationary one might find from common (meaning: largest) suppliers. Yes-this would open a HUGE area, and not photo related. But still-you have waded into the waters of text printing. (For example, does all cotton stock work best for inkjet text printing, mixed stock, inkjet optimized stock, laid surfaces, the list goes on.)
A bit churlish, all of that, keep up the good work. More please.
1. US Market and CD-R/DVD printing: Does the Canon offer disc printing? Generally, in the US market, disc printing has been pretty much exclusively available on Epson printers. There was an HP in the past that offered disc printing.
2. A requirement: We really need to know how color was handled:A. Managed image software, and what it wasorB. Managed printer supplied software
I feel this review was a little too basic to be of value.
However, I'm enthused about the reappearance of Vincent Oliver-and I think he is one of the ideal people to do scanner and printer reviews. Those unfamiliar with his work are encouraged to visit his web site, or look around here for earlier contributions (if they are still here, somewhere).
Ron Scubadiver: In a recent thread here I found myself being flamed for taking street shots. There is a faction out there that believes street photography somehow victimizes the subjects of the images.
Please-your photos have nothing to do with the subject under discussion here. You were not flamed. Interested readers can visit relevant threads. Some writers identified what they thought was an unhealthy obsession on your part of targeting women with cameras. A creepy obsession doesn't have anything to do with street photography.