ipribadi: So if I setup a mechanism to remotely capture an elusive animal out in the wild by using a motion sensor to trigger the shot then does it mean the animal is the author?
So how does it work for those auto "smiley" gimmicks they add to p&s cameras that take the shot once every human face in the frame smiles? The last guy that smiles and triggers the shot has ownership?
Well understood that there was no trigger.
My point was regarding pressing the shutter button "seemed" to have given the monkey the rightful ownership of the shot.
Just like the last person to smile in a group shot triggers a p&s camera, simply pressing the shutter button should not = rightful owner of the shot.IMO it can't just be about who triggers the shot but who was more dominant in the whole process of taking the shot.
I'm sure Slater was the one who cropped, re-framed the shot and posted it all without the monkey's permission. :)
OTOH I still do agree with b_craw that in this particular case, the monkey did take, hold, aim (to some degree) and press the shutter button.Hmm ... so perhaps it is correct that ownership is more towards the monkey.
So if I setup a mechanism to remotely capture an elusive animal out in the wild by using a motion sensor to trigger the shot then does it mean the animal is the author?
dwl017: Who exactly is this camera design for? John Doe and his his wife with two kids? or the hipster single guy with disposal cash? The $800 price point seems massive to me given the fact that its still a point and shoot camera. I also disagree with the whole pocketable argument since I doubt very few people are shoving there new $800 gadget into a pants pocket.
So again back to my original question just who sets out on a saturday afternoon to buy a $800 point and shoot camera and how exactly is the price justified given the fact that 90% of the photos taken around the world today are only posted to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or Instagram. Depending on the state you live in within the US this is $850 camera when tax are added.
Perhaps the original Sony RX100 might even be a better option at the end of the day? price point wise. I did a quick Flickr scan of the Canon S120 and all the photos look no different from the current Sony RX100 model.
I'm their target market. Mid 30s, two kids, and some intermediate photog skills. I have a Panny LX7 and don't own a DSLR coz it is too big and heavy.
I want great quality photos in low light and some bokeh capability which only DSLR and ILC offerred until now.My LX7 was a good compromise but now this RX100 III closes the gap considerably.Only thing holding me back is the price but Sony knows they got me.Hoping for a black Friday or xmas deal now.
larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)
To me the RX100 III is getting really close to the holy grail of mobile photog: getting bokeh in a small pocketable camera.
Face it: phone photogs are all over and in good light, the photos look decent IQ wise but lacks bokeh and long focal lengths.
Nowadays phone cameras are adding zoom, but still the laws of optical physics can't be outdone regarding shallow DOF.
DSLR became a hit 5-10 years ago as even lay people realize the bokeh factor seperates the P&S and phones vs. the DSLR "pro" looking photos.
So here the RX100 III now allows decent bokeh at 24mm and 70mm (not much in between tho) which gives off that pro photo look so many lay people love.
This camera is intended for those who don't own a phone or aren't allowed to own a phone yet.Yes it's for the 4th graders and under as it perfectly fits their still small growing hands but have out grown their Fisher Price toy cameras.
FreedomLover: Thank you for the tilting display and the improved sensor, Sony.
RX100 is the best pocketable camera, but it is crippled by:- slow 50mm equivalent, needs to be f1.8- slow tele- mediocre IS- no real macro
The new hot-shoe is good for your revenue, bad for the pocket.Firmware needs to be open source for better options.Also missing an in-camera manual.
Not so fast. Just adding a larger lens or upsizing the front lens doesn't get you larger aperture. The entire lens system must be larger. Besides there's also the auto lens cap.
I regard this CZ lens system much more compact for what it is compared to the LX7's f1.4-2.3 24-90mm Leica.Seriously .. a 1" sensor is huge! we're lucky to get f1.8 at 28mm equiv (10.4mm actual)!
Just checkout the 1 Nikkor lenses (also for 1" sensor) .. they are all huge and none come close to a 10-37mm zoom with f1.8 at wide.
40daystogo: If it had, at its widest, a 24mm f2.0 at least, with vibration control, plus attachable EVF, it would be close to my ideal camera.
The Lumix LX5 / Leica D-Lux 5 had a very sharp Leica zoom lens with f2.0 aperture. Why couldn't Leica have provided something like that?
In the past, I have owned a few Leica cameras, including an M, but I consider it a nonsense for Leica to only offer here a f3.5 maximum aperture.
Leica, you missed the boat on this one. Very disappointed.
24mm equiv @f2.0 lens on an APS-C sensor? You're talking about a whole different form factor.
Combatmedic870: If you dont need video or a articulated screen...The XZ-1 is still what i would go for. ESPECIALLY since its going for $199 right now!!
For compact cam video, IMHO the LX7 takes the crown.The S100 video is just not as sharp as 1080p should be and has more noise in low light shooting.
LX7 has an internal ND filter allowing proper shutter speed in bright scenes and it's fast lens allows low ISO in low light scences.LX7 shoots 1080/60p @28mbps using AVCHD format which is more effecient than H.264, but even so the bitrate is not the bottle neck here for IQ.
Andy, any sensor to DOF comparison data against Olympus XZ-2 ?Thanks!
BadScience: hmm, "without rich shadows, the images look flat".
That is true, so it's strange the photographer ignores his own advice.
The interior of the car - of the original exposures, the top left exposure looks better than the final HDR.
Ditto with the hotel in Havana. All trace of atmosphere has been lost by using HDR. Again, the original exposure is the best.
Although, these images do not have the overt tone mapped look to them, they still feel very artificial. I'd be very tempted to overlay the original exposure on top of the HDR and set the opacity to 90%. So there is just a hint of the extra dynamic range, without the plastic look.
If you want to acheive natural HDR images, you will know you have succeeded when people do not realise that the image is HDR. If this was the aim here, it has failed.
I don't think the goal was to avoid anyone knowing it was an HDR shot, but to retain a mostly realistic look to HDR shots.
The car HDR is meets my taste for HDR, the hotel, a bit over colored, but still pleasing.
mpgxsvcd: Everyone complaining about the smaller sensor in the LX-7 over the LX-5 does realize that it is insignificantly smaller, right? It isn't like Full frame vs. APS-C. Neither of these cameras are going to give you incredibly shallow depth of field.
However, the LX-7 will give you incredibly good low light performance at wide angle with that F1.4 lens.
That's true, but everyone incl me was hoping the LX7 would have larger sensor like a 2/3" one.So tho it's only slightly smaller than the LX5, it's completely opposite and significantly off from what most were expecting.
mpgxsvcd: Basically Panasonic is the first manufacturer to figure it out. Even with the much larger sensor of the DSC-RX100 the shallowest 35mm equivalent aperture is F4.9.
None of these cameras will produce a shallow depth of field shot. So why not just make the sensor a little smaller and the the F number a lot better.
They finally got it right. Shallow depth of field is not important for these cameras. Low light performance is. They have a winner on their hands in that respect.
If only we could convince the novice user of this fact since they will need to be the ones buying this camera for it to be a success.
Like the other replies.Sensor size and lens aperature are intertwined together resulting in a certain DOF and low light performance.The LX7 improved on the LX5's low light performance but is only on par with the competition.With the latest Sammy, Oly and Canon premium compact cameras, the LX7 is just so-so.
7enderbender: Here is the problem: this discussion can go back and forth and back and forth. "You're a rip-off" - "But here are my expenses plus markup" etc etc.
I think part of the reason why a lot of photographers, artists and actually a lot of other businesses aren't doing so well is because they don't understand pricing.
Here's the rule: Never - and I mean never - justify your price based on your expenses. Yes, calculate your expenses to understand your profit margin. But that's between you, your spouse and the IRS. It is irrelevant to your client. They can care less about your three 5D Mark IIs and how much they cost you. The only reason they hire you is their perceived value they get from your pictures. That's it. End of story. There is no cost+markup argument.
Getting to the actual value is of course difficult in an artistic and emotional field.
That being said: Nikki Wagner should rethink her cost structure and business model a bit. Something is off there.
Nikki was offended coz the notion the Craigslist poster implies that “he/she has it easy, cos he/she makes $3K per wedding” while in reality Nikki struggles to make ends meet. Thus Nikki goes off explaining the costs involved.
OTOH I 100% agree that from a customer’s perspective the seller’s cost structure is irrelevant.If a chef can make such an amazing doughnut and sell them for $10 tho it only cost him $.10 to make, I wouldn’t care, the market will decide.
If wedding photography is such easy money, there’ll be a flood of photographers going pro which would eventually lower prices.
opho to: I don't get it:
Standard mode "captures a depth of field of approximately 4 inches to infinity, and [...] allows re-focusing at all points in between. The Advanced Light Field mode, [allows you] to shift the focus between their ears and nose."
Why is that 'advanced'? How can a persons nose and ears not be between the 4 inch to infinity range of the 'standard' mode?
I suppose what is meant is that the advance mode has a DOF shallower than 4in.With standard DOF of 4in both ears and nose are in focus.
Doug Frost: I'm completely underwhelmed by these samples. Interchangeable lenses notwithstanding, there are a number of compact cameras that outclass the Nikon 1. The new Canon S100 is smaller, less expensive, has a faster lens and higher IQ. It can even produce a passable bokeh at the short end. You can forget bokeh entirely with the N1 system.
I don't know what Nikon was thinking. Did they really believe that compact camera owners would consider the ability to put an assortment of mediocre lenses on a mediocre camera an upgrade?
CX is not that much smaller than m4/3 and still waaay larger than 1/1.7" on the S100.
What Nikon is doing wrong is not coming up with lenses that showcases its advantage over P&S.The initial 4 lenses they released are very limited.
If I were Nikon I would for sure release a wide angle zoom (7-25mm f2.8-3.5), a fast short prime (15mm f/1.2), a fast long prime (30mm f/1.4) and a fast std zoom (10-30mm, f1.8-2.5)
Fast lenses are a must for small sensor cameras, it helps both DOF control (bokeh) and low light IQ.Nikon released none of these (fastest is f2.8, widest is 10mm) and thus the sample shots speak for themselves.
Yes a premium P&S (XZ-1, LX5, S100, G12, P7100) could have done those!
Another thing I've learned shooting using the LCD screen is to turn off all those overlay display icons.I realized tho I knew the framed shot was the entire LCD screen view, my shots ended up being not tight enough and occasionally slightly not centered.Those overlayed icons were impairing my composition judgement!Of course PP crop fixes this, but I'd rather make every pixel count.
Peiasdf: This lens + G3 = E-P3 killer
I still see that the LX will live on:1. Price is still $300 over the LX2. Aperature is too small/high that it'll negate any high ISO advantage or shallow DOF of the m4/33. The LX6 will raise the bar
Sorry to feed in with the doom and gloom here, but I think Pentax missed the mark:1. Waay to pricey (should be $400 or so for body + lens kit). How would this ever compete with NEX or m4/3? .. well maybe due to it's size, but ..2. Not small enough: assuming IQ is similar to G12/LX5/XZ-1, the trade off of lost IQ and lost bokeh is too much for the serious photographer which would consider an interchangeable system.
m4/3 is barely excusable due to the same reasons: too pricey and with lenses which are too big & heavy.I suppose over time (another 2-3 years) m4/3 will come down in price & lens size, but this here is just not justifyable.
What they should have done is fit it with a m2/3 sensor!With all else being equal (price & size) if the Pentax Q was a micro two thirds system it would have made more sense and compete well with m4/3 and prosumer premium compacts such as the LX5/XZ1/G12.