doctor digi: Several points:
Whether you love or hate this (or Glass), it's coming and you may as well get used to it. This reminds me of early digicams - large, clunky, and with poor image quality. The next gen., or several after, will be cheap, very small, and take great pictures.
As for privacy - what privacy? (if in public). I get photographed by CCTV a zillion times a day - so if people on the street do it, who cares. What I DO have issue with is if someone did this without my knowledge in my home.
What will be even more interesting is when micro-UAVs the size of an insect are (eventually) produced. That's perhaps more a worry than what people can stick around their necks. And that too is coming - perhaps sooner than people realise.
As for this device - way too expensive, way too big. But as I said, this is early days. I'd wear one because I'd like to make a diary and I have no time to write one each day, but I'd only be interested if it was not intrusive (which this thing is).
Trollshave: it is you who are taking my opinions as "more than that". While I am partly stating "my opinion", I'm mostly just stating what is inevitable - personal always-on camera recording is here to stay, whether you (or I) like it or not. Now, unless you are so sure that there is a chance to legislate in every country in the world and remove the right to take street photography, then I'd say the chances of stopping this are close to zero. Don't forget - you'd have to legislate against street photography, because why should someone holding a camera have more rights than someone wearing a camera? And how will you define holding/wearing once the cameras become really small?
As for my *opinion*. I'm neither for nor against. I can see useful things and also misuse with this tool. My main concern is what happens in private. In the street (i.e.: in public) I still say "who cares".
NAwlins Contrarian: Sorry, but he doesn't get to dictate the pronunciation just because he created the file type. Standard pronunciation rules apply. Insofar as the G in GIF is for "graphics", which has a hard G, then GIF should likewise be pronounced with a hard G.
I didn't know GEOFF was an acronym...
The one with the cat is not fake. It's a real cat! Anyone can see that.
I'd buy it if the hand grip was made of lunar rock. Now, you'd think with H's past involvement with NASA that they'd be able to get some from them? At the very least, a hand grip made from solid gold covered with grains of lunar soil.
Ah, at last! The Michael Jackson of cameras...!
Archearer: For me as for architect and architectural photographer it’s a GREAT news! Thank you Samyang! I’m sure I’ll buy this lens at the first day it will be on sale in Russia. Nikon’s 24 mm PC-E lens is tooooo expencive, even for professional shooting. Samyang engeneers, if you read this, please don’t stop your work and also produce one more wide-angle lens – for interiors. I mean if you’ll design something similar to canon’s 17mm ts-e, but available for ALL systems – it will be BESTSELLER in interior photographers professional environment. Look: there is no similar products in Nikon’s line, and in Sony’s, and in Pentax’s also. So at current time interior and landscape photographers HAVE to use canon ts-e 17mm or large format film cameras like Sinar, which are very heavy and slow operating. But I’d like to have possibility to shoot interiors on Nikon d800, because of it’s awesome 36mp sensor and because I already have all Nikon’s system of acessories.
A-Frame. You must be joking. 17mm is a must-have for architectural interiors. 24mm just doesn't cut it for general interior shots. I use both lenses every day. If you are having trouble with too much distortion in scenes on the 17 then I'd suggest you aren't using it correctly.
If you don't agree with it then don't enter.
However, I think this is a thousand times better than some people putting tens of thousands of their photos up on Flickr (and paying for a "pro" account for the priviledge). Why pay to create content for someone else to use to build a company and make money?
I'd rather have a shot at a trip to HK than a bunch of "Great Capture" awards and disingenuous self-serving comments about my photos.
GMart: All the below goes to show is that a photo in fact proves / disproves nothing...
While that may be true for a single photo, when there are many, combined with other evidence, then the results are firmly stacked in favour of either proved or disproved.
I think Apollo is proved as far as any rational human being is concerned.
What the below proves is that no matter what you say or do you will be unable to convince a small minority of a fact. You could even put them on a spacecraft and take them to the moon, but of course they'd then claim you'd drugged them and it wasnt real.
Then again, there are others (most, if not all, the published "Apollo hoax" authors) who only "disbelieve" because it earns them money from book sales to the gullable and unthinking.
Triggr Happy: Shadow of the flag in one direction and shadow of Buzz in the other? hmmmmsome strange lighting ;)
Ah yes - in low Earth orbit. I guess they must have used Klingon cloaking technology then. Or maybe people on Earth just didn't go out after sunset and see them passing overhead. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about space or astronomy could see how implausible this reasoning is. But please, do continue to display your clear lack of knowledge.
Flag pole is thin. Shadow is as thick as the Buzz's leg. hmmmm. some strange flag pole...
Laughable that on a photography site such as this, people are calling into question the legitimacy of the photos.
It's getting really old, boring and tiring. I can tell you now, if any of these people who claim the Apollo photos were fake based on shadows not lining up would please post some outdoor shots of their own then I can examine them and find shadows "not parallel" and thus claim the photos are fake.
I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the non-black shadows "because everyone knows that with no atmosphere shadows are completely black". Like when Aldrin is "somehow" being illuminated on the LM steps. Sheesh.
Let's put it this way: it would have cost a lot more to stage the whole thing than it actually cost to send men to the moon for real.
I've yet to read a plausable criticism that could lead to doubt. Sure, I agree, don't believe everything the government tells you, but at least don't leave your brain behind when starting on the conspiracy rants about the evidence.
AD in KC: Gotta weigh in.
I think it's perfectly fine that a guy is taping a phone to his binoculars and posting the photos to a blog. Why not. My only worry is that there is a strong popular pressure to accept everything as "good enough". It's an extension of the "anti-intelectualism" we've been famous for since Andrew Jackson's time. And it's not just in photography, but in English - you're just being arrogant if you worry about using "your" in the wrong place. Or go to Home Depot and look at the quality of building materials available. These athletes spend a great deal of their time and energy and resources getting to the olympics. I'm happy to see Canon and Nikon rolling out their best for the occasion as well.
Being an ignorant ass is seen as a badge of honour these days. I get told I know nothing when I, for example, point out it's "number of people" not "amount of people". We may as well all go back to caveman-speak. After all, wasn't that "good enough" to indicate your thoughts and intentions?
Who are we to judge what should or should not be done? Each situation is unique and it is for the person there at the time to make a decision.
Get over it. I don't use Instagram and I don't think much of it, but like printing, reading skills, and a whole host of other things in human history, once the masses get hold of it and bring it to the lowest common denominator then it kills it. Or, at least, it changes the landscape to something wholly unfamiliar and kills it for the elite who won't adapt.
Photography as we knew it is dead. It died the day the first cheap digicams rolled off the production line and anyone could take pictures for very very low cost. It's changed things like stock (perhaps even killed it) and the attitude of most of the general public is that anyone can take a picture and thus photos are no longer worth anything.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. I feel sorry that good photos are no longer valued, but perhaps another viewpoint on this is required. Things like Instagram are just another take on photography. Better get used to it - it isn't going to go away.
Snaaks: Very good quality. although i think the audio has been taken from an external source. As the film guy walks across the stage, the sound character stays roughly the same. At some point the filmer is very close to the drummer, you'd expect much noise from the drum kit but the balance of instruments is unchanged.However the video quality is outstanding.
As it gets closer to the drummer the sound increases. Listen carefully; it's fairly obvious and I'm no audiophile.
N0BOX: It is legal evils such as this that is causing a huge movement on the internet to subvert the rights of artists by distributing "mp3s" and other music and video files online. The recording and film industries have both been so intent on legally binding their artists, associates, and patrons that they have turned a whole generation against them.
This not only hurts the musicians, writers, and actors by losing sales to the internet's modern community of "innocent theives", but it gravely injures copyright law in general. If copyright law is to survive in modern times, when everything is shared immediately with the world, then it has to be seen as "fair" to both sides. Having teams of lawyers at each others' throats before and after every picture is taken, song is written, or movie is filmed causes this "big, evil, corporate machine" feeling to be perpetuated.
People who do the work should have their rights to the product. It should always just be as simple as that.
The day that we have a proper campaign to reduce copyright length to sensible time periods (20 years, for instance - or even 10) the better for everyone. Having copyright subsist for 70 years (Europe) or 90 years (US) after the author's death is just plain ludicrous. Unfortunately it looks like being extended to 120 years to keep Disney happy. Will we ever learn?
bikinchris: I am in Vegas right now and I got to look at the Celine Dion book they sell at the concerts venue. The shots in that book for $30 mostly suck. They can't be using the best photographers. Maybe no on ehwo is real good wants to work and give away rights?
Alec - there is a fundamental flaw in your argument for the 21st century: you are assuming photographs now have value. They don't. We are now so swamped with digital images that nobody cares about quality any more (the same with music - CD or MP3, doesn't matter that MP3s are poor quality). The General Public just don't care - they see a photo and that's all that counts.
A shame they can't use the correct term for the book's title - it's actually tone-mapping that is being created. A true HDR image cannot be displayed with any available technology.
Great review though.
doctor digi: DPRevew: if you have to tell us the price then you really shouldn't be showing this on your website. (to reverse a well-known phrase)
what's wrong with a sense of humour? Lighten up!