pierpa: Thank you for putting "Full manual on CD-ROM" in the cons.
I don't remember having seen this in any previous reviews, when appropriate.
I hope you will continue to underline this fault. Maybe some manufacturers will notice.
(Then there's also the abysmal quality of most manuals, whether on paper or on CD, but that's another battle)
I rather like having the manual in CD. It makes it much faster to just search for terms or the specific thing you need reference on instead of flipping through flimsy pages and often poorly organized indexes or vague table of contents. Plus I'm guessing it'd be more expensive if they had to print the entire manual for every single camera.
The only advantage I see is if you need it on field, but really, I've never needed a manual on hand. It doesn't stop me from taking a shot; maybe I've just been lucky with the cameras I've owned, but honestly it's kind of a waste IMO.
Timmbits: I don't care! Korea has decided to start hunting whales, and I am participating in the international boycott of all Korean products!
Might as well boycott every company in the world since practically every country has made crimes against the environment.
But yeah, Korea's not even the worst example in these kind of situations and you decide to boycott them? Seems more like an ignorance issue than a reasonable cause...
limlh: Lower price still doesn't make it more competitive. A sensor made by Sony might make it more competitive. Still, with the advent of LX7 with 1 inch sensor, it will slip into oblivion.
@kodakchrome i don't think that's what he meant.....if you want DOF, sensor size and f stop IS something.
you must be one of those sony fan boys.
cheaper price, brighter lens, articulated screen....it won't have the best sensor performance, but its size wasn't meant to. it fits needs for certain people, obviously you're not one of them. doens't mean it's a bad camera
point and shoots are officially useless....companies better start putting in significant things like bigger sensors and better lenses, and stop trying to hang on with more scene modes and filters (that they do worse than phone/app companies anyway)
Does any camera even offer performance that needs that much speed?
1singur: He ended up being controversial, so he did good.
To clarify- I'm not saying it's a huge deal. The photos show the athletes, the job was finished, it was fine. But I feel he should be held to a higher standard if he is going to take the job professionally.
being controversial for attention's sake is hardly the equivalent of being good.
no, i haven't heard of him until now, but it doesn't matter because i'll forget who he is within the week. the attention to me is neither good or bad, just a job that went wrong due to miscommunication. if his photos were good enough for me to want to look up who the photographer is, then maybe i would remember him
even if he had a false impression, i don't like the way he took the photos. awkward, unflattering poses, ripped backdrop- these are things a professional should know how to do correctly even without studio-prep in mind. Maybe the ripped backdrop was a result of not being able to prepare, but he could have at least slipped a piece of computer paper underneath to make it less obvious or something
I wonder if the lack of knowledge of a studio setup was the company's fault for giving false impression, or his own for not seeking the information
yes, the pics served well enough, but for a pro...
Ashley Pomeroy: I can't wait for them to attach cameras to the athletes - it might slow 'em down a bit, but think about the possibilities. e.g. beach volleyball. What happens if two rival news agencies put robot cameras next to each other? Will they fight?
lol, made me laugh. but i hope you're kidding- maybe as a show game they could attach gopros, but definitely not DSLRs, and definitely not during olympic performances. i would hate to be an athlete training all my life just to have to perform less than my full potential just so people can get a new angle, even if everyone else has them on too.
sigma is like fuji but worse. nice controls, nice build quality, great IQ, but stupid firmware, non-competitive AF, and overpriced for the overall package unless its pros are really worth it to you
Alizarine: As much as innovative an invention it is, or as"smart" as this app says it is, I won't let any AI algorithm disturb what my sense of beauty tells me.
I am the photographer. I decide what's beautiful and what's not. I decide which shot to use. I decide which photo is good and which one is bad, NOT MY CAMERA.
I'd hate to say this but apps like this just contribute to making people stupider.
Honestly, if an app that corrects faces for you threatens you and makes you feel insecure about your establishment as a photographer, you must not be a very good one.
Convenience is not the same as killing intelligence. If you came down from your photo-throne once in awhile, you would find- GASP- people who take photos just for fun or just to save the memory. Even pros aren't on their pro-mindset all the time. Saving editing/re-taking photo time means more time to make the memories that make life special
But, in defense of the OC (original commenter? lol), actually, stupider IS a word. But that's the only defense he gets.
Ashley Pomeroy: One day a major photojournalism prize is going to be won by a chap who held his iPhone over his head and clicked the shutter two dozen times, without knowing what he was shooting; the images were selected by the phone's app and transmitted directly to the picture desk. It'll raise all kinds of issues.
why? because pros don't rely on a little luck as well?
a good picture is a good picture. an iPhone is a tool that gives you a higher chance of being in the right place at the right time. from a business perspective, it makes sense to pay some guy who was there as long as the quality is doable than to pay some pro for some prettied up version of the same thing.
i'm not degrading the work and quality of pros; i'm just saying, an event is an event, a moment is a moment, a company isn't gonna sell less articles just because the highlights could have been better exposed and the DR could have been greater and the composition could have been more creative. big events sell themselves.
I like how camera makers need phone companies to force them to be innovative.
Honestly, how long did they think they could just keep increasing zoom range, adding in even more silly scene modes that work well less than half the time, and adding in more pixels?
You know what, maybe they don't need innovation since "real" photographers are inspired by the creative aesthetic of making your own work, not automating it, but for other people not on their pretentious high horse all the time, it makes life a lot easier to be able to focus less on getting good pictures to save memories, and focus more on doing the things that make the memories.
Photography isn't just an art; it's a way to remember your life.
lukx: Why again only residents of the USA and Canada?! To show that USA is the best in the world ?! Or they think they think that rest of the world is totally unworthy of grate intel !
Cause there's never photographic events for London only or other areas outside North America.
(unknown member): I've been using a New iPad for the past 3 months for reviewing/viewing and making minor modifications on my JPEGS out of my Panasonic FZ150 and Nikon 5100, and all I can say is retina displays are fantastic for photos.
Comparing a 2005 Dell laptop screen (regardless of its stated specs) to a New iPad screen (or the just announced MacBook Pro with retina display screen) is like comparing an image from a Nikon D800 to a Polaroid camera photo, IMHO.
If you really want to see what your images look like, get something that has the image quality to display them well. I don't see the point of having a good quality camera and then viewing the results on a piece of junk screen.
A system is only as good as its weakest component.
I don't see the point of paying for something that most people don't have anyway. If you want to buy it for yourself for better photo viewing, sure, go ahead. But as far sharing photos, how many people have retina screens? A system is only as good as its weakest component, but the people who view the photos are part of that system.
If you're speaking from a business perspective, I guess a retina screen would help sell your service, but for non professionals who rely on photography for their income, Retinas are a bit unnecessary IMO. Nice, but I'd rather have the price come down than have the high res.
Honestly, get the price down first, then I'll consider Apple. Yes, the trackapds are unparalleled, the OS is clean and efficient, the battery life is great, etc. But they are so cheap with how much hard drive, RAM and graphics memory they offer...the cheapest Macbook with an i7 and dedicated graphics card is over $1600 i believe. And Windows 7 can trade punches while offering better hardware at cheaper prices.
Windows PCs have the main components- processor, graphics card, RAM, battery life, etc. at good prices, like the HP Envy or Samsung Series 7 (around $1200) while Mac is cheaper on those options and offers better frills hardware like trackpad, now screen res, unibody construction. Don't get me wrong, it's all very nice, but I'd rather not have to pay ~$400 extra just to get those less important improvements.
jj74e: I don't understand the point of pancake design for DSLR. It's not like the rest of your system isn't already big? Why not just make it a little bigger and put in IS or something?
Is this Canon's way of going mirrorless without going mirrorless? ;)
Of course, I'm not saying it doesn't or won't appeal to anyone. The aperture could be bigger, but given the price, I guess it works out.
I don't know, is it really less intimidating/conspicuous than the 50mm they already have? Make it a little bigger and put in IS or something to the size of a 50mm, and it would still be relatively inconspicuous in my mind, especially since the body of a DSLR is still relatively big and when pointed at someone, will draw attention no matter what lens is on it (although obviously a giant telephoto lens would be the worst offender).
But perhaps I'm too biased from being used to photographic equipment; maybe the 50mm is more conspicuous than the pancake would be to non-photography oriented people.
I don't understand the point of pancake design for DSLR. It's not like the rest of your system isn't already big? Why not just make it a little bigger and put in IS or something?
halai: I primarily shoot Nikon but I have to say this is the best camera at this price range. I don't even think the soon release Nikon D5200 and Canon T4i can't even touch this. Really love the design and all weather sealing at $850, SICK!!! I think Pentax will hit a home run with this camera. Also, I like the fact that Pentax kept at 16mp instead of 24mp or even higher like other companies are doing. Why? To be honest, how many people really need higher than 16mp??? I know I know... there will always some people, but seriously what is the percentage of that?
Regarding mp, what reason is there not to use a higher mp sensor if low light performance is still competitive? It gives you much more leeway for cropping as necessary, crisper photos, etc. The only negatives you get are possible hits in write time and memory usage, but memory is pretty cheap these days, and write times are usually quick enough or non-obstructing.
But certainly the K-30 looks extremely attractive, and the 16mp is one of the best out there.
waxwaine: If I remember the idea of m43 was "Go compact", and this is not a very good example. No point on this compared to any APS-C camera.
Obviously not every lens or even every body is compact with mirrorless cameras, even with m4/3.
To me, I chose mirrorless not because I expected every lens and body combination to be compact, but because I wanted the /option/ to choose a compact system when I wanted to, yet still have the versatility of a bigger system when needed.
Sure, the 75mm f1.8 isn't going to be compact, but it's still much smaller than comparable APS-C lenses at that focal length and aperture, and it can do more than what a pancake lens could do; need compactness? put a pancake on it. need something else? switch it out to a more capable system. it's about compromise and choice.