SteB: This is most certainly not a Nikon FM. The FM was in a class of cameras like the Olympus OM-1 and the Pentax MX. These were stripped down metal bodied cameras, which were at a similar price or even cheaper than plastic bodied consumer orientated SLRs. In other words they were the type of camera a pro could use, at a consumer near entry level price. This class of camera was also known for its simplicity, just manual mode and the basic features. Whereas the Nikon F3 was an entirely different beast, a big solid no compromise pro camera, that if I remember rightly cost about 9-10 times the price of the Nikon FM. This thing is more like an F3 on sterioids, all the bells and whistles, with a load of styling flourishes from older Nikons.
It's clearly not retro done right as it is self-evidently primarily designed as male jewellry. Whilst it will undoubtedly serve as a good camera, it is too big, too expensive, and with too many design flourshes, which won't ehance it as a camera.
In the UK the Nikon FM was not significantly more expensive. In fact I seem to remember the AE-1 as being more expensive than the Nikon FM. I owned a Pentax MX and OM-1, but I didn't buy a Nikon system until later. The MX and OM-1N were about £120 and the FM just a bit more. The cheapest SLRs at the time were about £90.
You might be thinking about the Nikon FM2 which was at a different price point than the FM, although not massively more expensive. At the time the FM2 was released it was unique in having a flash synch of 1/200s and a top shutter speed of 1/4000. Most horizontal cloth shutters at the time had a synch speed of 1/60s and top speed of 1/4000s. The best other cameras did was 1/125s x, and 1/2000 max speed. So Nikon could charge more for the FM2, as at the time it's shutter was unique.
Also the situation changed in the 1990s. With more automated and AF cameras, these manual cameras were marketed to purists, and cost more than they originally did.
This is most certainly not a Nikon FM. The FM was in a class of cameras like the Olympus OM-1 and the Pentax MX. These were stripped down metal bodied cameras, which were at a similar price or even cheaper than plastic bodied consumer orientated SLRs. In other words they were the type of camera a pro could use, at a consumer near entry level price. This class of camera was also known for its simplicity, just manual mode and the basic features. Whereas the Nikon F3 was an entirely different beast, a big solid no compromise pro camera, that if I remember rightly cost about 9-10 times the price of the Nikon FM. This thing is more like an F3 on sterioids, all the bells and whistles, with a load of styling flourishes from older Nikons.
I think this quote from the interview sums it up "Because when you shoot, nearly every picture is the same to you, and a press picture is born in the imagination of editors and the public who see them".
This along with how he took the image is simply saying he was partly lucky, and it was more what the world made of that image, rather him having great credit for that. Nevertheless he had some considerable input and was doing his job to get the shot in dangerous circumstances.
gusda9: These people are not original gypsies like I am they are Irish people living in a camp Real gypsys spread from India a thousand years ago They don't even speak the Romani language All of you are very ignorant of the culture of Gypsys We speak a very Distinctive language that is understandable Throughout the world by Other Gypsies Its like seeing any Asian person and saying they are Chinese Really people you need to google stuff up
They don't look like Irish Travellers to me, but New Age travellers.
There are 3 main groups of travellers in the UK. Gypsies are not a thing of the past, but strictly speaking they aren't gypsies.
1) Romanies. These are what have been referred to as gypsies. It used to be a derogatory name, but now it seems they use the name themselves.
2) Irish Travellers.
3) New Age travellers.
The first 2 are distinct ethnic groups. Whereas the latter is a lifestyle choice i.e. most were not born to families that lived like that. The photographs appear to be of new age travellers, which is presumably why it's called the new gypsies.
I just checked the Sony UK site for the UK prices, and they are much better than I thought. They haven't just converted dollars into pounds. The pre-order body price of the A7 is £1299 and the A7r body is £1699 and the A7 kit £1549.http://www.sony.co.uk/
These are pretty good prices considering £1299 is what the Olympus EM-1 introductory price is in the UK.
I don't get this camera at all. A superzoom camera, which is as large as a small DSLR, more expensive, and which in APS-C terms is about 140-150mm at the long end. In other words very moderate telephoto, and nowhere near the focal length of a superzoom.
There are some choices I'd agree with, and some which are just odd, because they never seemed to have the impact implied. Rather that was the marketing buzz, but the actual camera did not have that impact.
Take the Kodak EasyShare V570. The implication was that other cameras couldn't fit a wide zoom range into a small body. But then the Panasonic TZ3 was realeased just after 2006 ended in January 2007 with a 28-300mm zoom in a relatively small body. It was revoluationary in that it spawned a whole new class of popular camera, the travel zoom. So omitting that, in favour of things like the Kodak is an oversight. Kodak are no more (but a name), whereas travel zooms have gone from strength to strength.
I am very pleased with my Panasonic LX7. However, I'm not sure how this expenive version will take better photos. I can only figure that some people have got more money than sense.
I guess if you can afford one, you don't look at photography forums, or read camera reviews.
" will be available from May 2013 at a retail price of £39.99"
If someone can tell me where I can get them at £39.99 I'll put in a bulk order?
SteB: I'd love someone to test the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 on this adapter? Whilst more of a niche thing it could be of interest to users of this lens. One of the limitations of this lens on smaller formats is that the minimum magnification of 1:1 is a bit restrictive. It's generally reckoned to provide a better range of magnification on FF. However, something like a NEX6 with this adapter would still be considerably cheaper than a FF camera. AF is irrelevant as this lens doesn't have it.
Thanks I'd very much forward to see the results. Being as this lens is a bit different than the others, and the extension might mean it performs differently. Although I have tried the MP-E 65mm with a Sigma 1.4x converter and it performed well. The only thing being the camera didn't recognise was that a converter was attached, but it sill functioned. Apparently it's because the lens wasn't designed to work with converters.
John Hallmen did a nice side by side with the MP-E 65mm on a 5D mkII and a NEX7 and the normal Metabones adaptier. His one disappointment being the smaller crop, the speed booster overcomes overcomes this problem. For a while he asked people to judge the difference in photos he'd taken, and most couldn't tell the difference, and guessed wrong. So there's potential.http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/7644589020/
I'd love someone to test the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 on this adapter? Whilst more of a niche thing it could be of interest to users of this lens. One of the limitations of this lens on smaller formats is that the minimum magnification of 1:1 is a bit restrictive. It's generally reckoned to provide a better range of magnification on FF. However, something like a NEX6 with this adapter would still be considerably cheaper than a FF camera. AF is irrelevant as this lens doesn't have it.
It really doesn't bother me if Hassleblad want to dress a NEX-7 in bling for very wealthy people. However, it's a bit of an insult to people's intelligence to try and convince people that this is anything but a NEX-7 inside a body redesign. The specifications and the control layout seem virtually identical to the NEX, and only appear to be cosmetically different. If Hassleblad were just using Sony parts to design their own camera, it seems odd that they ended up with something so similar to the NEX-7 in specification and control layout. The control layout of the "Lunar" is more similar to the NEX-7 than it is to the NEX-6.
Camediadude: I watched it, I am not sure that I get this. Native Americans are eligible for significant financial assistance more than any other ethnicity here. These include grants and scholarships, preference in admissions, food, medical, and child aid and welfare of numerous types, and housing assistance. In many states (like mine) they are granted the exclusive privileged of owning and running the state casinos, and all of the profits that come with them. So, unless these folks are seriously spending on drugs and alcohol, gambling and other pursuits, and mismanaging the funds.. or having them embezzled disastrously by their tribal leaders, I really do not see the point in all of this ethnocentric finger-pointing and blaming of the U.S. government and the American people for having the gall to be here. Indeed, their were wars going on here in past centuries, and injustices committed by ALL.
"Those events had a domino effect, which has yet to end. As removed as we the dominant society may feel, from a massacre in 1890, or a series of broken treaties 150 years ago. I still have to ask you how you should feel about the statistics of today? Is any of this your responsibility today? I have been told that there must be something we can do. There must be some call to action. Because for so long I've been sitting on the sidelines, content to be a witness, just taking photographs. The suffering of indigenous peoples is not a simple issue to fix. So where does that leave us? Shrugging our shoulders in the dark. The call to action I offer today, honour the treaties, give back the Black Hills. It's not your business what they do with them”.
Similar patterns and problems are seen all around the world amongst indigenous peoples dispossed of the land they once enjoyed. The similarity of these problems can't be mere coincidence.
The film explained the points you raised fairly clearly. From the film.
"The last chapter in any successful genocide is the one in which the oppressor can remove their hands and say, my god what are these people doing to themselves. They're killing each other. They're killing themselves, while we watch them die. This is how we came to own these United States. This is the legacy of manifest destiny. Prisoners are still born into prisoner of war camps, long after the guards are gone. These are the bones left after the best meat has been taken. A long time ago a series of events were set in motion by a people that looked like me, eager to take the land and the water, and the gold in the hills."
Thank you for highlighting this important work here.
I was interested in this release because I have a Canon DSLR system and I have been thinking about moving to m4/3. The advantage of a Canon mirrorless camera being it easier to use my Canon lenses on it. The problem being that I can't think of many occasions where I could use this body on my Canon lenses. The lack of any viewfinder ability, and the lack of focus peaking, mean that except for static tripod use, it would have little use apart from as a carry around camera.
In addition the AF speed looks slow to me. On the video reviews I've seen the touchscreen is touched, and there is a noticeable lag before it focuses on this point, whereas with m4/3 now it is nearly instant.
I think it's acceptable as Canon's first entry, but with this feature set it needed to be much cheaper. And I do mean "much cheaper" i.e. as cheap or not cheaper than any other similar camera. As it stands we have to wait to see what else Canon produces to know how serious they are about mirrorless.
It looks a very good lens for anyone who tends to specialise more in tripod macro photography.
However, I admit it looks a bit large and expensive for my tastes. Currently I use the older non-OS Sigma 150mm, often with a 1.4x converter for a 210mm f4 1.4:1 lens. I've always been pleased with this lens. Nevertheless OS would be useful at times. I wanted to see the prices and sizes of the newer 150mm and 180mm.
Whilst the 180mm will probably be a macro lens to lust after, I'm not so sure I'd enjoy carrying it around. There's also probably a lot of useful equipment you could get for the price difference. So I think if I did move up to an OS version I'd get the 150mm as it's easy to turn it into a very serviceable 210mm with a 1.4x converter.
I don't normally criticise the Dpreview samples because as I see it they are representative of what an average photographer might achieve. However, you nevertheless still expect them to be in focus, or sharp. Take P6270021 as an example. Despite there being a number of people in frame none of them lie on the plane of focus. You can trace the plane of focus by looking at the pillars that are sharp.
What is the purpose of such a shot? For people to try and evaluate the lens on the basis of the odd cigarette butt in focus, or a sliver of pillar in focus in the background.
I think at the very least Dpreview need to commission a competent photographer to take sample images. Surely samples like this do not do the reputation of Dpreview any favours.