nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.
After all the fuss about "The Dark Knight" being shot on film, the final result was a tremendously over-processed, trendily-graded digital look. All of the "benefits" of shooting on film are for all practical purposes non-existant to the viewer. So I say, as with still photography, evolve or die. (I shot and processed film for over 30 years. Enough is enough!)
I use Lightroom 75% of the time for my workflow. If they go to subscription-only with it, screw them. And Lightroom for ios only? As I said, screw them. (Because they ARE screwing us, no matter how one attempts to rationalize it.)
I've had a Lumix TS2 for a few years now that's been diving, skiing, and through a whole host of activities. Wouldn't trade it for any of these- even my friend's TS5, which seems to have an inferior lens. Mine's sharp as hell.
I have the LF1 and absolutely love it. I'm a pro, and I know a sharp lens when I see one, and this camera HAS one. I don't understand all the complaining about the EVF, because it's highly usable and more than adequate. Panasonic keeps NR to a minimum, unlike Sony, and the flash performance produces amazingly consistent results- unlike Canon, (I must say!) The video performance is nearly as good as Sony's. So, in other words, buy one, carry it, and use it. You won't be sorry.
It looks like an abomination. Handles like a Nikon. (Clumsily.) Feels cheap. And is overpriced.Canon- take note- produce a digital FTb or F-1 that takes EOS lenses and eschews the "melted-down" look, and I'm there.
I'll stick with my Panasonic TS2. Low noise reduction. Sharp lens. Good video. Built like a tank. Pocket-sized. After many ski trips and kyaking adventures, it's still going strong. Strange jpg noise structure, but that's Panasonic. Seems like the newer versions of it have inferior optics and greater noise supression going on, based on the reviews. I'll use mine until it croaks. This Nikon? Not for that money.
Love the fact that manufacturers are wising-up and putting EVFs in, but these cameras end up so big, I might as well carry my Rebel- and my trusty Sony WX10 for awesome video, for plinking. Now IF it had a mic/ headphone jack...
What a disappointment. It looks like some bloated Zenit-like knockoff. Silly indeed. And the price? This has flop stamped on its forehead. Look to Olympus and even Pentax for classy, neo-retro, functional DSLRs. Nikon's in trouble, imo.
If it were up to me, it would have NO LCD screen. You want retro? That's retro. Wait until you download 'em until you can see 'em. There's your "filmic" experience! Damn camera would be cheaper too...
So tired of the "bad SX-70" look. Suppose it's new to generation Z, but I experienced it for real in the analog days- and hated it then! Also- now we have to put up with the same, cliched, desaturated/crossover look in many motion pictures too... ad nauseum. Sigh...
No EVF. No sale.
Adobe flexes their monopoly muscle and it smacks of extortion. Extortion aimed at loyal and professional users. Disgusting. Lightroom I will reluctantly continue to use, but they can take their "CC" and shove it. Just another Big Brother ploy spun as being for "your benefit." BS!!
Surviving in the industry has been tough enough without this display of utter corporate greed and arrogance from a company we'vd all come to rely on- for better or worse. And the spin they're trying to put on it (that it's BETTER for US this way??) is not only disgusting, but insults the intelligence of photographers everywhere. WE can make a difference here. Keep making your opinions known everyone!
The back on the stupid thing is ALL touch screen- impossible to hold. AND overpriced. They can keep it.
What are the guys at Canon smoking?? As great as my Galaxy S3 camera is, what's the point of this thing? This will be looked back upon as one of Canon's biggest missteps ever in a couple of years.
The TS1 and 2 are GREAT! If you're looking for an all-weather machine- BUY ONE when available. Don't even bother with Olympus. These machines have vastly sharper optics and many other excellent features.
I have a Q and I can't say enough good things about it. The "small sensor" argument cracks me up- I've shots events with mine with an external flash and it comes through with flying colors, even at high ISOs. (I've been a working pro for 35 years and it's a relief to not haul the Canon gear once in a while!) Not a big fan of the new design, but as long as it comes in black, I'm happy...
My votes are out on the new design, but all I know is that I shot a whole event with my Q and external flash- just to see if it could be done. Not only did I have fellow photographers raving over the design of the camera, but also over the results I posted. I WISH my Canon pro gear featured the amount of customization the Q has! Therefore, all the naysayers can go stick it, IMHO.
Nice, but if it's not AVCHD, forget it. What's with Fuji and Canon with sticking with the memory-hogging MOV format?? ARRGGGH!!!
In the late 90's, Olympus made the C211z. It was a brilliant design which wrote a digital image to Polaroid type 500 Captiva/Vision film with a micro-LED array. It produced excellent images. The camera had only a 2mp sensor, but it was one of the best 2mp sensors anywhere ath the time- I even printed 8x10s from it. (Including the official photo of the mayor of the city I worked for at the time!) It had a 3:1 zoom and a foolproof flash exposure system. It's too bad Polaroid wasn't in financial shape to produce a 3x4 version of it, because it would have been wildly sucessful. These cameras seem to have horrible fixed-focus lense, though the zinc system IS quite impressive. (Developed by former Polaroid technicians, I believe.) The lens and the price are deal-breakers for me. Too bad, because I taught myself photography on my grandfather's roll-film Polaroid 800. AND I have a Polaroid collection- a soft spot, I have... so I might buy one anyhow! ;)