Test scene indicates "exposure corrected" on all of the shots.. was the same exposure correction done with each lens? Brings up the issue of whether the T-stops are the same for each lens. I seem to see higher contrast in the Otus shots (eg. vs. EF 85mm).. the converter's method of doing exposure correction can play into this. Also, were any available lens profiles used in raw converter conversions?
Leo "Zoom": If they seek for truth - then it is impossible. Even straight from the camera picture can lie - it can be staged, can be framed to hide unwanted things, etc. IMO contests should seek evaluate the photos, not the event behind them. That's why manipulation shouldn't be disqualified.
The point is that the intent of the rules only prevents some kinds of manipulation and not others.. making the grandstanding rule-breaking expose angle kinda stupid.
Take the photo at the top of this story -- 2 hypothetical scenarios:1) There was a small unpainted section of the wall that was partly blue. Photographer clones in some red to fill the distraction.2) The photographer pulled the santa hat and mask out of his pocket and asked the subject to wear them. Not sure #2 is against the rules or not, but certainly no way a judging committee could detect. #1 leads to disqualification.
BTW, LOL I thought the red photo leading this story was representing one the disqualified entries..
So, should the measure of whether allowable manipulation be that if we could have physically manipulated the people, objects and lighting etc.. in same way you can do digitally, then either method of scene manipulation is Ok? ie. only when you digitally change a photo to something that would have been impossible to recreate physically, would a photo be disallowed?
BTW.. anyone seen the movie Nightcrawler? Creepy but entertaining, and somewhat on topic.. :-)
TN Args: So, where can I read the 'standard set of rules' for a photo to qualify as photojournalism? Something that is more or less agreed.
and of course cropping.. which by itself can completely change the context and a meaning of a photograph through the potential selective removal of entire persons or objects etc. In fact, the first round of cropping is done in camera by the photographer who selects what they're shooting. And, this is in itself the first manipulation of reality, since as human beings we each sit in a 3d world that goes out in all directions, not just the narrow band covered by the lens' FOV.
I think you are missing Leo's point. He is saying that you can manipulate the real world (people, environment etc) to yield a "news" photograph that is just as non-representational of reality as a digitally edited photo can be.
Wondering if like the 11-16, how much of the 11-20mm's range will work on a FF sensor? The 11-16 worked on a 5d at 15-16mm, so in many ways the 11-16mm offered a lot of value by giving you a 15mm lens as well as an APS zoom.
select: I stille remember when Canon was saying they don't need too many pixels... LOL
No, that was Nikon explaining the D2H
PicOne: Can't they just decide what brand and name they want to use..? Getting old with the Ricoh announces the latest Pentax yadda yadda. "Ricoh's Pentax Q-Mount Roadmap".. is this all really necessary?
Kinda like saying "Procter and Gamble"s Crest Toothpaste Cool Mint"..
Nice to put out a roadmap though. nice idea I wish more companies did.
I guess only in the camera business.. I mean I can enjoy a pint of Guiness Extra Stout, but a pint of Diageo Guiness Extra Stout -- I think the bartender would look at me sideways ordering in such a manner.
So if Sony buys Richoh, we'd have perhaps Sony Ricoh's Pentax Alpha 645D
All your examples are ok.. one company name, one model name. 2 company names.. what's the point? Settle on calling them either Ricoh lenses or Pentax lenses, but not Ricoh's Pentax lenses.. just really goofy and unnecessary IMO.
Can't they just decide what brand and name they want to use..? Getting old with the Ricoh announces the latest Pentax yadda yadda. "Ricoh's Pentax Q-Mount Roadmap".. is this all really necessary?
sybersitizen: This new version appears to do its intended work very well, but...
Why does the program, like so many new Windows programs, have to LOOK like a Tinkertoy app running on a Windows phone? There's not a hint of the visual richness and dimensionality that Windows 7 on a REAL COMPUTER so easily provides. All we get is a dreary, gray, flat rectangle. Who declared total lack of esthetics (AKA the Win 8 experience) to be a good thing? Even the Start Menu icon is dull.
Why am I not presented with a drag-and-drop interface until AFTER I load up at least one file from the Windows Explorer interface? What's the point of that?
Why do we have to look at advertisements and panos made by other people every time the program is started?
These things might seem trivial on one level, but they truly diminish the value of what ought to be a visual showcase and something that's fun to use. Despite the functional enhancements, I'm actually considering going back to version 1.4.4.
Sorry, I think we missed where you wrote the sentiments expressed in your #1 and #2 above (except the part about it being an ugly interface.. I can find that bit).
I think a hint as to why will be found in the price of ICE.
AdamT: IMO They still keep missing the mark with the focal lengths - the DP1Q should have been moved to 24mm FOV, the DP2 to 35mm, the DP3 fine where it is and then made the DP0 18mm FOV . they seem to insist on oddball focal lengths
IMO 21mm is better marketing. Easier to sell a fixed focal length, not-terribly-fast, wide angle (some would call it a UWA focal length) prime lens camera, if there is something a bit exotic about it. 24mm? boring.
Personally I thought they should have done a zoom with minmal range to keep quality up without getting too huge (eg. 20-28mm effective range). oh well.
whyamihere: Dear Canon,
Your PR material appears to be missing any mention of a lens worth giving a darn about.
Let us know when that happens.
PS: Ignore the angry Americans. We all know they just wanted the option for refusing to buy the camera.
Maybe the last time you checked was too long ago.. Just a check on Amazon, an XT1 body only is $1200, with lens it's $1600. My EOSM with the kit lens was $320. Most of the other lower end fujis seem to kit with the 16-50.
you picked a kit lens that costs about the same as the entire EosM kit will. Why stop there.. how about the 24-120 lens that kits with Nikon's D810 ?
As to the big EF lens question.. who would ever want to use. Quite easy to imagine -- you go on a trip / vacation /outing. You want a small outfit to cover 95% of the time. I might though also bring an EF lens I like for special purpose -- for me it is usually the EF100 macroIS. Used minimally on such a trip, in a special situation, I don't really care what it looks like mounted on the M. Sure a EFM 100mm f/2.8 IS macro/portrait would be nice I suppose, but I doubt I would invest for special utility lens that's a bit smaller, but that can't also work on my SLR, when I already own one that works.
1. Lots of people picked up an EOS M w/22 f/2 for a mere $300.. hard to beat.2. right, unlike the sony 11 to only 18mm of same speed that weighs 50% more and costs 20% more3. There are significantly better kit zooms in this range? What's funny?4. Why not?
What lenses do you care about? The 8-150mm f/1.4 mythological creature that only weights 8 ounces?
Why does the camera with no low pass filter cost more?
Thorgrem: Any sign for new EOS M lenses? No? Move on people, nothing to see here.
It does take any Canon EF lens using their adapter.. in case you weren't aware
why do nikon and sony users underexpose by 4 stops?