They had time to incorporate a touch screen, and they should have. Even if it's only function is touch to focus, that would be fine.
CreeDo: Glad to see a lot of people still care about the distinction between composites and actual photographs, and aren't afraid to call this cheating. It's fine to make these images, but both the photographer and people running the contest need to make it clear to viewers, without expecting them to go through the fine print or stretch their definition of the word "photograph".
It's weird to me that anyone argues against this sort of disclosure, or argue that the process is irrelevant. Getting the shot without photoshop help requires planning and waiting, or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Doing it in PS is trivial and not particularly creative.
"Doing it in PS is trivial and not particularly creative"
Well ... there is a blurred line there (not in this example).
Did you see the moonlit landscape shots by Erez Marom in a recent DPR article? They were composites done in Photoshop, skies from one photo, foreground from another, background from another.
I'm not sure that makes the final shot any less worthy.
ttran88: RIP A-Mount and APSC E-mount!!
"APS-C E-mount never where profitable"
Because they kept developing and releasing body after body, new accessories, etc, etc. All that foundation is laid now, and they'll release new bodies and lenses more slowly, but they will be profitable because most of the R&D and tooling spend is done.
"Seems unfair to most of APSC user if they stop producing it."
They aren't going to, they have a huge NEX user base, and there will be cameras and new lenses released this year. They just took a break. 18 months ago people were complaining about how many bodies they were releasing.
"APSC is killed off by Sony."
APS-C E-mount hasn't gone anywhere.
Interestingly though, profit went up, so it's not all doom and gloom.
meanwhile: You could get a lot of 50 Jupiters on eBay for $649. This is MENTAL.
The pricing is mental. Yes, it was an exaggeration. Their price is more than an exaggeration, so to my mind that is justified. If it was multi-coated and $300, that would have been still overpriced, but reasonably so.
My guess is that is what the market will show in 12 months time, just like it did with the crazily-priced Handevision IBELUX lenses, and the even more crazily-priced "Hasselblad" A/E-mount cameras.
The main reason the 3's are expensive is because they are rare. Yes, it's a nice Sonnar, but the new one's will *not* be rare, and should be priced accordingly.
You can also pick up a great condition Canon 50/1.5 LTM for US$200, which is as good, if not better than, the J3.
Why are you defending this price? Do you work or advocate for Lomography?
Rubbish. You've already said yourself that a you can get a good J3 for $150. And there are many other options *of the same quality* that are far, far cheaper than this lens.
Yes, the Jupiter 3 is more rare than the Jupiter 8. Big deal! There are plenty of equivalent 50mm lenses the equal of this lens for far, far, far less money. Anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda.
lot of 12 pcs JUPITER-8M 2/53 USSR Lens for Kiev Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar copy ... $140 ...
You could get a lot of 50 Jupiters on eBay for $649. This is MENTAL.
Hopefully this will push Fuji to put out a ruggedised X100.
"but now there's a 'tab' at the lower-right which can display a projected LCD display showing a magnified view of the focus point, peaking, or a digital split prism"
That's ****ing brilliant.
Why do dSLR users need to grumble about mirrorless?Why do mirrorless users need to grumble about dSLRs?
It's just weird guys.
Yxa: 3780 shots per charge try to do that with a mirrorless
3780 shots is awesome. 1.5kg is less awesome.
The D5 looks to be a great camera.
(I can actually get close to 4000 using my A7ii and a Minigorilla, at half the weight, but it's not nearly as elegant)
papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.
Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.
Given that you said "Same goes for proper exposure", I'll be the pot and you be the kettle if you like. :-)