bobbarber: @Richard Butler,
Could someone test if a softening filter eliminates moire? It could be a general test with something like the D7100 or K-5 IIS, not aimed at the Nikon A or Ricoh GR (do they even have filter threads?).
I'm convinced there is little moire in most real life situations, but would like to know if carrying a filter in my pocket would help the rest of the time. I don't have an aa-less camera or I'd check myself.
Jeepers bob, it was only 4 hours ago, give the world a chance to help you. :-)
Does everyone else read the review with Richard's accent?
"a lot of people think I’m up to something nefarious" - because you are.
meanwhile: I think his lights ruin what could otherwise be more interesting photos. 1D Mark IV has some pretty good low light capabilities, just bump the ISO and go natural.
Maybe even put a different image next to the camera and document people's different emotional responses.
I think his lights ruin what could otherwise be more interesting photos. 1D Mark IV has some pretty good low light capabilities, just bump the ISO and go natural.
wetracy: Nothing like a pedestrian "street photography" piece to provide a good spike to the traffic line.
"pedestrian "street photography" ", nice pun.
backayonder: He should go far
meanwhile: As a photograph of a tricycle, yes, perhaps the car on the right could go.
As an artwork though? No, it serves a distinct purpose. It redirects the eye back into the frame after you have followed the curve of the trike handle, and stops your gaze and attention "falling out" of the scene. It solidifies the layer between foreground and background and gives the road depth and scale. It adds population to the scene, creates a neighbourhood, rather than just a singular family. The colour of the car helps to balance the colour of the bike. The shadows under the car help to balance the shrubs and dark in the windows on the left, and anchor the frame.
The photograph is not just about the tricycle. I don't think it's at the level of twaddle of that Smithsonian article ("bestows on that tricycle the majesty—and ineffability—of an archangel’s throne" ... err, OK), but it's far from meaningless.
system, we get that you miss the point. Do you have to keep repeating yourself?
Well spotted agentul! You get the Pedant of the Year award. Toys, cars, houses, roads, etc are all signs that people likely live there. Yes, you are right that it is possible that this is actually a recreation of an actual street in an atomic test site. The inclusion of cars, houses and toys in said recreation suggests that the fake town would also likely have fake people. They just aren't in frame, ergo, suggested.
As a photograph of a tricycle, yes, perhaps the car on the right could go.
SRT201: Brilliant! Positively Brilliant! It must have taken a minute of more to compose and shoot!
It looks like he was kidding around and went for a giant tricycle effect.
I'm sure there are those who spend hours analyzing how the photo presents a deep and insightful commentary on Western society. :-)
You got all that from the first paragraph that basically just names the image and sets the scene? You must have a sensitive soul.
Can you show us one of yours that has more resonance? None of the 16 in your gallery evoke anything for me, despite you having a D800 and a bunch of expensive lenses. It's not art if it doesn't make anyone feel anything.
Revenant: Like Chuck Lantz wrote below, "limited edition" means that that particular edition consists of a determined number of copies. It doesn't say anything about the number of copies in other editions of the same work. As long as the medium or presentation is different, it's a new edition.For example, many novels are published both in limited, numbered or lettered, editions, and unlimited mass-market editions. And it's quite common for artists to make limited print runs on large format fine art paper, and then sell cheaper prints of the same image as an unlimited edition.
Francis Carver: Wow, one thousand dollars for THIS 8-bit color fidelity little display? Wacom seems to be in denial, not wanting to recognize products from Apple and the host of tablets and touchscreen maker offerings. Predatory pricing in this product segment is over once and for all, I believe.
DPR Quote of the year - "Not Francis, perhaps, but sensible people".
thx1138: Fuji X100s is a lot more appealing and please $450 for the OVF option. If I buy one of their $18000 800 f/5.6 VR's will they throw this in for free?
Yeah, if you had $1100 for a camera like this I can't think of any reason for this over the X100s. Can anyone? (serious question)
gl2k: Today it's not about the sensor, it's all about the body that makes the difference. Dunno about DR but regarding noise the 5200 plays in the same league as the D800.
It doesn't f****** matter. Any decent camera will take great photos with a solid photographer behind it.
fyngyrz: "Requires OSX 10.7.5"
This is Apple "Abandonware."
The latest version of Lightroom (4.3) and Lightroom's latest update (7.3) works in earlier versions of OSX, and adds RAW support to Lightroom for cameras not supported in Aperture by virtue of Apple's arbitrarily locking these updates the later release of OSX. One of these is Canon's EOS 6D.
Just beware when you buy software from Apple. Taking advantage of a simple application upgrade may require you to change your entire OS.
...and this from a fellow who really likes Aperture, and has bought V1, V2 and V3. :(
So upgrade a test workstation and see what happens. 10.8.x is among the best Mac OS releases I've seen myself, and I've been around since 7.x. It's solid, it's fast, seems pretty robust and secure to date. Obviously it depends on what you run, but there's very little reason not to go to the latest release. Fear of the past is not really one of them, just test and mitigate going forward, no?
sadwitch: I for one think that RAW is not necessary. A great jpeg engine is more important in these type of cameras. For those who needs RAW, they will not be considering these category of camera's anyway and for those who are, they will not be bothered or tinkering with RAW files.
I'm confused, I think you meant "tkbslc:". I agree that RAW is the way to go.
RAW is pretty much necessary with the XZ-1, due to the noise reduction issue. I've also found RAW handy on the S90, and don't find it any more work at all. Which RAW software are you using?
AngryCorgi: A rebadged XZ-2 without the hotshoe or accessory port? What is Pentax thinking?? "Nobody wants to use flashes on this thing and nobody wants EVFs eitehr...people love the size though so let's keep it chunky and add some extra weight by using brass peices that we'll paint...just what everyone wants: all the weight and bulk but no more nonsense extras!!!"
Either way, it's a damn fine lens and the highlight of both cameras, so it's really a non-issue isn't it?