prossi: Impressed by this camera. The D7200 does very significantly better than the NX1: lower noise, much better color rendition (on the NX1 paintbrush widget turns into ugly candy apple red at high iso low light).Lower dynamic range (DXO) seems to really hurt nx1 vs. d7200.
Give us all a break. In the comparison tool there is very little difference and the NX1 is better in some spots, worse in others, I had a look in jpeg and raw. No way is the 7200 'very significantly better'.
I read this article keeping in mind manufacturing issues such as:
- When a competitor shows off a camera it was already designed years ago- They know what must be improved and how in e.g. sensors, but they simply haven't got the ability to improve that quickly, or it costs too much at the moment, and really it's often not that important but even if it is, it's not something they 'learn' from other manufacturers.
then what he says makes a lot more sense but this guy is not particularly smart in saying what he says, in a way that makes it look like he is a psychopath (people who think they are amazingly smart, but in reality are not, who are not good at their job, don't understand people though some can pretend to etc. Not so different from being autistic in many senses). Perhaps he is one...
In any event, I would rather not see such vacuous interviews where people are not willing to tell anything, or barely anything, interesting.
To me a lot of photos from pro photographers look so good that they are almost fake. I don't mean to say they are making such unbelievably good pictures, but that they use some post processing that make colours more vibrant than experienced in reality, and/or unrealistic HDR, for example. Same with his pictures, and those with people were obviously staged (well, at least 1 but I think more). To me it didn't look to portray Charleroi in a negative image, but simply to show (a) unrealistic images, and (b) perverts. Perverts you can find in any city I'm sure, and unrealistic images, see what I wrote earlier. To me the pictures seemed thus pointless, stupid, but hey, I'm no judge in a competition, and they surely know it better than me! (Hint: No they don't)
Mike FL: "La semplicità è la sofisticazione finale" Da Vinci.
Whoever said it first doesn't matter. It's nothing special, it is in fact something quite logical esp. in engineering where you want a design as small, simple as possible but not simpler., or even travelling where you want to take the least amount of gear with you, the selection is also a minimalisation optimisation. Less is more, Goethe's "sorry for this long letter, I didn't have enough time it write it shorter" etc. are all examples, nothing special about any of them except that to optimise is hard... The criticism you gave that his pictures are not worth looking at because he uses what you think is a quote by Da Vinci (could be much older, reinvented independently etc.) is pathetic. Your comments about another poster needing a college education are equally pathetic. I'd suggest before criticising others you check your use of English (or even American) in those comments.
Something like the Seagate wireless plus looks more useful (not Canon specific) at least if you don't need to show photos on your TV nor NFC, and a lot cheaper.
People who can afford this, won't need this contest. People who can't afford it, will need to pay for insurance it seems from a comment below, but also, they will get to experience what they can not quickly experience again, and become surely disappointed with their own gear. What is the point of this competition?
But then, the same is done with cars, where people get to ride it for a while, or get a drive in a super-expensive car. Some people find that worth their while, I think with cameras that's less likely, but possible.
I will pass!
Why was the comment of the "bunga bunga edition" removed? It was (despite some inane reply this is 'racist') very funny and with the explanation given that made clear how clever the joke was, even funnier...
tiberiousgracchus: All the hard work the photographer put into getting there for the monkey to have his hands on the camera in the first place means nothing then? Its the photographers property. The large organisations are using a loophole to 'own' what could be an all time classic image.
Copyright is about creativity, not about 'hard work' nor about the amount of money that someone spends on making something. If the result is not 'created' such that it is considered a creative work which is protectable with copyright law, then all the effort done and money spent won't change that.
straylightrun: Breaking news just in: It has now been confirmed that If your photo is captured using the camera's self timer, it is legally not your photo any more but is the property of your camera.
> It has now been confirmed that If your photo is captured using the camera's self timer, it is legally not your photo any more but is the property of your camera.
The creative part needed to make a photo to have copyright rights for the photographer was done before pressing the button: Selecting how to aim the camera with what background, and imagining where one would want to be in that. So the self-timer changes nothing.
AbrasiveReducer: Get a Gitzo, a good ball head and an Arca or RRS release. Costs a lot, but they last a lifetime and unlike cameras, don't become obsolete after a couple years.
Yes, the front fan. You know there are multiple fans in a turbine engine and any where the fuel is ignited are made of titanium.
Ti edges of a carbon fibre fan could be for impact resistance with small 'stuff'.
All I wrote is correct.
Titanium is used for heat resistance in turbines. You can't use epoxy there...
Otherwise carbon fibre is far superior. Titanium is not a wonder material, it's not very resistant to scratching, nor all that strong (in weight and strength it lies between steel and aluminium and it's not really better than either, well depending on type of application, tube diameter etc. one or the other is preferable). Ti can handle bending well and deals well with vibrations. Which is why ti-bikes are very comfortable.
If you want really strong and light, ask for beryllium! (but it's toxic :)) Or the aluminium-beryllium alloy that a bike maker once considered. I guess cancelled because of the toxicity of beryllium.
There's a missing option in the part 'Gear in this story' which shows how many people own it / want it / had it.
But what about the number of people who "Do not want it"?
Manfred Bachmann: again a new akku? slowly i think nikon needs a break!
Akku is not German slang, it is normal German and it means 'rechargeable battery". Just like in Dutch in German there are different words for non rechargeable battery (batterie) and rechargeable battery (akku).
> as a legal alternative to image theft.
It's copyright infringement, not theft.
This 'news' should be in a new news category, "news for dentists", just like that new hasselblad.
2. Calling this camera compact is ludicrous. The G1X is a brick, this is a bigger brick.
Good news for dentists
To me the images that 'win' show not actually what is asked, namely how people (after all that's what life for humans is about) really connect. E.g. someone charging a phone, which is not interesting. If it had been say a solar charger, then it would have been interesting...
The image I submitted was, though perhaps not artistically great (then again I see nothing special in the winning images), interesting as it showed a connection from book to PC to tablet (better than a mobile phone for me, esp. where there is good WiFi coverage) with the picture of someone I know in all of them. This signifies much more, a connection to people, and of how communication changed (from letters/books to electronic)
I don't believe no entries from the USA or western Europe were at least as good as the winning images, and that these all come from non-western countries is thus caused by bias of the judges, perhaps even who they want to win because they can use the prize money better.
PART 2: Nothing is built from the air, everything is built from the shoulders of others. Now we have companies who have bought old pictures and sell the right to them which is essentially a tax. Good for them (the people working in them), good for the people selling them to those companies (such as children, who have done no work to earn that money). But these companies serve no real purpose. They produce nothing of value. Their tax goes to pay people doing administrative work that serves no further purpose, or even worse, pays people who have done zilch.
Copyright law hogs memories, so we can't just download a song from our youth, we need to buy it (again!). Ditto for TV and everything else that we like(d) and already paid for by watching advertising or paying a licence fee. The only interesting change for copyright laws is when the duration is reduced to say 10 years.
PART 1: The biggest problem with all copyright laws is the duration for which these rights are granted. This means administrative nonsense and not always being able to rerelease stuff due to not being able to find all copyright owners. It also means a hogging of our memories. Whatever we really like, the thing in question has something related to the times (fashion type qualities) or it has innate qualities of how we think and perceive things that we like. So it's not a creative work, it's a creative work that is appreciated by people because of how they are. It's partly like a discovery, not a invention.
Boerseuntjie: This is proof that we live in a era of smart phones and stupid people
> likewise I have never seen anything remotely intelligent come out of your mouth swhs
Mods, please ban this moron.
And FYI Boerseuntjie, your view about my writings is of no value whatsoever.