PK24X36NOW: Certainly not "smaller;" it is in fact exactly the same size as the 70-200 f 2.8 OS (3.4 x 7.8"). It has ONE less glass element, so it might be a teensy bit lighter, but not enough so that it makes any difference. This despite having LESS depth of field isolation at maximum aperture (a truly "equivalent" APS-C would have to be a stop faster, which would actually not only make it lose the supposed size and weight "advantage," it would actually make it heavier than the FF equivalent, based on this lens' specs).
Sigma needs to ditch this OS line. Their ergonomics suck, and as noted below, the prices are too high to make them attractive alternatives to Nikon/Canon glass.
You don't have to buy it.
K_Photo_Teach: The Nikon 808 has a tiny lens and doesnt seem limited by the lens. Some tests here: http://www.gsmarena.com/pureview_blind_test-review-773p3.php compare is favourably with even FF DSLRs.
Why doesn't DxO support this camera already? They are sooooo lame!
Best story ever.
Well, that's terrifying.
bigdaddave: Good luck using a Leica in that neighborhood
53rd and 5th Ave in Manhattan is one of the most expensive locations in the world. It's also the location of the historic Saint Thomas Church. If there's anywhere a Leica fits in, it would be there.
Faintandfuzzy: Good lord. A bunch of posts by a bunch of whiners who are just bitter they can't afford this new camera.
Nonsense. I have pre-ordered mine, and chosen its place in my display case already.
jimkahnw: Others in this thread asked how does Sternfeld's images differ from the average snap shooter? Why is a dull, gone-to-seed urban image art? A baby in a laundry basket--why is that art? Cut-off the mother's head could be just sloppy photography; had I made the shot I would have included the mom. The girl in slippers and jump rope in cheesey pose, perhaps this is a social comment; but is it art? Why are these images centered? The self-appointed "experts" declare a body of work "art," and their visually illiterate sycophants concur. The rest of us puzzle and wonder what is the photographer seeing that we should see? In photography, documentary can be mistaken for art. If an image informs, but does not uplift can it be art? Wegee's gritty news pictures 80 years later put on the wall get called art. Zoe Strauss's recent show at the Phily Art Museum was a disturbing document that left me depressed; it wasn't art for me. Compare these images to those by Henri Cartier-Bresson and Elliot Erwitt.
I think you are right. HCB and EE were known Leica shooters, ergo, their work is art by definition. ;)
HiRez: I can't think of a worse, more confusing name for a filter-making company.
How about if they called it "Tung Kee Noodle House?"
Rupert Bottomsworth: I wish they would get a native english speaker to proofread their website.
These are the trivial. I am not giving the ass of the rat perspectiving aforementioned issue.
Take a look at his gallery here:
I won't blather about it, but I like a lot of these images.
michaelrz: I think I've spotted some shadow noise in the third picture.Can you please upload the RAW file?
Best comment ever.
plasnu: Am I the only one who prefers unprocessed image?
This is not a trolling. I honestly thought the processed image is overdone and not beautiful at all, so I'm curious what the other people think.
Xellz, there is enough output in a Nikon SB 700 speedlight to take this shot and illuminate the interior.
CaseyComo: I might try the same thing by using a flash. Less shop, more photo.
I'm not sure it's fair to call "natural light" once you are doing this kind of manipulation.
Jim in AZ: 10 seconds in Irfanview:
Eh, everything has a set of challenges. The example is a case where flash would give a better result with one click.
You have the choice of using a flash to light up the dark areas and underexposing a little to bring out detail in the sky.