It's not "analog" photography. It's film photography. That said, this project is beyond stupid.
photosen: Cool story.
Jim Evidon: Finally, a camera that is auto-everything; relieving the photographer even of the burden of actually having to take pictures. Ain't progress wonderful?
All it needs to do now is auto-delete and we are golden.
Iz teh sok.
Paul Janders: Only in the art world can you bastardize someone else's work and be rewarded for it.
Only in art, business, politics, science, cooking, fashion, writing, music...
Falconest174: Bought this to replace the kit lens I had been using on my D7100( So I could sell that lens with the D7000). Does the job quite well. Even used it to shoot a wedding.
Definitely a nice upgrade from the 18-55 Nikon kit lens.
I had its predecessor, and got great shots with it. I sold it because I was simplifying my lens collection...had Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, and standardized on Sigma because their mid-to-high-end lenses are really good, and a good value. They do seem to have intermittent problems with autofocus in Live View on a Nikon camera, but that's no hindrance for me. Nikon body + Sigma lens works for me.
I was interested (a little) in this when it first came out. And then, I had a big fat case of "meh."
Paul Storm: a lot of evan's works are fairly flat, most subjects are in a single plane. there seems to be an obsession with structure & form. interesting but limiting. i just can't see why, nor buy into the idea of him being some sort of understated / objective genius.
Everyone will remember your photos in 75 years. I'm sure they will.
BruceBorowski: Ooooooooooh special ............. ooh........... specialy modified ooh......... nothing special about modifications..... people do them every day
Here's a hug.
So how do _you_ spell douchenozzle?
Alphoid: Great idea, but when you dig a bit deeper, it's useless. I had tons of kits like these as a little kid. I learned next to nothing from them. Look at the software. It's closed. Look at the spec sheet. Even the spec sheet doesn't mention lens specs (aperture? focal length? etc.), sensor specs, etc.
To actually build a kit that's helpful, you need more depth of technical information. Kids should be able to build something, and at the very least, come out understanding what they've built, but ideally, be able to tweak it and modify it.
I'd kill for a kit that did that. Open firmware. Open software. Full specs. Clearly written kid-readable explanations not just of how to put things together, but of why. Step 1 should be assembling a kit. There needs to be room for steps 2-5, where most of the learning happens (there are very good kits which do this).
I dunno. Based on your reply, you may have learned more than you acknowledge.
Nice pr0n music for the vid. Whoever scored it must've been laughing a lot, esp during the "power generation" sequence.
lazy lightning: Laura from the GearShop is hot! I'd much rather do business with her than those cranky old jewish guys in NYC.
Oy gevalt. And feh to you, sir.
TN Args: Pity about the churlish comments posted most recently, especially the guy who thinks he is personally above surrealism and Dali. hah! Congratulations to the 17 year old lad and I like his way of seeing.
Yeh and that one where like the clocks were all mealting and crap was like we were all totally just like "duuuuuuuuuuddddde..."
No way dude...Dali and Magritte are the most aweseom artsits ever. Espcially when you are totally baked. One time me and my buddy Rob smoked up a bunch and check out that painting of the train coming through the fireplace and we were all like "woah, dude, that sh*t is deeeeep!"
IEBA1: Is it possible that the lens can be profiled and a correction file be made so that when converting from RAW, a lot of the corrections (CA, barrel distortion, etc) can be corrected in post?
Not really. This is like a pinhole camera. Trying to 'correct' it in software misses the point. Better off buying a used kit lens for $50 if you want passable image quality at a low price point.
AllBrands: Any chance these cameras were actually tested to see how waterproof they really are? There are loads of consumer complaints about Panasonic waterproof cameras that got water inside and failed at, allegedly, the first hint of any water. Panasonic then denies warranty coverage claiming abuse or user error in each case. Sure there are a lot of dummies out there but many of the complaints I've read sound very credible. Doubly so in light of the many horror stories I've read time and again about Panasonic warranty support in general here in the USA. Just saying - I don't care how good the image quality is if the camera fails the first time it's used as designed. It would be good to test that too, no?
Marianas Trench is the only test that matters.
At least it looks better than the Hasselblad Lunar.