Jeff Seltzer: Hey, DPR: what happened to the more recent "Readers' Showcase?" Did you take it down for some reason??
Wow! Thanks for posting. Incredible. I strongly believe DRP should issue some kind of statement. Just deleting the post as if it didn't happen is not good enough.
Hey, DPR: what happened to the more recent "Readers' Showcase?" Did you take it down for some reason??
Prairie Pal: I fail to see ANY imagination and I couldn't skim past the images fast enough. Yeah we've all heard of photoshop, isn't it marvelous what it can do, Gosh-Darn! Slow news day? I mean REALLY? Really dpreview, you were impressed by this? It's all cutting room floor material.
@splendic - a very weak minded analogy. This is a photography website presumably filled with photographers. We are, in essence, colleagues. If a crappy filmmaker who made crappy films and then childishly criticized an accomplish filmmaker, I'd have a problem with that, too. Look, I get that it's all subjective. But, if you are a fellow photographer who takes flower macros or generic engagement photos, at least have a little respect for someone actually showing some success in his career. If there is a valid criticism for this work it's that it's not that original, and maybe a little "5 years ago." But, it's well executed and his other work is very strong (if anyone bothered to visit his website).
Well good or not is subjective. But, it you are going to critique a photographer with the kind of resume of Achraf Baznani (galleries, books), you should do so from a place of credibility and be a little bit more articulate in your critique. It's a predictable as the sun rising that you read the, "this is stupid and anyone can do it" type comments here this discussion board. Well, the truth is you did NOT do it, and your macro pictures of flowers, etc. will never be featured anywhere. Have a little respect.
...said the person whose work was not featured.
Skipper494: It does not impress me when a company keeps bringing out new firmware versions, means they didn't get it right the three times before. The lenses are excellent, the performance clean, but it's still a 16MP camera.
It's not about right vs. wrong. It's about incremental improvement. Seems strange to complain about a company offering free incremental improvement for their product.
citizenlouie: Well, I want to point out something about copyright comment on the Photo 9. Yes, you do need model release, and it's not misconstrued. That's one of the lessons you learn when you take your photography class (and property release, for that matter). The tabloid is in constant legal fight (and they don't mind paying that if they believe they can earn more money selling the paper or blackmail the celebrity in question. It's not the norm of a proper photography practice!). Let's not forget those people paparazzi shot are "public" figures. Their legal right to their image is much more limited to that of regular individuals like us or the cosplay models. Because court judge would definitely ask how much privacy does the person in the photo expects, and that will affect the outcome of the law suit. Lesson... model release is a yes because it's respectful, if not legal.
Yawn. I don't think you need a release at all. It's art. It's not being used for commercial or to sell anything. She's out in public.
Marcel: To me this shot is really nothing, take a double synchronised jump shot. Made one may years ago with a 40D/50D. Take also a look at some cliff diving shots at Pinterest or look at underwater diving sychronised jumps.
...Said the person who did NOT take the shot. Some of the best rock/pop songs of all time are nothing more than 2 or 3 chords. Many famous quotes are but one or two easy sentences. Someone once said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Jeff Seltzer: I understand the idea of a very expensive, niche product/brand that's supposed to appeal to a small audience that truly can appreciate the expertise and craftsmanship and is willing to pay for the opportunity. I guess you can say that's the goal for any luxury brand. But, you expect those products/brands to truly set the bar and lead the way in terms of innovation. Is that we have in this case?
Rallyfan, I guess I had in mind a brand like Ferrari - a brand that's exponentially more expensive than average (like Leica), hand built, exclusive, etc. But, Ferrari is truly innovative.
I understand the idea of a very expensive, niche product/brand that's supposed to appeal to a small audience that truly can appreciate the expertise and craftsmanship and is willing to pay for the opportunity. I guess you can say that's the goal for any luxury brand. But, you expect those products/brands to truly set the bar and lead the way in terms of innovation. Is that we have in this case?
JimW-203: Potentially insurmountable problems:1) using multiple bags with a single brand of camera - do you need to replicate the lens caps in each bag?2) using bodies of multiple camera brands/types (e.g. DSLR or mirrorless) in multiple bags - how does one outfit a bag that might be used with either a DSLR body and lenses or a M4/3 body and lenses or both?Do you need to have several bags set up with caps to accommodate any possible configuration one might need?
1) Buy more than one set. Multiple bags = multiple sets of product.2) Buy multiple versions of product.
It took me 1 minute to figure this out.
theprehistorian: Am I alone in finding the image quality on offer from this camera wholly inadequate, considering its price? I really don't understand it. I had the X100s for a while, and while I agree it looks funky and feels nice to use, it suffers from hideous lens flare and the files look weird and mushy, even without pixel peeping. It's just a fashion accessory, I'm afraid.
The image quality is fantastic. I've had numerous images published using a combination of X-Pro, X100, and Xt1. I've never had a client complaint about image quality. Overpriced? That's an opinion. Fuji prices are designed to find the optimum intersection of demand and profit. If you are not getting good image quality, it's user error.
Godfrey: What a great review. Give a subtle, sophiscated camera to two people totally unfamiliar with it for a day—or a week—and then print two negative reviews.
The X is not a perfect camera, but it is a fine camera nonetheless. I wouldn't try to shoot with it like I shoot with a Leica M9, or an Olympus E-M1, or a Nikon D4s: I would be disappointed. In my hands, it is a far far nicer camera to use than any Fuji I've tried (basically all of them). And no one has questioned for one moment the quality of the 11x17 and larger prints I've shown made with it.
It takes time to learn and use a camera. You don't just transfer skills from a completely different camera in an instant. I'd say it took me a couple of weeks and a couple thousand careful shots to grok the X. And I couldn't be happier for doing so. It was worth every penny of what I paid for it, much more so than several other popular cameras I've tried.
Well, I don't miss my 5DII at all. I'm very happy with Xt1, and found the majority of reviews consistent and accurate in terms of the camera's pros and cons. Enjoy!
Seemed like a very fair review by a well qualified reviewer. I don't see how more experience with the camera would really make a difference regarding most of his negative comments. Besides, most reviewers don't get to live with a camera for extended periods of time. A day or a week is reasonable. I'm curious, how long did you keep "basically all" of the Fuji cameras before you determined they weren't good enough for you?
D200_4me: I really like some of these. Very nice. But me personally, I've never been too keen on the competitions. I just never got a good feeling or impression of photography competitions and (usually, but not always) the type of people that gravitate towards this type of recognition. I do enjoy sharing photos I'm happy with online because it's nice to get some feedback and some "I like that" comments now and then. Who wouldn't enjoy that? :-) A simple acknowledgement that your practice and effort paid off, in the form of a nice photo. I also tend to avoid social media sharing of photos and Google Plus has gotten really bad about 'attention wh@res'. Everyone's a new Nat Geo photographer on there and nearly everyone's in a competition for 'likes' and reshares. I'm content these days to avoid all that and pay my $150 per year to smugmug to show my photos and with no comments enabled. The stats on my galleries (number of views) is enough pat on the back for me to know I'm doing ok.
It's important to choose competitions wisely. Well respected competitions (e.g., Communication Arts, NY Center for Photography, Critical Mass, PDN) are both prestigious to win, and offer exposure to industry gate keepers. Whether you think it should be the case or not, winning certain competitions give your career credibility and are important for building a resume. There's no doubt I've sold more prints because I've done well in certain key photographic competitions. But, increasingly, the "key" competitions are getting more expensive, and harder to find.
Neil Schofield: It' would seem like the bean counters are at it again, one such set took over a local brewery only to complain about the malt bill, my response to the friend who worked there was that they would soon be moaning about the water rate as well
Change bringing about possible short term gain, with unknown future quality and viability concerns being ignored, is not an uncommon tried and tested, but more often than not failed managerial stratergy
Well, I guess you win the Internet. Too smart for me. I'll get back to my bean counting and $12M company. I'll let you know when I change the world.
"My way of thinking." Yes, as a person who runs a business with 40+ employees, my way of thinking includes keeping the business running. For every example you cite of a visionary or company that innovated without regard to "bean counting" I will cite you 10 businesses that had good ideas but failed because they failed to make sound business decisions and thought that "bean counting" didn't matter. SI is an example of a company that made the right decision from a business standpoint. SI is not a non-profit, gov't run organization. They also don't have the resources of Google (your lame example). So, why don't you once again explain how "my way of thinking" is wrong.
Ah, yes. Those pesky "bean counters." Wouldn't it be nice if businesses could operate without worrying about silly things like profit, efficiency, etc.? Without bean counters, you could pay everyone a super high salary and not worry about expenses at all. Stupid bean counters.
samhain: I just can't take any full frame system that doesn't have a 50/1.4 seriously. That should've been the FIRST lens they released. 85/2 or 90/2 should've been 2nd.
7 new lenses later and still no dedicated portrait lens, with the only 'fast' lens being a wide angle?
The only lens in that entire lineup that's even halfway appealing is the 35/1.4, and that's a focal length that I've never felt the need to have a lens faster than f2.
I just don't get Sony cameras. Every new product, I'm left feeling the same way: Close, but no cigar. One of these days they'll nail it.
Um, I'm pretty sure the significant difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is NOT skill. Good grief.
Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.
I will agree that they are not the best I've seen. But, did you see the entries? Does this contest require a fee? Yes, you do make a valid point - I probably would not stop and look at some of these photos. But, I still don't like that you and other call them "horrible." It just seems like every time there's actual photography featured on this site, there's a ton of comments about how "poor" or "horrible" the images are, etc.