 |
zinedi
Joined on
Oct 16, 2012
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Do these PC/Wi-fi/Hi-fi-cameras have Ctrl+Alt+Del functionality :-) ?
Definitely good toy, but not for photographers.
zinedi: My feeling of Canon for several last years is this : Canon is still cooking soup of the soup of the soup of the duck. And the more weak is the soup the more expensive it is. Shame to Canon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin
My feeling of Canon for several last years is this : Canon is still cooking soup of the soup of the soup of the duck. And the more weak is the soup the more expensive it is. Shame to Canon.
My feeling of Canon for several last years is this : Canon is still cooking soup of the soup of the soup of the duck. And the more weak is the soup the more expensive it is. Shame to Canon.
Great camera - not only for IQ equalizing the FF quality in compact size, but also for handling comfort - Fuji is listening to PHOTOGRAPHERS not consumers - and classic range-finder style. Looking forward to hold my copy.
Again and again - no built-in viewfinder - no camera. Be happy Fuji - competition is still blind. Competition still sleeping.
Again and again - no built-in viewfinder - no camera. Be happy Fuji - competition is still blind.
zinedi: It was predictable. No viewfinder - no camera.
to sarkozy > The image quality is what Bayer sensor (only) is. Definitely not better than X-Trans. But - what would even the best looking and powerful car be without a steering wheel? Some marketing gurus of some companies still try to persuade photographers, that viewfinder is unnecessary - because it is advantageous for them - but it is vain effort - because it is not advantageous for photographers.
It was predictable. No viewfinder - no camera.
zinedi: Why this slooow expensive dummy again? Wouldn't it be better to make a true piece of glass for fair price? But Sony is obviously not capable - good optics is out of reach of their apprehension.
Even if Zeiss makes good lens "for Sony", which I doubt, I never buy it, because there is no good PHOTOGRAPHIC body of Sony so that it would not be waste of money to put it on.
Why this slooow expensive dummy again? Wouldn't it be better to make a true piece of glass for fair price? But Sony is obviously not capable - good optics is out of reach of their apprehension.
T3: People seem to be ignoring the significance of the built-in Wifi and GPS. Sure, narrow-minded photographers will ignore anything that doesn't specifically impact picture-taking. But we're living in a new age now, and not everyone is so narrow in their perspective of what a camera can and should be able to do. Most cameras are already more capable in the picture-taking department than most of their users ever will be. Things like Wifi and GPS acknowledge that we now live in a very web-connected and location-intelligent world, and these things are very important in today's new world...at least for those of us who are smart enough to embrace what these new features allow us to do. But alas, there will still be people who will say "if it doesn't help me take better pictures, it's a pointless junk feature!" Then they'll go back to pixel peeping details and differences in IQ that no one will ever notice anyway.
And I also think that Wi-fi and GPS are dispensable in DSLR by contrast to mobile phone. I think that mobile phone is a field unlimitid for electronic features, but DSLR should be a field unlimited for best optical, photographic and image perfection features. All toy-features extra mean extra money for nothing - only for amazing marketng list of data - to confuse narrow people.
T3: People seem to be ignoring the significance of the built-in Wifi and GPS. Sure, narrow-minded photographers will ignore anything that doesn't specifically impact picture-taking. But we're living in a new age now, and not everyone is so narrow in their perspective of what a camera can and should be able to do. Most cameras are already more capable in the picture-taking department than most of their users ever will be. Things like Wifi and GPS acknowledge that we now live in a very web-connected and location-intelligent world, and these things are very important in today's new world...at least for those of us who are smart enough to embrace what these new features allow us to do. But alas, there will still be people who will say "if it doesn't help me take better pictures, it's a pointless junk feature!" Then they'll go back to pixel peeping details and differences in IQ that no one will ever notice anyway.
The other thinking of who is "narrow-minded" man: You speak in favour of consumerism and wastage, of fashion and style dictated by commercial interest, of very shallow perception of world and things - why not to have it when it is here? In fact - this thinking is OLD WORLD thinking not the new one. Not all things do the same service for everybody. In my opinion the more narrow minded is he who must have things because he is said that it is a "must have" and that it is a question of being "in". Such man is a slave of the other's commercial intentions. Better and wider thinking is - to buy things when I really have reason to have them, not because some (or many) my neighbours have them (and they discard them to garbage before they apprehend them to replace them by another "must"). Too many things - too little freedom of thinking and creating and living with the things I already have.
Another "giant leap for mankind" in conquering cyber-space! The software "art" filter TOY CAMERA got its own hardwarization! You can, Canon! (I am not so rich to buy these cheap plastic things, so I have to turn the "art" filter on to simulate this IQ - if I really want).
I tell it open: Canon recycles cheap electronic garbage coming from the previous millennium. To disguise this fact Canon raise one parameter to absurd value to get a record echo. Once upon a time - I loved you Canon.
jmv76: I bought the SX50 because my daughter allready got the SX40 and I was surprised by IQ, its excellent zoom, its impressive stabilization (but with some difficulties to keep the subject in the viewfinder at full zoom) good exposition, nice colours... and particularly the ease of obtaining nice pictures compared to my Pentax K-x...
And The SX50 is equal or superior to the SX40 in all domains.
See previous post !
Jean-Marc
From Normandy
See my moon shot in my gallery ; in this case I used a tripod !
Some people shouldn't neglect periodic visits at their occulist.
zinedi: Ridiculous zoom with ridiculous speed 3.4 - 6.5,
ridiculous EVF - 202.000 coloured fuzzy spots,
ridiculous tiny sensor crammed with 12 million hopelessly squeezed pixels trying to catch a one foton,
ridiculous massive force of software necessary to fabricate from this hardware mess some digestible image,
ridiculous plastic fuzzy pictures good to watch on the mobile phone display.
Victory of Vanity Fair over good reason, victory of marketing races over science and technology.
".. where more pixels has meant more noise. In every other case it means less noise."
I am not interested in numbers (whether they mean zoom reach or noise level) without direct and relevant feed-back to image quality. All these new "less noisy" tiny sensors (and "corrected" lenses too) are examples of the victory of software over hardware, money over technology (software is allways cheaper than good hardware). The result of these sw-made "noise-free" images is detail-free plasticky virtual reality.
The term "quite acceptable" (it means whatever one wants to imagine) is a victory of diplomacy and emptiness over the raw reality.
zinedi: Ridiculous zoom with ridiculous speed 3.4 - 6.5,
ridiculous EVF - 202.000 coloured fuzzy spots,
ridiculous tiny sensor crammed with 12 million hopelessly squeezed pixels trying to catch a one foton,
ridiculous massive force of software necessary to fabricate from this hardware mess some digestible image,
ridiculous plastic fuzzy pictures good to watch on the mobile phone display.
Victory of Vanity Fair over good reason, victory of marketing races over science and technology.
I have taken the look.
Ridiculous zoom with ridiculous speed 3.4 - 6.5,
ridiculous EVF - 202.000 coloured fuzzy spots,
ridiculous tiny sensor crammed with 12 million hopelessly squeezed pixels trying to catch a one foton,
ridiculous massive force of software necessary to fabricate from this hardware mess some digestible image,
ridiculous plastic fuzzy pictures good to watch on the mobile phone display.
Victory of Vanity Fair over good reason, victory of marketing races over science and technology.
zinedi: I would say that Fuji designers are, by contrast to Sony electronic techies, photographers. They know, that even the best electronics without a photographic soul and feeling, means nothing - especially to photo-enthusiasts.
To compare SLT a900 interchangable lens camera with fixed focal lens small mirrorles is a bit nonsens, but nevertheless - I see it as big award to X100 if you do it. In fact X100/ X100S is not able and not meant to replace SLT or SLR camera (especially in speed) - they are different leagues. But in it's league - in mirrorless enthusiast photo camera, easy portable, X100S beats competiion (on paper for the present) in IQ, handling, enjoyment, design innovation, .., and in what I call a photographic soul - he who has had some range-finder camera may understand what I mean. X100 had quirks and issues, many of them addressed by firmware updates. I hope that the next evolution step will be better. On the other hand, SLT principle even worsened by EVF is return to 50 years old failed photo-zombee and electronics won't resuscitate it to be a good camera.