Ivan Voras: I hope that next time someone has the good sense to just go and buy that 38 MP sensor from Nokia for $500 and stick it somewhere on the rover. It doesn't have to be the "master camera", it doesn't need to be heavily advertised - they can call it an "auxiliary photon sensor" or something silly like that, it doesn't have to be mounted on a special robot hand or have fancy optics - whatever piece of gorilla glass Nokia stuck in there will work just fine, but when there's some Really Interesting Rock they want to look at, or hopefully even some moss or lichen, that is when that sensor will come to be really handy. And as a bonus, nobody will care if a $500 piece of electronics weighing next to nothing breaks 6 months after landing or looses 50% sensor pixels after being exposed to radiation for a year.
Perhaps slightly tongue in cheek this post?
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say it's a compromise which didn't have to be made. You shouldn't have to re-invent the whole camera because of a sensor change. A sensor can be though of in abstract terms as a plug-able component with a fixed I/O interface. Resolution can be a variable which the rest of the camera can be made to work with as a variable. A hi-res raw image can be down scaled, sometimes you send the hi sometimes the low, you have the option. The engineers shot themselves in the foot when they began the project allowing for a fixed res sensor only, and did so knowing technology advances. In the 60s the Apollo project got a man on the moon in under a decade, imagine how fast pasted their project was, but now they can't change a camera sensor in the space of 8 years.
cleverinstigator: I'm sorry why not put up a few satellite relays in between so we can get some decent images of the planet why spend that much money on a mission that is 8 years behind in sensor technology. 2mp is a joke for landscape shots.
It's OK they've got a panorama shot mode. Still not as good as Sony NEX though, you can see the joins on the NASA shots.
jkrumm: Personally I liked it better when there were no comments on the front page, only in the forums. The front always turns into a disagreeable mess.
What do you need?
cgarrard: No finder or finder choice, no hotshoe, no grip, no image stabilization, flat buttons, first things I think. I can't get around those much. Sure it has a bigger sensor and decent looking lens, but holding and using a camera makes more of an impact to me. Had it a front grip and I.S. I might give it a pass, but not in today's market and the year is still young. Surely Sony aren't the only ones that are going to make big sensor compacts. Just watch and wait.
This apple is no good because it's an orange!
Richard Franiec: Limited editions, if perfectly executed, could be a good investment on behalf of grand grand kids:http://news.yahoo.com/1923-leica-camera-fetches-2-16-million-euros-185156596.htmlWhy so many posters find it upsetting is mystery to me. If you cannot afford Hermes Edition, grab your d-Lux5 or M something and have fun with it. No need to stress yourself out. Leica is known for successfully pulling stunts like this one, unlike rare wood edition of Sigma SD1.
Mechanicals pass the test of time. Do you think the microelectronics and battery will still be working in the year 2100?
"I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany, and I own a Leica camera"
Vegans won't like it.
JWest: These pictures really are amazing. But is it just me, or are there a lot of "jaggies" in some of them? It's especially noticeable on the hard lines of the shuttle - almost like the pictures have been aggressively compressed.
It looks like the resize used a non-interpolating algorithm. I expect better from a NASA astronaut!
Seahster: Hi everyone,
I've been a happy owner of the X-Pro1 for a few weeks now, and have been shooting and documenting my thoughts on this camera on http://handcarryonly.com/tagged/fuji in case anyone is interested.
I would say it is not a camera for everyone and every situation but for street and travel photography, it is where it truly excels, with the high IQ and low weight package.
Is it just me or do the pictures have an old school look about them? Maybe it's just Singapore haze.
Hinder: Thank you, it was overexposed, I saw the guy taking a shortcut across a school playground and tried to hurry it, I hadn't seen a minibike in years!
And subject is in focus with panning.
Underrated photo. Good composition and subject, and looks like a "genuine" over exposure.
As already commented, none of these top photos are accidentally overexposed.
Where's the boat?
Awesome, you're a legend! A+++++++ would vote again!
At 3200 RAW noise is on par with Sony 5N but resolution slightly improved due to higher pixel count. Too bad about the JPEG processing, should be fixable though.
Sdaniella: I have long lost interest in opaque image media, no matter how it is illuminated from the front, inconsistent as a matter of normalcy, and much prefer light displays of images where one can enjoy a broader, more natural perceived dynamic range, that better captures truer representations of what we see around us. Good riddance to low-representative unlit imagery... Opaque PRINTS... (I'm more receptive to well lit transparent prints at the worst, and light projection, so, in this sense, film transparency can always be used like 'stained glass' is used now, and make room for digital light displays instead (passive or active)... stills or motion. For basic text reading, non-lit media still has an important niche, so, opaque media will remain for that.
Please close open bracket, I have a phobia!
hc44: Mirrors exist because of the limitations of film, no other reason. In time you won't see mirrors at all and people will still want large solid cameras so that's not a problem with this camera. Should have an EVF though if it's not going to be small.
They still exist because the legacy technology still lingers; it happens, it took time for floppy disks to see their way out too. If camera invention started with electronic capture they wouldn't have bothered sticking clunky mirror contraptions in an otherwise static hardware design. Understand the basic limitation of film to understand why mirrors evolved.
Mirrors exist because of the limitations of film, no other reason. In time you won't see mirrors at all and people will still want large solid cameras so that's not a problem with this camera. Should have an EVF though if it's not going to be small.