My Flickr: http://tinyurl.com/4nclja
zeyno44: Hi Everyone, Either I am losing my mind or just hallucinating things. Please help me here. I have (thought) seen a film camera made by Olympus not the 35mm film, but an APS (Advantix) film camera which had an LCD, that allows you to pre-order the number of prints from the LCD menu. I've seen it somewhere in Miami (Doral area, October 2001~) at a local camera shop. Just once. Never went there again.Has anyone else seen something like this, or do you know what I am talking about?Or was this just my imagination? P.S. I am not crazy (yet)
This was a basic feature of APS cameras, achieved through the use of IX system storing basic information for each frame on the magnetic strip. This information included time and date, format (each frame was recorded in full format on film, but prints had the correct format, chosen by the photographer prior to exposure - C, H, P), number of prints, light level etc. I've had a Canon Ixus camera with such function.
cjcampbell: As someone who has spent much of his life in volunteer disaster relief (and has the trashed camera equipment to prove it) I can sympathize with the point of this ad campaign. I was in the Philippines when Typhoon Damrey rolled right over the top of us, but news of the disaster was completely eclipsed by coverage of Hurricane Katrina which hit on the same day. Photographing damage at a farmer's market, someone shouted at me, "Take one for the BBC!" Of course, the BBC (and every other news organization) was uninterested despite the fact that Damrey was actually the more serious storm.
Would a few "likes" have helped? I doubt it. When you are standing up to your neck in water and the roof of your house is gone and your daughter just gave birth prematurely because of the stress, it is easy to feel bitter about the millions who "liked" but did nothing.
Clicking "like" salves your conscience for a few moments, making you feel good about yourself for having done nothing.
I don't really get the point of "like salving a conscience". What an immature concept. Likes help to spread information and raise the awareness. That's all. Feeling bitter about "likes"? What a waste of emotion. What about the news viewers? Billions of them bored with yet another disaster news, flicking through channels to find something merrier.
balios: How many people did those photos and the ad campaign help? How many people did this article on DPreview help? None directly. But it raised awareness of the issues, just like "liking" a Facebook page does. Not everyone has the time, money, or desire to help every good cause in the world. But by helping to spread the word then maybe somebody who does will get the message.
@JaFOIf you think that the only people in need are on the other end of the world, try looking around you. Ask your neighbour, co-worker, fellow commuter. I suppose you're in for a great surprise. And these are people you can actually help. If you don't have time to speak to them from time to time, get them to tell you what they truly need and often fear to ask, try to look at the requests your fb "friends"/"friends of friends" are posting or liking. You'll find many requests for help which you can actually deliver. If you think that you are able to help someone on the other end of the world directly, arrange that and make it happen, then see what is more rational and effective - helping a friends friend, or helping someone on the other end of the world. Then you'll be wiser about spreading the word.
Digitall: Great campaign. Indeed. This shows how cynical are social networks. The social has nothing, or very little. Social networks have become commercial networks. Unfortunately.
How untrue. Owners do it for the money, perhaps users are cynical, but the idea of a social network isn't. Fb made me aware of a number of people requesting for help. Lliking is a part of the process of spreading the news on social nets. The actions we can potentially take to actually help may differ, from donating to participating, depending on our abilities. I've looked for help, too, finding volunteers ready to donate blood for my father. It was possible partly because many, not able to help personally, "liked" my post which asked for donation, making it visible for a wider audience. This campaign is a failure, because it's being widely misinterpreted as condemning the mechanism of "liking", while the true intent probably was to make people aware they should aim to take real action more frequently. The statement "Liking Isn't Helping" just isn't true. It helps spread the word, thus "liking" is helping completely independently from any real actions taken, and that's a proven fact.
danny006: I think they try to stop the illegal download of photoshop, a smart move I must say.
Quote from Q&A with Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, Winston Hendrickson (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc):
Q: Is a subscription model less prone to piracy?
A: While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products. (...)
Octane: None of the options truly express how I feel about it. And none of the three articles on Adobe's move are in any way critical or reflect how users feel. But I'm not surprised. Let's just be honest here, DPReview isn't a journalistic based news source, it is a marketing tool for a very large reseller (Amazon). It's purpose is to generate traffic and get people interested in buying products. Negative reporting doesn't get people in the mood to buy things. Don't expect to see actual journalism here, don't expect hard questions or truly critical articles. This site doesn't serve users, it serves Amazon.
Then why not express your feelings, instead of bashing the site which gives you a chance to give your opinion on the matter?
Nice to see Nikon's attempt at APS-C compact, hope the next iteration will be something for me, because this clearly is not:
1. @28mm it's wider than I would prefer for single focal length camera. And being 18.5/2.8 it's equivalent of 28/4, which takes away some of the DOF advantage of the APS-C sensor.
2. No Hybrid AF, just contrast detect (it's typical seeing the press release not even mentioning AF - clearly nothing for the marketing department there ;) ).
3. It's small, but still bigger than NEX cameras. NEX-5R & 20/2.8 is $899 (bought separately), and it is probably smaller. With PDAF, and optional OVF (~$100) or EVF (~$230) AND interchangeable lenses.
4. They've decided that a piece of metal with glass inside is worth almost half the price of a camera, that's ridiculous.
Given the price, and the Coolpix brand used, I'm not sure what they think they are doing. However, Nikon J1 was Japan's highest selling camera in 2012. Perhaps Nikon is not doomed ;)
A D5100 + 28mm 1.8G costs less, for 2 extra stops of light ! This makes it a perfect street photog combo, a 18.5mm 2.8 is nice but way to wide, even on DX !
I bet we'd need to wait 2 more years for it to integrate a bright zoom lens
NEX-5R & 20/2.8 is $899 (bought separately, I'm sure Sony will make a new bundle just for the laughs), and it is probably smaller. With PDAF, and optional OVF (~$100) or EVF (~$230) AND interchangeable lenses.
Spectro: 4.37 x 2.52 x 1.57″ maybe the smallest aps-c camera body out there. Wonder if it is pocket-able. Too expensive now, maybe when it is 40-50% off in a few years.
NEX-3N and NEX-5R are smaller.
ogl: Relax, guys! DPREVIEW is not independent reviewer for many years already. They just help to sell camera of their owners. It's business and nothing else.Dpreview is sold to Amazon on 2007.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune".
Yeah, Fuji is paying DPreview a small fortune, monthly, but they feel so bad about it, that they've mentioned lock-ups no one else is experiencing, pointed out all possible defects this camera has (slow AF, inconsistent framerate, etc.), and they've made worst possible soft studio samples just to demonstrate they just won't obey these filthy money-throwing Fuji swines. Then they slapped it with the golden award, just to make sure it's only the most intelligent and penetrating reader that will see through that they're indeed paid by the horrid Japanese.
Infared: It is 2013...how can a $1400 camera...be loaded with all that tech. ...but not AF fast enough to catch your kids in action????????????????????????????????How is that possible? ~:-o
@Jimmy jang BooYeah, on a second thought - my phone's camera is quite good at it, too. Must be the AF.
cxsparc: Took alook at the exif of the ISO800 picture:Fuji 35mm f8 1/125 ISO800Nex 5N 50mm f8 1/200 ISO800
So the Fuji appears to be 3/4 EV less light sensitive in reality(false ISO calibration)
And that's a fact described in the review, did you read it?
Marty4650: Cameras can be rated by objective measures (like AF speed and accuracy, Dynamic Range, ISO capability, lines of resolution, etc.) but there will always be a subjective element involved. We sometimes fall in love with a camera, and when we do that we tend to overlook the flaws and emphasize the good things.
I remember around six years ago Phil Askey reviewed the Leica M8. He found numerous flaws with it, and objectively rated it as "recommended" which was just about the LOWEST rating Dpreview was using at that time. Despite this, he loved using the camera, so he immediately went out and bought one with his own money. And it certainly wasn't a cheap camera to buy.
I think something like that has happened here. The Fuji X-E1 is a very nice camera that produces really great image quality. It is exceptionally well built, there are some very nice lenses for it, and despite all the stated flaws, it is probably a joy to use.
Hence... the Gold Award. I call it emotional grade inflation.
I don't really understand the whole idea behind these "Awards", that's why I never actually scroll down to that part of "Conclusion" page, perhaps I'll do it sometimes to click through to "Image samples" page. Why get so wind up on some numbers? DP-Reviews ;) are about what's inside, written on all these pages, and all that goes through my own subjective viewpoint on both my priorities when it comes to making a judgement on a camera/system and on the methods DPrev is using. Perhaps if someone is new to this place, he needs a number to tell him how the things look. But for somebody who's been around here for the last 8-10 years is it really that important? Even if the numbers are biased, the wording is not, although you sometimes need to read between the lines, so to speak, as with the ACR7.4 performance on X-Trans files. With various needs and various uses there is really very little sense of getting worked up with a universal scoreboard for gear... That's of course just my opinion.
JWest, you're welcome, but I'm sure it's not the AF that's making it possible. It's a ratio between your skill/situation and your definition of "catching".With my 3y/o boy and my D700 at 7EV (home indoor lights) I'm able to pretend I'm keeping up only when I use 24/1.8 or something wider.
Good luck "catching your kids in action" with AF on ANY camera.
utphoto: 645 film frame size is 56x42mm. Pentax 645D frame size is 44x33mm. 35mm FF size is 36x24mm. In terms of actual sensor 'real estate' the 37-40 meg sensors in the Pentax, Leica and Hasselblads are pushing twice the surface area compared to FF 35mm.
I was just referring to numbers."Look" is highly subjective, especially given the number of possible lenses to mount on canon/nikon bodies (including zeiss glass, leica converted lenses etc).
Let's see, S2 is 57% of "Real MF", or "Real MF" is 174% of S2.
..and you say S2 is closer to real MF than to FF. That's Leica-Logic, I can see your math is equally "reddotted" as utphoto's.
By "twice the surface" you mean 50% more sensor area, for Leica?
Too fast for wifi, I don't really get that... it's usb 2.0, right? How come it's fast enough?
Showing mock-ups (I'm judging by the look of dials) this bad means that they don't expect anyone from the target group to actually see it at photokina, I suppose. They'll show the final version on the Moscow Yacht Show or something...