nerd2: I think it is utterly stupid and pointless to intentionally choose inferior equipment without any reason.
And those B&W pictures lack tonal range, contrast and sharpness which makes good B&W pictures look awesome..
Yeah but if he took a conventional camera its likely he wouldn't be mentioned here on DPReview or any where else.
A little narcissistic aren't we, The MEcam? I'm not interested in seeing myself all over youtube. How about turning the camera around so I can capture my family, friends or pets?
dkord: I like to see bigger images, they're great in this small size but how practical is it?
Look within the medium of instant reportage in a live blog it works. Dan Chung is a craftsman in his own right. His compositions are very nice and choice of post treatment excellent. I'm not dissing his images, most of it is very good. If you do not need to get those money shots per event and fight for page space, yeah its doable. But that's not the reality of a sports photographer.All the things he's doing can be done with a long lens point and shoot via eyefi or a card reader and those images will look better. Just saying.
Pati Feroolz: 460 pixels wide? What this is trying to prove ?
@wrider, pretty arrogant statement. In the context of photojournalism 460 pixels is not acceptable. What does that have to do with whether Pati is a photographer?What qualifies YOU to judge? Damn, you're a teacher and you come across this way? Wow, no words.
Come on, seriously, art? So I suppose if I use a Honda Civic to haul beauty bark, I'm an artist? Art is about having a vision and executing that vision. Art is about communicating emotions and thoughts and ideas. Within a context, using a variety of mediums as a form of communication. Using awkward equipment for a job and implying that its serviceable has NOTHING to do with art, its attention getting.Just because images are blurred, flat, lacks detail and noisy, does not make it art. Sorry wrong context.
larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.
The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"
Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.
Blaufeld- you speak like a person who never had to depend on the images he took for his livelihood.If this was your job and you have to compete for page space with other competent photographers who are using high end gear, I'd like to see you show up with an iphone and a pair of binoculars (I would of used a monocular myself). It's a nice gimmick and cool because he wasn't under any pressure, he shot what he wanted and had time to pick and cull; the iphone and bino was the story, it got the paper some attention. But lets see what Dan Chung reaches for if he's given an specific assignment and those images will determine how much he gets paid and whether he gets future assignments.
Those images are not even large enough for an online paper. What are you talking about. You need to produce an image over twice that size to be acceptable especially with the higher resolutionscreens. Only thing those images are good for are mobile sites and its still too small for tablets.
Fantastic shot, show great creativity. How can someone give it such a low score? I can never understand some people.
I like to see bigger images, they're great in this small size but how practical is it?
Marty4650: Simon.... you need to hire this Cicala guy.
His tech knowledge is astounding, and he can write really well.
I doubt DPR can afford him but maybe if Bezos can. ;)
Images are flat with no pop but if you're planning on dirtying it up on instagram and posting it on facebook or twitter who cares.
Images are flat with no pop but if you're planning on dirtying it up on instagram and posting it on face book or twitter who cares.
I agree with Villebon, At the Olympics you're going to see the best indoor lighting in the world. Not the same as shooting in a high school or some college venue.He will also have great access to the events and the prime locations for shooting.Most of the games are start to finish type events so he can pre-focus and anticipate where the athletes will be. How do you think it was done pre-auto focus?He can take as many shots as he wants and cull through many many images and misses. How can anyone who's competent fail in that situation?
KAllen: "In short unless you have an interest or need for 4K video then there is no need to look at the 1D C over the 1D X."
OK you don't need 4K, but neither do you need rolling shutter and soft images that the 5DIII and probably X have. Why could we not of had a full spec 1080 clean hdmi output on the X. The gap between the X and C is huge. The 5D and X could of been better without challenging the C. Unless as I suspect there is a 5D C coming along. Which slots between the two.I can see Canon expecting us all to use frame grabs in the future. A real upgrade for spray and pray shooters.
Different situations, different tools. If you're covering an interview yes frame grab. You're shooting a golfer you can get close, shoot silently and pick out a frame.But for other situations, knowing when you press that shutter is key because the light is too low or the action is too quick for manual focusing in live view.
tampadave: I downloaded the ISO 200 samples of the D800 and canon 7D (which I own). I had to increase the image size of the 7D sample to match the size of the D800 sample as it appears on my monitor. Some parts of the Nikon image look better, but other parts of the Canon image look better too. To my untrained pixel peeping eyes, overall, it's a push.
To be fair don't you want to down size the larger image not interpolate the smaller image?
Quote,'In the future, maybe', Lim told us. 'Right now people use phones more than cameras. But once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless. In that case, the camera will need real-time connectivity, and [carriers] are looking for devices like this'.
Of course he can say this, they don't make a camera worth posting larger than 1600x on the long side. Right now carriers are limiting data and throttling bandwidth, can you imagine having to overpay for your phone and now a camera? What about battery life?Not everyone wants to post what's for dinner on facebook or have to pay for that service.
Thank you for your gift. I hope everyone reads and heads your foreword in every situation.
Looks like a little blooming effect around those posts, I like to see how it does shooting a sunset.
Submit your best shot showing the technique of "panning", in which *the camera is turned to follow the subject during exposure* in order to blur the background and minimize or reduce motion blur of the subject.
Congrats, sorry 2nd place.