Achiron: 1051g "compact" for hiking? Pretty ridiculous. "E-PL7"+"75-300"+"12-50" will cost roughly 1600$ and weigh same as the RX10III (and ultimately take less space) while giving results ten times better.
I have to admit, I wouldn't be buying it if it isn't because it does 4K and 240fps @ 1080. I already have some of the best cameras, and I was originally consider picking up a Sony FS-5 for videos, but figure I am probably ok with the RX10m3 for now.
TheDarmok74: It's a fine camera to be sure, but "the ultimate hiking partner"? It's too heavy, regardless what Barney says, very subjectively. And who needs 600mm on a hike?600mm are nice and the video is great, but do these count much on a hike comared to the mkII or the FZ1000? You can get 2 FZ1000 for that money, so how can the RX10 III be so much better for a hike?There are tons of better solutions for most hikers, the much cheaper RX10 to start with, or the PAna LX100 or FZ1000 or some m43 with the 14-400mm lens.The RX10 III is ridicolously priced.
I bought it, and I am happy with it so far. Acceptable image quality and Awesome Video capability. The Camera is relatively light compares to my other setup which are all FF at the moment. If anything, the biggest complaints are 1> Unable to disable AF on the shutter button 2> Stupid Menu system
I use Sparco Meca 3 Mechanics Gloves which may not be sufficient for extremely cold weather. However, I think they work very well for me with temp. around high 2XF or above.
Benefits:fit well to be able to use your fingers and finger tips for controlsit has a thin layer of rubber to provide very secure grip to my camera equipment
Now, I want a 14mm for my 645Z
Humans are so interesting that sometime we think one can't exist beside another. Mirrorless is good, but it doesn't mean DSLR needs to go away.
It's like saying my sub-compact car is better, and no one should be driving a SUVs or trucks..
That sounds more like a torture than a reward. Even if you aren't buying that camera in the end. One may still want to take some time off, then go for a $$$$ photograph trip.
johnbandry: At what point would the resolution of the captured image outdo the (current technology) limits of ability of printers to print it? In other words, what is the maximum number of pixels a high-end printer (of any technology) can output onto a single sheet of paper?
That's in one go, without chopping the image into pieces to be printed separately and then reassembled, as in a billboard.
Say if the camera can produce approx. 16000x12500 resolution, this is still only 53.3"x41.7" @ 300ppi. Since the ppi needs decrease with larger print, it's unlikely that any digital camera can outperform the max. number of pixels at this time.
Those are some terrible photos...!
I think it would be a huge lost for us if we are to lose the Hasselblad brand, so I am glad the CEO who's responsible to the Lunar is gone. CEOs always get pay the big bucks, so I feel like he should paid Hasselblad the money back for the lost in business! Is that guy a total idiot in the first place to create Lunar?? Maybe in got pay by Canon to destroy the Hasselblad?!!?
For the Fuji XF Camera, Fuji actively improves their camera but coming out with new Firmware for free.
For Canon, the solution is not free new firmware, but a newer Expensive EOS-M ver. 2 camera which the improve is not much more than a firmware upgrade on the Fuji.
Talk about Value here ......., the Fuji XF system rocks.
With that being said, I did just order my EOS-M from BH with the Adapter yesterday. It's not a bad price to purchase as a spare camera that my wife can help me carry around while I have my 5Dm3 and the other big lenses.
Daro31: Great, fantastic technolovy, and excuse me for being cynical, all this so that someone can see a 2x2 inch photo on their I phone for .5 seconds. It really makes me wonder?
Those are some awesome pictures. A combination of zoom, fast AF, and high resolution into one, the price of the lens is quite affordable. At least for a professional.
CameraCarl: Once again, lots of new cameras but only two with viewfinders. My wife (who is not as serious a photographer as me) won't even consider using a camera that does not have a viewfinder. And after struggling with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon S100 in daylight and bright sun, I will never buy another camera that doesn't have one. I can't figure why the manufacturers do not realize this. Why do they think photos ought to be taken at arm's length?
I found taking picture with just the LCD fairly difficult. This may has to do with age too. As you get older, especially with glasses on, you start to need to put the camera further away from you to see (Unless with reading glasses, or for the very least remove your existing glasses). Problem solve with a viewfinder. EVF wasn't too good until recently. I am currently using a 5dm3, E-M5, and the X Pro 1 all have Viewfinder. Putting your eye against a viewfinder also help reduce camera shake, which I think is another important factor to take good picture.
Mssimo: When did 1024 x 768 8" screen become "low-res." This article needs a new title. It may suck for photographers but for other reasons like its crap 5MP camera and low storage.
1024x768 is pretty low resolution. It barely have enough resolution for windows 8 or mac os. Some website now don't display properly unless your have 1280 on the wide side.
Microsoft still provide updates for Windows XP, or our iPad 1 are still getting updates to new iOS. So, there is very little reason for Adobe not to provide a security for such an expensive software they sell.When going from an older version to a new version, it should be about new features and functions, not patch.
shaocaholica: Urgh. Why can't Apple just give devs and their own camera team access to the raw data and save it as something like a DNG. Also manual exposure and white balance. Its all happening in the background so its not like they need to write any low level code for it.
I am not surprised. It used to be relatively costly to learn photography. We are talking about cost on films and developing, let alone enlargement, or cropping.Digital photography made photography so easy, just like almost anyone here in the US can drive.Films, we have to worry about color casts, so we put in filters. 90% of us use day light balance films, where again color filters are needed to correct the color ahead.With Digital, we have AWD, we can shoot in any lighting conditions, etc.....! Yes, digital photography is a lot easier, and you have to be very good and set yourself apart from the average.
It's only $1000 diff. if you would to compare this with the 24-70 II on Canon side. But I wonder if it can even get as sharp as the 24-70 Mark I. which is about the same price as this.
LJohnK2: So using the Photographers figures Avg. cost $ 2,500/(8+22.5 hrs)= $ 82/hr....so it appears the Bride is young and has never hired a Plumber, Electrician or paid a car repair bill.....but then again who can fault here deductive reasoning as it is embraced by "educated" political and business leaders in her culture....she has learned well....she considers the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
And an IT Consultant can easily charge over $100/hr just by talking before any real works are started.
IcyVeins: Come on people, this is such an obvious troll. I can't believe that a professional photographer and DPR really fell for this. It's just some goofball trolling craigslist trying to get people on sites like this up in arms.
Yet, I enjoy reply these post every so often..! A way to kill time and write a few comments...
rickpoole: Outstanding response Nikki! As I've upgraded my equipment to near professional quality and gotten much move involved in advanced post processing I can really understand and appreciate all the expenses and time involved in doing high quality professional work. I am a little surprised at the number of hours spent editing wedding photos - I would have expected a lot more, maybe even double the 25 hours or so (I guess I still have a lot to learn about automating PP). Being a part-time owner of a family business I can also really appreciate all the expenses of running a business. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it is getting harder and more expensive by the year as more regulations appear and prices continue upwards.
Hopefully your explanation will open a lot of eyes on how hard it is to make even a decent living as a small photography business and that current wedding photography prices are actually quite a bargain.
Exactly! My 5Dm2 can do ok, but when I start using my 85 1.8 or 135 f/2 lense with minmal DOP. I trust my 1-series, and no less.