eyedo: How can anyone say 'Amazon is not professional?' One of the biggest companies around that offers great deals and customer service. If you didn't know companies like Smugmug use Amazon for photographers RAW storage for many years know.And with Smug you have to pay by the image size to upload and download. This is a terrific deal.I've used Amazon for storage for years for other types of files including my image catalogs,PDFs,video,zip files,etc
Plenty of businesses have been using Amazon's S3 and AWS (Amazon Web Services) cloud storage service for years. But since it's a business service and business product-- in other words, a "professional" product-- most people don't know about it. Here are a list of companies that are customers of Amazon's cloud services:
They include companies and organizations such as Expedia, Conde Nast, Dow Jones, NASA, etc.
Langusta: Maybe I'm paranoid, but somehow I feel safer having my photos on the (local) external hdd (2nd hdd for backup of more important ones). Btw - I paid only once...
If the back-up is at the same location as the originals, that's not very good back-up. Director Francis Ford Coppola's studio was robbed of computer equipment. He had all his data back-up. Unfortunately, the back-up drives were located at the same location, so they got stolen too!
The same kind of loss can happen if your house burns down. Your originals, plus your back-ups, would both go up in flames. You need to back-up to an off-site location!
Stollen1234: dont get me wrong..for me as a hobby photographer i will wait until raw files for canon 7D II is supported..
but for professional Photographers??! imagine a client is asking for photos or samples and you refer him to your amazon..amazon is a mass product..its just not appropriate i would say..
Why in the world would you instruct a client who is asking for photos to go retrieve the photos on his own? THAT is not professional! A professional photographer should be retrieving the photos for the client. He wouldn't say, "Here's my Amazon account. Go find the photos youself." any more than he'd say, "Here's my external hard drive. Go find the photos yourself."
Plus, let's understand that Amazon's Cloud Storage is an *off-site back-up* location. Every photographer, professional or otherwise, should be backing up their photos to an *off-site* location. The client really doesn't care where you're storing them. They only care that you can deliver a photo if asked to.
As for the criticism that "Amazon is a mass product"...I really don't understand that at all. So what if it's a "mass product?" Most photographers are storing their photos on off-the-shelf "mass product" external hard drives! Is that any more "appropriate" than Amazon's off-site cloud storage? Of course not.
exapp: With 81 focus points on some of the OMD is it time Olympus considered Eye control auto-focus like some Canon's had 15 years ago.
On a tripod you can use a touchscreen to easily pick a focus point but handheld is a bit trickier and eye control would be a huge bonus.
I loved Canon's Eye Control Focus, too. It was such a seamless, almost telepathic, way of selecting focus point. I'm sure a modern version of ECF, using a tiny imaging sensor inside the viewfinder to track eye location would be even more effective than the eye-tracking technology they were using more than a decade ago.
Love these real-world video reviews. Genuine use by genuine photographers in genuine situations.
D Gold: I was quite positive about the 40 meg feature in the actual review of the new Olympus, but looking at the trees and water in the picture of the temple, the sensor movement becomes painfully obvious and ruins the image.
But the technology is promising. This is still first generation. Imagine what it will be like a few years from now, when multiple shots will be done almost instantaneously.
Rooru S: quick question no.1is it an APS-C only lens or has the ability to cover a fullframe circle?quick question no.2how was the AF speed?
There's no real size difference between full frame and crop lenses when it comes to lenses of this focal length. For example, take a look at the Olympus 300mm f/2.8 lens Olympus made for their 4/3 DSLR system. It's the same size as a Canon 300mm f/2.8 full frame lens. So my (completely baseless) guess is that Samsung designed it to cover FF (just in case they ever decided to make FF bodies).
nunatak: "However I get the feeling that users in the US don’t really take a liking to small cameras. "
i guess he forgot Canon's original ELPH was a big hit. still, if Canon built MILCs with features and performance their customers actually wanted, size barriers would cease to be an excuse. JMO.
@Thoughts R Us - I think it's more a case of US consumers not being educated or aware of mirrorless. I run into people almost every day who are completely unfamiliar with mirrorless, and I have to show them that A) my mirrorless camera has the same sensor size as a DSLR, B) that I can change lenses on my mirrorless camera just like a DSLR, and C) that my mirrorless camera delivers equal image quality to a DSLR. DSLRs are popular because that's what people know and that's what they are familiar with, thanks to many, many years of DSLR existence.
But over time, as more consumers become more familiar with mirrorless cameras, they will grow in popularity. It won't happen overnight, but it will eventually happen. And this silly myth that US consumers aren't buying mirrorless cameras because they are smaller will finally be put to rest.
The irony is that I know a lot of casual DSLR owners who disklike their DSLRs because of their larger size! And they wish they'd known about mirrorless!
rustdream: Budget at $1200? You must be joking.
Well, considering that $1200 is still a whopping $600 less expensive than the Nikon lens, yeah, I'd say that the Tamron is a "budget" lens.
mosc: Is it impossible that we'd ever see an M-mount AF system?
@mosc - developing an AF system from scratch is extremely expensive. You have to build the AF system on both ends: on the body end, and on the lens end. That's not a task for a small start-up like Konost. You need a very large investment and a lot of engineering expertise to pull it off. It would be naive to think that a small operation like Konost could develop their own set of AF bodies and lenses.
Besides, does the world really need another AF camera system? AF camera systems already crowd the market. A "Konost M" AF system would have to compete with these other established AF systems that have much more financial and engineering backing.
@mosc - it's possible, but it would require development of a whole new set of lenses, not to mention a whole new set of bodies. And that's not likely for a long, long time because Leica already has the Leica T system which is designed for AF. They'll build that system out for a while before they'd tackle producing an M-mount AF system. You have to remember that Leica is a pretty small company with limited resources. Developing new systems is extremely expensive. And they've already committed to the new Leica T system for AF.
milandro: Yes, minimalism is great, until you need the things that aren’t there. This camera, like many other things in our lives, screams snob revolt to the world of robotic technology by an, apparent, return to the past.
Of course, the fact that the return is only really limited to the looks and some form of Luddism denying autofocus or OIS or automatic exposure, even if and when you are using advanced digital technology anyway, the contradiction apparently doesn’t bother the maker or the wannabe users.
You want to use a film in a Leica? Use an original one! You want to shoot digital with a viewfinder? I trust there are several ways to do that already.
The Fuji X system gives me plenty of retro and technology at the same time. Of course the Konost(eurs) want more, or actually they want less but will be prepared to pay more for that expensive less.
After all there are those who are prepared to pay more for a camera which can only shoot B&W!
I think you're blowing this completely out of proportion. I don't think it's anything other than offering a (supposedly) cheaper alternative to a digital Leica M. Just like buying a Voigtlander Bessa back in the film days, for those who couldn't afford a real Leica. And since it's simply an alternative option to buying a digital Leica rangefinder that can still use M-mount lenses and still shoot digital, it's going to basically do what a Leica rangefinder does, no more and no less. It's a bit silly to expect that this camera should magically offer autofocus or OIS to M-mount lenses that never had these capabilities-- and that if it doesn't offer these things, then it should be accused of "some form of Luddism [for] denying autofocus or OIS..."! LOL. Just because there is a digital sensor behind the lens doesn't mean that a camera can bestow old lenses with new capabilities that the lenses never had to begin with! You can't fault the manufacturer for not making an M lens auto focus!
M-mount is strictly manual focus. If you want AF, that's what the Leica T-mount system is for.
VENTURE-STAR: Who are Konost? Do they have any kind of track record? Where are the company located? Can they seriously compete with the big players?
Even if this re-invented Leica is a good reliable product, you can bet it will be priced beyond the reach of most serious photographers who always prefer to stick with established brands.
I'm a little sceptical about all of this!
@VENTURE-STAR - But the difference is that they aren't re-inventing the wheel here. It's not 3D, it's not eFilm, it's not a new format. It's just a Leica M-compatible digital rangefinder camera. It's building on an established system that everyone is familiar with, but that many people can not afford. If they can make it a less expensive alternative to a Leica M, I think they definitely have a chance.
DotCom Editor: Why?
Because Leica has a monopoly on digital rangefinder cameras? And it's good to have at least one other alternative in the market?
SyedSadaqatAli: Range finder, no autofocus, (not)great looks and what lenses?. If I had money to buy a leica lens, i would have money to buy leica camera too. Until it is within 1500-2000 USD range, it is out of question.
You are forgetting that there are other manufacturers that make excellent M-mount rangefinder lenses that are a lot less expensive than Leica lenses. Voigtlander and Zeiss make some excellent M-mount rangefinder lenses that are priced much lower than Leica lenses.
LFPCPH: May I suggest buying a Canon 5D Mk1 for 400-500$ on eBay instead. Okay you cannot fit an M-lens but then you can mount so many other lenses on a Canon EF mount – Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax K, M42 screew mount, ect.
And what if you *want* to use M lenses? Also, the 5D with FF lenses is quite a large and bulky camera, especially compared to a rangefinder like the Konost. Taller, thicker, heavier. For example, just compare the weight of a Canon 5D MKI body to a Leica M9. The Leica is no lightweight, because its solid construction and heavy milled brass top/bottom plates definitely add up to quite a bit of weight. And yet, the 5D MKI is still 52% (307 grams) heavier than the M9! I would expect the Konost to be a lighter than the Leica M9, because I don't expect the Konost will be getting the M9's overbuilt tank-like build.
Glen Barrington: I wish this company and this camera well. But is this REALLY gonna sell in numbers large enough to last more than a year and get a few collectors excited?
It might function well enough to spur other manufacturers to explore this quasi-rangefinder focusing mechanism, (I'd love to see something like this in m43s, it could revitalize the moribund Pen line, for example); but I would be very surprised if this particular camera was in any way successful.
I don't know why everyone thinks that every product needs to sell in huge volumes. It used to be that cameras sold in much lower volumes than they do today, and that was the norm. But that was in the days when people actually appreciated cameras for being tools of the craft, rather than merely seeing them simply as sales figures and market share stats.
dodgebaena: looks like a more-rounded NEX camera to me. Reinventing the wheel.
Then I guess you think that *every* DSLR is another case of "re-inventing the wheel." After all, DSLRs are a lot more similar to one another in design than a NEX is to a Konost. I don't think this Konost looks anything like a "more-rounded NEX camera." I don't know of any NEX camera that has a large, prominent viewfinder window on its front.
Storky: The most critical issue with this lens is: does it autofocus correctly? That's why I (and many others) swapped the Sigma 35 1.4 for the Canon original. The Sigma may be somewhat sharper, but it just doesn't focus reliably. The USB dock is an admission of this, and represents a partial, duct-tapish solution. And being slightly off focus at 1.4 is much more detrimental to image quality than small difference in optical corrections.
"The USB dock is an admission of this, and represents a partial, duct-tapish solution."
That's like saying that any product that is firmware/software upgradeable is an admission of fault or weakness! How terribly short-sighted. In the modern era, products should be upgradeable through firmware/software updates. It doesn't matter if you're talking about smartphones, cameras, lenses, desktop software, or even automobiles! There should be some mechanism by which updates can easily be installed in order to improve performance, add features, or simply respond to unforeseen changes that didn't exist at the time of a product's introduction!