Kodak, meet Polaroid. Weep.
Beckler8: Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
It's kind of obvious you don't know anything about Rolex or Rolls Royce for that matter.
- Rolls Royce, along with building what are arguably the world's best cars and engines, by hand, also build a lot of the engines used in jets around the world. Key point here - they design and build stuff. http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/
- Rolex watches are made up of hundreds (thousands) of tiny parts to make a mechanical marvel that works without a battery and keeps time accurate to around 1sec a day or better. Another person pointed out that Rolex gets their movements from a third party; that much is true, but that third party only makes movements and designs said movements in partnership with Rolex (other major brands do this too, like Omega). Further, Rolex can and does service the watches completely, including complete rebuilds where necessary. Do you think 'blad services these Sony rebadges?
I could go on and on but I've only got 50 characters left.
Interestingness: Jumped right to page 9 and checked out image quality. Did you all see the 3200 ISO JPEG's? That would make me stop shooting RAW - WOW!
Now change it to RAW and look around - this holds it own against everything except the Canon 5D3 all the way up from there (why no ISO 6400?).
Either this or the GX7 is going to be my next camera. Availability and street price will be the deciding factors. The Olympus has the edge in IQ and in body IS - the GX7 the viewfinder. Decisions, decisions...
Holds its own against everything? I'm sorry, but the output, compared to the Fuji X100s or any recent APS-C dSLR is not there. Especially in the RAW.
Plus you have to factor in the fact that larger sensors = better control on DoF, a benefit that dwindles with these smaller sensor cameras.
I just don't see this price working based on the physical and software capabilities of the output, especially with pros or prosumers.
Mark Prince: Geez. The station initially acted despicably by using the photograph without permission. No doubt it's not the first time they've done this. But once it was pointed out to them, they owned it, made a low ball offer of compensation, were polite and... had to deal with a photographer at DEFCON 5.
I am in no way defending the radio station here. But Ms. Cameron is so completely unprofessional in her correspondence, I find it difficult to side with her, and I speak as someone who has to deal with photography theft almost on a weekly basis. If I get a polite, responsible response to my cease and desists, you can bet I act professionally and polite in all corresponding discussions. Ms. Cameron did none of this. Just this alone brings shame to our industry, and she was in the right at the start.
Also, typically you charge 2x 3x your stock rate for copyright infringements - at least most of my peers do. Her $2K demand is quite out there.
It's extremely high for what is essentially stock photography - the client has / had no use for custom, specific-for-the-job photography, and from my understanding of this image, it was already used on a promotional website (where the radio station found the image via a google search).
It's a pretty long stretch to find any client willing to pay for staged, models-hired custom photography for internal marketing slide presentations.
Geez. The station initially acted despicably by using the photograph without permission. No doubt it's not the first time they've done this. But once it was pointed out to them, they owned it, made a low ball offer of compensation, were polite and... had to deal with a photographer at DEFCON 5.
Sigh. I guess all my hoping and praying for fixes to the X100's various focusing issues including poor manual focus, sketchy auto focus, slow auto focus, etc etc, not to mention work Fuji still needs to do and fix in the firmware is not working. A bit disappointed to see that they've apparently given up on the X100 (while doing these updates for the Pro and other models)
The list prices for the primes seem very high; not sure what the street prices will be, but the 28mm f2.8 is a $450 price jump (street price vs. list) over the existing 28mm f2.8. I own the 1.8 28mm (quite happy with my copy of it), and it's street price is under $500; the list at $800 for the new 2.8 IS seems quite high.
Tee1up: Having spent more than 2 decades with film SLRs, it's actually painful to watch all the compromises that pros/enthusiasts have to make with modern day digital cameras. Sorry if this makes you roll your eyes but I would head off to the most remote parts of the planet with a suitcase full of Kodachrome 25/64 and a F3HP and the only thing I ever had to worry about was a small battery and local food quality. I sadly sold my film rig and am still trying to find a satisfactory replacement that doesn't need a support team of electrical engineers to fix/explain malfunctions. I am not a pro so I have resisted going after a D3/D4 but increasingly I am getting the feeling that for an agressive photographer, this may be the best option.
What's a F3HP. ;)
Seriously though, my three most cherished cameras in the world are, in order: Leica M6 TTL, Nikon FM3a, and my fully kitted out Nikon F4 (incl two grips, high-tech data back, and three prisms). I still think there hasn't been a more impressive camera made since the F4 in terms of technology bundled into one camera (and everything accessible via a dial, button, or switch!).
But there's no denying the convenience, control and range that a modern high end dSLR offers. Which is why I shoot with them 90% of the time.
and... no mention of fixes to the horrible X100 firmware? Disappointing.