Ednaz: I'm excited, I've found that blue cameras are much sharper than black ones.
I always thought my Polaroid SX70 looked rather sharp with it's tan leatherette appliques; It went well with my plaid golf slacks.
Perhaps "signature" leather or other finishes associated with other high profile name brands would be the way to go here. If you're going down this route at least have some look associated with a brand that has some cache, not some silly box of crayon colors. Imagine the cameras in Porsche Cayman red leather with a neck strap the same color as the yellow seat belts! Look, Hasselblad made a Ferrari red edition of it's camera. You can see one (in captivity) at the Dubai mall, if you're interested. But I digress. April 1st is coming up fast; so get busy with your best Photoshop or Solidworks skills and make something truly interesting.
Going back a bit in this "discussion"; I don't fully understand why using the Adobe Converter for Raw would make any difference because of Fuji's sensor pattern. It would seem to me that the correct parameters for Fuji's RAW output would be properly figured into Adobe's application. I use RAW conversion in both Photoshop and Lightroom - they both have their merits and minor drawbacks. I've never found a camera manufacturer's own conversion software to be as good as other third party applications. Set me straight on this if I am mistaken.
RichRMA: Someone needs to get a "universal lens" and shoot all the cameras in manual mode to really establish their real ISO speeds. What good is "claiming" 3200 ISO on one camera when it gives results like 1600 or 1200 on another, in-terms of illumination? This can negate whatever claim to "low-noise" a camera may have.
Universal lens? We don't need no stinkin' universal lens! Whoah! You're gettin' too dang techno for these rootin'-tootin' cowboys of the wild West! Or is it East? I've seen Zoom lens results against compared prime lenses here. Anything goes. Love the "gallery" though - skewers on the Hibachi look delicious.
Zoran K: This is a tool for certain group of professionals.
Yes, a professional's tool for sure. These camera's are in a different realm than most others. Comparisons to other types is meaningless; like comparing earth moving equipment to compact sized pickup trucks - they serve different clientele.
I'm eagerly awaiting it's cinematic debut in the next Tom Cruise thriller. Other than that it looks like it would be infinitely useful in finding the men's room in any establishment.
I think I'm spending too much time in front of the computer and am beginning to hallucinate. Maybe not. Just checked; it's not April 1 and I didn't accidentally go on to the "As Seen On TV" site. I might actually consider contributing to the crowd sourcing if he will consider tartan plaid and/or leopard.
Just can't get that song out of my head - I've got a splitting headache!
A one, twoA one, two, three, four
Half a bee, philosophicallyMust, ipso facto, half not beBut half the bee has got to beA vis-a-vis its entity, d'you see?
But can a bee be said to beOr not to be an entire beeWhen half the bee is not a beeDue to some ancient injury?
Read more: Monty Python - Eric The Half A Bee Lyrics | MetroLyrics
For merely ten times the price you can buy a Red camera and not have to compromise too much.
Did Spiratone make a comeback while I was away?
As a professional photographer I fully understand that equipment is not always pleasing to look at - I used to own a Rollieflex twin lens! However for a family/vacation/survey camera this thing is absolutely hideous - especially with the optional viewfinder attachment. Does anyone remember something called the Vsioflex that attached to Leica M cameras? It made an otherwise panache´looking camera into something that resembled a Russian moon lander.
Although I'm a Canon(pro equipment) guy for the most part; this seems like a better camera than the new G - Especially the fact that it has a built in flash AND a viewfinder. Waiting for the inevitable DP showdown between the latest round of high end compact mirrorless.
pjl321: Is it really that hard to make a high-end water proof camera?
Underwater cameras need all the light they can get so why give this camera a tiny, tiny f3.9 maximum aperture, compounded by using a tiny, tiny 1/2.3" sensor!
All I want is a waterproof Sony RX100M II, beautiful 1" sensor, 20mp, super fast f1.8 lens, 10fps and 1080p60. Too much to ask?
Me too! I love ruggedized cameras but want something along the lines of a Fuji 16 MP. Markets dictate however; is their enough of a demand for pro level camera costing around $2,000?
Foveon? Are you still here dear? Thought you went home years ago.
Still think the WG cameras look more bad-boy than this tub toy.
Sannaborjeson: Just another slow compact for the price of really good mirror less camera. To me the whole concept of such camera is slightly outdated.
What would you say outperforms it in the under $1,000 category?Not being a pain - just really want to know.
The viewfinder on every G camera I've ever owned or used is at best an approximation of what you're actually photographing. But then again I was a Leica M user for many years, so that's a tough act to follow. The G cameras are misunderstood by many; it's so much more than a high end P&S.
Generally macro lenses don't make great portrait lenses; they tend to be too sharp - who wants forensic detail in a portrait anyway? It's not so much a question of focal length or magnification as portrait is a loosely defined term at best. Camera to subject distance has has much to to with perspective (elongation or foreshortening) of the foreground, main subject and background and the photographer's relationship to the subject.
brycesteiner: You can shoot a lot of film for that price, with a larger dynamic range.
Does DPReview do reviews on this equipment?
The entire debate of film vs digital is ridiculous and, as they say say, "purely academic"; it's a matter of quantization. As a middle aged commercial photographer I have a fondness in my heart for the silver processes for everything form Kodachrome to Portriga Rapid - but those days are gone. Film and paper will carry on as a fine art medium just as charcoal pencils and artist's oils are still sold and used. If you yearn for that film look, there are some plug in's sold by DxO and others that look quite realistic. Comparisons are meaningless at this point.( I sleep with a box of 4X5 Tri-X under my pillow - OK)?
Artistico: I wonder if the day will come that someone will dare make a sensor in a digital medium format camera that is actually several smaller sensors put together rather than one big one. Surely with clever processing, easily available in this day and age, it should be possible to equalise any small differences between the sensors in the output, just like there is processing going on behind the lines to correct CA and distortion in several cameras. If that could make an affordable medium format camera, I'm sure there would be many potential takers.
3x3 APSc sensors would make a nice size of roughly 60x45
I believe there was a capture back marketing by Sinar about 15 or so years ago based on similar (multiple sensor) technology. They offered (I think) a single, four and sixteen exposure option for greatest detail and dynamic range. I remember the system was priced comparably with that of a Mercedes S class sedan at the time. I welcome any corrections.