jadot: So nobody gets this? Reading the 'reviews' here I guess not.
Anyone thought about the implications of this kind of imaging for the future of photography?How about in the mid 1800s when sitters had to stay still for periods of time so that a picture wouldn't appear blurred?Psychologically speaking these studies are no different than those very early attempts and successes at photography portraiture. In fact it's this that makes them so fascinating. It also asks us how we define photography in 2014. Is this photography? Is this art? Is this imaging or science? Is this simply technology, nothing more clever than that (sic)?
To all of you a holes talking about bad lighting, or ugly/miserable subject matter, you need to get a better understanding of the conversation between art, technology, and the human condition.
Anyone who has read about the painstaking and arduous process that was the early photographic processes will appreciate these endeavors. thank you for your learned commentary.
Some here get it, most do not. It's clearly an understanding of the history and aesthetics of photography and an appreciation of the techniques and methods. This comes through educating one's self. The derisive and boorish comments are clearly from those who seek pleasure at criticizing the efforts of others.
Put a phone in it and make it water/shock proof and I'll buy one.
I always offer my clients a "menu" of three choices: good, fast, and cheap - I tell them they can pick two. For those who are so inclined, we can look forward to some quality selfies I suppose.
JEROME NOLAS: Actually I like it but Fuji needs new design for their cameras, I am tired of retro look...
So form follows function in it's most elegant is expressed in the classic Leica design; nothing is there which is unneeded.and it is aesthetically pleasing.. What exactly about Fuji's design is so tiresome?
Not a Canon 1DC by any stretch of the imagination but infinitely more affordable for the budding cinematographer.
jaygeephoto: 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.
Glad to see people are up on their auto racing culture of colors.
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?