ProfHankD

I appreciate how hard it is to get a photo like this, and it seems darn good.
Problem is, it's tonally too much blackness. I think some good shadow enhancement tone mapping (can't multi-shot HDR on something like this) to bring up the branching coral in the background would really help. The shadow enhancement might bring too much grain along for the ride, but a little selective, but heavy-handed, noise reduction would work for that. Nothing terrible about having the distant underwater background have a little watercolor-like blurriness to it. ;)

Great match for the topic.
Unfortunately, it has too many distractions.
The hand in front is just confusing. My eyes also keep getting drawn to the light switches which are totally irrelevant; the vignetting also sends me away from the subject towards the switches. Perhaps a really tight crop horizontal crop around the boy's head and feet (and losing the finger between the feet) would help?
The sepia tones don't help either.

Too many photos out there very much like this. Also, it's a rather busy composition. The square crop doesn't help, giving too much active all over the frame.
This is one where I might have tried using a tilt lens to angle the focus plane so that the 5-pointed feature would stand out as the only thing in focus. Then again, that wouldn't have been so appropriate as a "Wet Subject" entry. ;)

Looks good to me.
Perhaps it's a little flat tonally, and I think a smaller aperture and crisper textural detail would have helped. That probably wasn't the reason for the low score.
I think it got a low score because it isn't very literally about a circle. It's a cute little girl with a circular accent.

Focus is at a bit of a strange point, and the bad bokeh on "3" do not help.
It also isn't particularly memorable; it's yet another watch macro.
If you're trying to use bokeh to distinguish this sort of shot, you need to be more careful that the point in focus has something special about it. For example, focus and reframing to emphasize the "watch within a watch" would have helped.

This is an easy entry for Pentax into the APS-C mirrorless world, with a huge collection of lenses immediately available and sensor-shift shake reduction and focus peaking to support them. Good thing to try and probably a very cheap camera to produce -- probably 1/2 the cost of a K-5 with 2/3 the functionality. Pentax needed something in that range....

Although implementation details are certainly patentable, it is difficult to argue that the concept of making anything talk 802.11 wireless is not SEP (standard engineering practice). I also have to agree that EyeFi is not a great implementation -- by design, it's too limited. For example, Linux isn't really supported, although last year I was finally able to get an EyeFi card efficiently downloading files to my Linux boxes. I still can't use an EyeFi to wirelessly receive commands to control a PowerShot running CHDK.

Initially, it might not have been practical to support more general interactions even though the SOAP/HTTP protocol used theoretically could. The question is if EyeFi will take the lead in advancing the technology or attempt to block the evolution of such devices. Unfortunately, it looks like we now know the answer. Pitty. I think EyeFi's leading position easily could have been maintained as SDA grows the market, but not this way.

I wonder if autofocus is a possible firmware upgrade away?
I suspect it is lower priority because contrast detect non-native autofocus is not likely to be very fast, but I bet people want it anyway....

The question is how long will it take before this is supported by CHDK?
This with in-camera scripting would be a significant step up for a PowerShot.

Thank you! This is the kind of explanation I was hoping people would give.

I've been hosting challenges to try to get people to understand more about what digital tech can do to help their art... it's NOT working. People ignore the rules rather than learn from them. Incidentally, most DSLRs can be tricked into faking trap focus using the kind of trick mentioned for Sonys, and many already had the option buried in their menus.
As for DQing, I warned a few comments down that I wouldn't *immediately* DQ lots of entries....

Although I cannot prove it, a lot of the entries do not look like the result of trap focus. For example, "Shaken not Stirred" was probably a triggered exposure, but I doubt it was triggered by focus. Similarly, although it is possible to use trap focus to get a sharp subject and motion-blurred background, given the lack of comments and slow shutter speeds, I doubt that's how "IMG_1254" and "One night at park st" were captured. Rather than immediately disqualifying many entries, I'm posting this reminder that the RULES ASK YOU TO SPECIFY HOW YOU GOT YOUR CAMERA TO DO TRAP FOCUS.

Thanks; I didn't know that. Magic Lantern is kind-of video-emphasis CHDK for the 5D II and a few other Canon DSLRs, so I knew it could be programmed, but didn't expect it given the video emphasis.

Even without, I believe the same hack I described for Sony cameras also allows Canon DSLRs to unknowingly implement trap focus.

An interesting detail: I was wondering what lens was used for the resolution test shots -- it could have been nearly anything using an adapter. Well, the EXIF data says "Sony DT 50mm F1.8 SAM (SAL50F18)" -- which sounds like the currently $125 A-mount lens. Is that right?

Two comments: (1) darn good lens optically (at least at f/8) and (2) does this mean resolution was tested using the LA-EA1 or LA-EA2? I'd assume an LA-EA1; if it was an LA-EA2, the comparison with the A77 wouldn't make sense because both would have a mirror in the path....

Good review; and I'm glad you mentioned the use of manual lenses that don't fit DSLRs, because that is where NEX is truly outstanding.

The IQ for the 24MP sensor looks really excellent at low ISO and reasonable higher, but try comparing with the old 24MP full-frame A900. It looks like there's still room for a full-frame E-mount at the top of the NEX line.... ;)

Yeah, I see that the focus is set fairly close in the photo, but it still looks like it would be longer at infinity than it is wide. Does it look 2" long and 2.4" wide to you? Then again, where's the mounting flange? I see neither a rear cover nor mount in the photo. Well, I guess we'll know in January....

IQ is image quality -- resolution, contrast, flare resistance, etc.

Aside from the little irony that "SLR Magic" now mostly markets lenses that don't work on SLRs, I think it's good to have more lens options for NEX. Even if it should turn out to be a re-labeled industrial or CCTV lens, they are still providing a service by finding one that doesn't vignette, etc. The 12 aperture blades are a distinctive feature I haven't seen on simple re-labeling candidates.

The fast 24mm I lean on now is an old Vivitar/Kiron f/2.0, which is small and has good IQ. However, it's 3" long with an MD-to-NEX adapter -- this 23mm f/1.7 claims under 2" (although the photo doesn't look like it is wider than it is long, as the specs say). We'll have to see if it has the IQ to work like a fast 35mm FOV lens, i.e., grabbing shots wide open in low light and capturing crisp landscapes when stopped down.

Samyang makes *LOTS* of lenses, including for security cameras, etc., and it seems most don't sell to consumers under their brand. Their WWW site claims that they had 40% of the world market in interchangeable lenses in the mid 1980s. That would make them literally the most prolific lens maker in the world.

Where's the article? This is just a list.

Also, "Samyang is one of the lesser known (and certainly less prolific)" is very wrong about the second part. Samyang makes *a lot* of lenses, but only over the past few years have they become visible selling some of the more impressive ones under their own name.