depscribe

Hmmm.

I love my X10; didn't like the X20 at all; and while the EVF on the X30 would solve some problems, the fact that the lens doesn't go very wide is a deal breaker for me, even though the sensor is an improvement on that of the X10.

Why does DPR do this: the minimum shutter speed -- shortest being the minimum -- is 1/4000, whihc the maximum -- longest -- is 30 seconds. They have it backwards.

Actually, it's a very expensive way to confirm that the problem with the pictures was the photographer, not the equipment.

That's funny -- the one I have is excellent, as is every other one I've ever used.

Zeiss and Nikon and everyoner else have been making fast normal lenses for a few generations now. That there should be any fuss over one is the triumph of hype.

If there is a reason to get this lens instead of a very good (and very cheap, if you look around) 50mm f1.4 AIS Nikkor manual focus lens (and a KatzEye focusing screen), it is not apparent -- and there would be enough money left over for a 180mm f2.8 Nikkor.

I have this to say to you, re. the finder: Katzeye. I have them on both of my D7100s and it makes photography a whole nother thing -- and has returned my bag of wonderful old Nikkors to productive usefulness!

Now, in return, you maybe have a good source of 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 cutfilm (as well as holders)? I cannot use my beloved Busch Pressman without them . . .

Sorry, but if it has no viewfinder and isn't a view camera it's simply a non-functioning smartphone. Even if it looks as if it was designed by a six-year-old. I predict that Pencoh will sell up to a dozen of these.

That's because you got cheap imported gray-market electrons. Or else you tried to use black-and-white electrons to make a color picture. Did you check the electron compatability table in the user manual?

Because it is like the transcontinental railroad: Coming from one coast, they work to turn telephones into cameras. Now Samsung sets out from the other coast, trying to turn a cmaera into a telephone.

But it has no function for pressing clothes, no built-in air conditioner, and it will have surround sound only on the advanced model.

This is the worst idea anybody has ever had since the beginning of time.

And no viewfinder.

Whoever gets this, I think, will be buying jewelry instead of photographic equipment. The lens is *way* too slow, the body seems to be that thing they have which got its clock cleaned by the X100, and the price is higher than a real camera with a few useful lenses.

Leica used to be respectable when it was the name put on cameras made by E. Leitz gmbh Wetzlar. not so much if they're putting out stuff like this. how embarrassing.

imho, you're absolutely right.

What? No built-in telephone of MP3 player? No web browsing on the LCD? No Tootter or Farcebook? What good is it? A camera that only takes pictures? That is *so* when photography was an art.

I'm on flickr and, while I would like to be able to for instance alter more easily the order in which pictures are displayed and to get rid of the absurd "date taken" nonsense on pictures scanned from negatives or xpcies, I am mostly happy with it. Then again, I think that Facebook and its ilk are for nonserious people.

You could just bring in some extra wood to make the evening by the fire longer -- no need to burn the camera.

My first SLR was a Ricoh Singlex (one found this out by removing the brand name on the front, which said "Sears" and was held on by doublestick tape), which came with a 50mm f1.4 lens and a 135mm 3.5. preset telephoto, case, and BC fanfold flashgun for $159 from Sears & Roebuck. It was a clone of the Nikkorex F, had the dreadful Copal Square shutter (but did have X sync up to 1/125). Terrible camera in every regard; I've avoided Ricoh ever since. That was, though in 1965. Maybe it's time to forgive them.

Naaaahhhh.