Ivan Lietaert

I bought the Nikon 1v at bargain price and for a couple of years, it was my favourite walk-about camera. I was looking forward to this new iteration coming to us with the DL-series. Its deletion saddens me. As Nikon and Canon are sharing the same market segment, my guess is that Canon soon also will be in dangerous waters... Too many people nowadays choose for their smartphone camera

My inner budget-aware self tells me that the 'plastic fantastic' €100 Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II is a much better choice (AF!) compared to this over-priced manual focus lens.
I also own an analog Auto Chinon 55mm f1.7 lens that has a crazy bokeh and a natural soft look, valued on eBay at about €35. My inner calculator tells me that is 14 times cheaper compared to this gear of the year Lensbaby...

The Fujifilm Instax 300 is very similar to the 210 model.

The dresden camera has a large viewfinder (which I needed to lift too in order to get the focus right) with a ground glas.

In this review, I try to explain the charm of shooting Instax film.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/06/29/instax-fun-fun-fun-in-memory-of-my-father-andre-lietaert-by-ivan-lietaert/

I'm a great fan of Instax film. I have the Instax Wide 210 model and the Instax Mini 90 model. I regret that Fujifilm refuses to bring a high end model to the market with manual controls and good quality glas/lenses. The alternative is Lomography.com, but their glas is even worse.
I modded a 1926 (!) ICA Dresden Reflex camera myself, mounting a lomography instant back (takes Instax wide film) on it. The camera has a Carl Zeiss lens. This setup makes Instax film shine and reveals its true potential.
Here is a small collection of my shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivanlietaert/sets/72157650037545493

The polaroid zip printer allows to select and print only good pictures. Some people, though, prefer the true, analog, film, one-shot experience. Any body shooting analog will confirm this is a whole different type of photography. You are comparing apples with pears.

Very informative and a nice picture, of course.

I have a question: why add an ND filter to increase exposure time even more? How does this improve the looks of the picture?

(I know you mentioned the blur of the fish, but that was accidental, not?)

Another problem is 'data rot'. Vinct Cerf, one of the founders of the digital age warned for it, not so long ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/google-boss-warns-forgotten-century-email-photos-vint-cerf

It is likely people of the future won't be able to open our digital files, or it will be far to timeconsuming to sift through the thousands of pictures each individual person makes, right now.

You better have a good EVF in order to be able to nail the focus with this lens wide open. Focus assist and zebra won't be 100 per cent neither. Maybe 3 out of 100 dpreview users will be able to use this lens in real life, just because for the others, their eyes aren't good enough.

Full Definition of USABLE

1
: capable of being used
2
: convenient and practicable for use

Belgium has 'French' fries and the saxophone, and of course the best beer in the world.
Why on earth does the UK have a 'National Media Museum'? Can you name just one respected UK photographer, dead or alive, that wasn't a drug addict or alcoholic?

http://www.edmundoptics.com/technical-resources-center/imaging/distortion/

Just another article re-writing text they found elsewhere; who cares about good coherence of a tex? Hide the essential information refered to in the title deep down into the captions so it is hardly noticable... Mentioning "TV distortion", but carelessly not explaining it... that's just a lazy text writers's mistake.

What is "TV distortion"?

These lenses require excellent EVF in order to nail the focus, or an external monitor. I wouldn't want to use these on my GH3...

Also, I guess the caption writer works for a fashion magazine as a second job, because he/she pays way too much attention to color and style .-)

In which country is the 'National Media Museum'? As any reference or even link is missing, this is just another example of poor, sloppy journalism...
The writer of this piece must think his country is the centre of the universe...

I don't have a problem with the presenter being on the Sony payroll. So many people have more than one job, these days, just to get by. Even if the photographer was on Sony's payroll, I would still find this an interesting video. I strongly believe that the majority of viewers are capable of filtering out the marketing babble.
I really don't see what problems you can have with this video. Its core message is that you can make decent sport action shots with a camera and lens costing less than a thousand dollars. Why on earth would anybody start spewing vitriol on that, unless one is a cynical troll... There are better place to do that... a therapy room, perhaps?

There is nothing cynical in this piece. Conversely, there is a lot of cynicism in the comments under it. The A6000 has been called a good camera by many professional reviewers. Eoshd for instance: "The A6000 is certainly Sony’s best performing mirrorless camera yet for video with an APS-C sized sensor." It is nice to see this camera in real life use.

I actually like this kind of video. It is quite convincing.
There is one thing I wouldn't do, and that is to change lenses that close to the surf. I'm sure the your sensor will get dirty very soon like that!