DStudio: In the PetaPixel article Reuters cites the extra time photographers take on editing RAW images. And they're correct - it is often a waste of time when news-gathering - even when the photographer has an efficient RAW workflow.
However, that's the *photographer's* problem to solve, not theirs. I guess their liberal mindset (the bad side of it) is showing through here. They want to solve someone else's problems. And they will do so by mandating "the correct solution" for them.
It's good for Reuters to manage their workflows. But it's dubious to dictate the freelance photographer's workflow for him. I don't mind them specifying the types of edits allowed, but it's dubious when they get their fingers into the photographer's pie, dictating the original image format.
DStudio: Your problem is you tried injecting ancillary politics into what is already a political situation by asserting that media is inherently 'liberal'. You distracted from your own point by making that assertion. If you left out that middle paragraph, you would have found more agreement. Instead, you inserted a conservative heuristic - media is overwhelmingly 'liberal' - and derailed the conversation.
Clyde Thomas: Has any pro sports tog bothered similar test with AMount a77/99?
Honestly, I'm just astonished how AMount (with joystick, extra power, AF-D, native pro tele, and the ability to use it all for video) is avoided at all cost. Yet EMount with all the shortcomings listed in review, is repeatedly tested for action photography.
What a weird wanderlust age of the kludge we live in. Avoid the obvious. Entertain the uber hack. This era of photography seems like a huge distraction to me.
Dan Bracaglia wrote about using the A77 II for basketball on page 8 of the review for that camera back in April. In short: It works just fine for sports, not that anybody expected it to not work at all.
I'm interested in how mirrorless works for action photography because it's not the obvious choice... yet. You see a distraction and lack of focus where I see an eventual evolution of the industry.
Lee Jay: I don't understand how this would work for R/C aircraft which don't have a model number and serial number on them (which is all 20 or so of mine). How would they be uniquely identified?
Whoopsie, I meant Unit ID. Sorry for the confusion.
That's a drone. Once the device is semi-autonomous (e.g. relying on GPS for positioning), it's no longer a FCC-regulated radio controlled device. The device performing the transmit/receive connection for the GPS would likely be the registered and tracked item, as it contains the unique MAC address to that device.
There's a bit of a difference between a radio controlled aircraft and a GPS location-based drone. The FCC has long-standing regulations on the wavelength frequencies and distance range for R/C devices, so I don't think they'll be covered by FAA regulations on drones. I suspect that part of the FAA's efforts to create and enforce regulation on drones will involve coming up with a classification system for devices, which I suspect your aircraft won't fall into.
mpgxsvcd: Have fun enforcing these new registrations. There won’t be anything that is visibly identifiable for these drones so I am not sure how the registration will be enforced without infringing on rights against illegal search and seizure.
This will just be an Epic waste of money and Police will just use it to harass people using drones. It will give them the power to stop anyone using a drone and demand to see the registration without any reason to suspect they don’t have a registration to begin with.
People will still fly these drones in flight paths with or without the registration requirements.
Mpgxsvcd: I don't see how requiring drone registration and enforcing the laws would infringe upon the 4th Amendment.
Most large drones require a GPS signal and a connection to a remote control (whether a phone or other dedicated unit). That's two traceable network device addresses right there. All they need is a search warrant to get the records of either, and reasonable cause would lead them to the drone and the owner.
Your argument that 'people will still do stupid things' is valid, yet it can hardly be argued that implementing common-sense laws and enforcing them with appropriate deterrence won't have any affect. You emit the cry of a person who isn't aware of how regulatory laws have benefitted countless people in the US over decades and centuries by ensuring that we won't be killed by the random negligent acts of others, because most of those untoward actors know they would be held accountable for any harm they cause.
LF Photography: In today's world of "me too" lenses, it's nice to see Sigma continually pushing the boundaries of optical design; The 18-35mm f1.8, 24-35 f2, and now 20mm f1.4 are all fastest in their class, and very impressive lenses, sold at a reasonable price. Good job Sigma!
Great Bustard: I agree with Temporel. We're talking about a variation of 10° in terms of angle of view between 24mm and 20mm. That's not a small difference.
I think it's a bit silly to think this product would be more appealing if it were wider and slower. That market is already well served, meaning Sigma would be an also-ran and wouldn't make any money. Same thing goes for the 85mm f/1.4 or the 135mm f/2 - products exist (Sigma even already makes one of those). Entering a crowded field tends not to make good business sense unless you have something really special to offer.
Trollshavethebestcandy: I am calling this lens Apollo. God of the Moon and night astro shots.
Pelikansalat: From what I understand, it is really, really difficult to design a large aperture wide-angle lens with no coma, so I wouldn't expect that to be any different here.
whyamihere: It just occurred to me that, had the 15-45mm lens not been introduced today, Canon will have produced as many EOS-M bodies as they have available EF-M lenses.
Forget all the nonsense about the specs and ergonomics of each camera. As of today, there's only five native lenses. That's just inexplicable, especially from a company revered for their lens manufacturing prowess. Why make different iterations of a camera series when there's so few lenses to match them with?
Don't tell me that all I have to do is buy an adapter to get access to a wider variety of lenses. I shouldn't have to do that: It's a kludgy solution at best, and an exercise in frustration at worst. If, over the last few years, Sony only produced four crummy zooms and a pancake prime for the A7 series while suggesting that anyone could adapt A-mount lenses for a better range of options, most people would have lost their minds.
I'm not mad at Canon (they don't owe me anything). Their strategy is just really confusing.
Donnie G: I spend much of my life analyzing markets. The only market I can think of where the EOS-M has success is with people predisposed to liking Canon products looking for a non-DSLR or P&S. That market is quite small here in the US, and probably barely sustainable in Japan and elsewhere.
Hugo808: More than five. If a consumer is able to change out lenses (even if they never do), make it worth their while to go through the effort and expense.
Alastair: Canon's EF/EF-S STM lenses do work reasonably well adapted to the EF-M mount, but that's still a very small number of products. It's still a kludgy work-around. Most kit lenses are pretty good these days, so Canon isn't special there. I've heard the 11-22mm is good. The problem for Canon is this: slow UWA zoom, good prime, two variable-aperture kit zooms, slow telephoto zoom. These are available elsewhere, alongside a plethora of other options. Unless you already know these are the lenses you want, and they must be Canon...\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course, I should also point out that Nikon has produced 12 cameras in their 1-series and only 11 native lenses. Still, that's 6 lenses more than Canon has made in roughly the same time period, and - despite constantly being derided by enthusiasts - makes Nikon appear somewhat more dedicated to their mirrorless camera products.
It just occurred to me that, had the 15-45mm lens not been introduced today, Canon will have produced as many EOS-M bodies as they have available EF-M lenses.
nikon power: The Instax will work well for women. For men, they will need bigger wallet to hold the 2x3 prints.
Tonkotsu: From Fujifilm's press release on their website...
"With its modern design the instax mini 70 broadens its appeal to not only young women, but also men in their 20s and 30s"
Luke Kaven: Step right up, you duck-lipped narcissists. This camera's got a MIRROR on it, so you can admire yourself full time.
Why exactly does selfie = narcissism?
Just wondering, mostly because people who bring up the 'culture of narcissism' are often doing little more than misappropriating an actual personality trait and turning it into a broad, negative generalization about people who are doing something perfectly normal.
Why do you automatically assume that a.) this is for women, and b.) the only place for a printed photo in a man's possession is their wallet?
I take photos with my Instax Mini 9 and put them on the fridge, put them into albums, share them with my family members, attach them to gifts, post the results on Instagram, etc.
What I'm saying is: Why are you being so narrow-minded?
I think now would also be a good time to remind Luke that the Mini Neo 90 - the more 'serious' Instax camera - has a mirrored shutter button on the front that Fujifilm said was there for selfies.
D200_4me: Seems Barney was the only expert on the panel. Schooling those boys...
I think Pye made a number of salient points, especially about the democratization of photography. It's something that I wish people within the industry would explore more often, as it's part of the explanation of how we got to our current state in photography.
Photato: What is the Sensor Aspect Ratio, still 4:3 ?I really like the Live Picture feature though, simple, fun and effective.The Lens Aperture at f/2.2 though is behind the competition who has f/1.8 like the LG G4.Oh and no Raw pictures yet?I wish Apple would have stick to the 8MP larger pixels using the newer technology but 12MP is not as bad as Sony Z5 23MP sensor.
Just because Apple is playing on conventional wisdom - small pixels = bad performance - does not mean that it's true. There is nothing inherently bad about having more megapixels.
Sony probably chose the 12MP sensor for the A7S because it makes sense for 4K video without having to do any binning while also reading out pixels 1:1 at reasonable frame rates. For stills, objectively speaking, it's only slightly better in the ISO department than, say, the A7RII, which clocks in with nearly 4x the resolution. Plus, as Rishi pointed out in the A7S review, downsizing a high ISO image from a higher megapixel image to match the 12MP photos of the A7S, the higher resolution camera looks better, hands down.
Canon's $30k camera is not a direct comparison to a stills camera. It's a video camera limited to a maximum 60p, and it only reads out at 1920 x 1080. All the 2.2MP sensor tells me is, to get that stupid-high ISO, you have to have really, really big photosites.
tungsten hour: Yet beaten in call quality, durability and battery life by the average $10 no-contract flip phone. Progress!
According to who? I've been using mobile phones since the late 1990's. I've killed a few flip phones, but only just cracked the screen on a smart phone earlier this year. Flip phones also do significantly less complex tasks, and the minimal circuitry, coupled with a basic display, allows most of the phone to be battery. Also, remind me which flip phone uses VoLTE (Voice over LTE)? Y'know, the technology that leverages VoIP to make people sound as if they're right next to me, talking directly into my ear, and uses radio bandwidth that no flip phone could ever touch? (PS: IF a flip phone ever migrated to VoLTE, it would probably kill most claims to battery superiority.)
It's a 4:3 aspect ratio, but that's fine because it ensures that different photo aspect ratios (square, 16:9, 4:3) use as much of the sensor area as possible.
Live Picture reminds me of Panasonic's Pre-Burst, if the latter could be immediately rendered into a GIF by the camera.
I'll take the f/2.2 lens if it means that the rear camera doesn't protrude further from the back of the phone than it already does.
You should read DPR's articles on why smaller/larger pixels doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme. The TL;DR version: Higher resolution ≠ worse ISO. performance.
D 503: This is the end for the camera industry. Soon you will be buying cameras with drm and with half the features missing at release. You can of course purchase upgrades at £100 a pop.
I think you're being a little dramatic. Arguably, any electronic device sold can be improved upon, and it's up to the manufacturer to put a monetary value on those improvements. I'd take a $100 upgrade that significantly expands on the capabilities of my camera than, traditionally, being told to buy a whole brand new camera.
Also, being well-versed in DRM and its affects on media, I don't see how it applies to this situation at all.