And, BTW, we have a picture of you doing, well, you know what we know... How did we get that pic? Here's how: [news.cnet.com...]
Staffa
9:27 pm on Jun 28, 2010 (gmt 0)
WOW, that is some camera
rocknbil
9:32 pm on Jun 28, 2010 (gmt 0)
As one who was privileged to witness the earliest quality digital camera backs on land cameras and Nikons, at that time thinking they had a long way to go to beat our 150K drum scanner, I can only say . . . . holy crap. That is absolutely awesome, we've arrived.
Matthew1980
9:49 pm on Jun 28, 2010 (gmt 0)
Hi all,
I have wanted a SLR camera for a while now & this has confirmed it; I still cannot afford one :(
Looks ace. I want one. I looked at the larger 2000px image, and the clarity is awesome, if only they do a pocket sized version for about £100 - I can wish ;)
Cheers, MRb
weeks
12:56 pm on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
That is absolutely awesome, we've arrived.
Funny, that was my conclusion as well. I had that little ghost of a doubt that said for some photo project where very high quality was the goal maybe film should be used. Obviously, I am an idiot. That ghost is gone.
If you were in the photo biz in a big way, this would be an investment that could set you apart from the competition. And there is likely a business model where you would lease this equipment in a metro market to experienced photographers, just like you can rent high-powered lens now. I'm certain this will be done.
Gad, the daily rental rate would be like, what? $4,000 or more? But, some clients can pay that and it's not like you're not getting something for it.
Mark_A
1:04 pm on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
The big budget photogs will buy it, the national GeoGraphic cover photographers etc ... But for the rest of us it is "funny money"...
Do you think Annie Liebowitz has one? (2 probably!)
Matthew1980
8:59 pm on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
Hi all,
Surely there is another more expensive camera? You know, called Hubble, granted it has an optional telescope, but it's an expensive camera non-the-less. Lol!
Cheers, MRb
piatkow
9:13 pm on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
As much as I would like one I don't think my bad back would stand carrying it around.
rocknbil
1:54 am on Jun 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
Right . . . personally my head would swell so much I'd fall right over. :-) The other down side would be it wouldn't make me (or anyone else) any better of a photographer. The craptasticness would come through with absolute clarity and in super fine detail.
Still, I just looked again and drooled a little bit at the fact that I can read the fine print on the street sign . . . . one has to exhibit a little jealousy at a hunk of plastic, silicon and glass that can flippin' see better than I can . . .
Mark_A
6:59 am on Jun 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
IME it is not the camera but the brain behind the camera that makes beautiful pictures.
