/p/ - Photography » Thread #1256951

[11 / 3 / ?]

148KiB, 540x405, unknown.jpg

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:30:00 No.1256951 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Hey there /p/
You read this shit yet? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/technology/personaltech/21pogue.html?pagewanted=1

I know how you all masturbate to the X100, so I figured I'd let you rip apart the ignorant editor's review.

tl;dr nyt don't know shit about the x100

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:37:00 No.1256954 Report

Quoted By: >>1256959

I dunno, that's a very reasonable review.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:42:00 No.1256958 Report

Quoted By:

>You can capture five frames a second, which is great for shooting sports and other fast-moving action. Unfortunately, the camera takes a very long time (nearly a minute) to save those shots after a burst, during which you can’t operate the camera.

get a fucking decent card that cost more than 10 dollars

ac !!hMB1p2jaDAI

ac !!hMB1p2jaDAI Mon 02 May 2011 22:43:00 No.1256959 Report

Quoted By:

>>1256954
I was thinking the same thing. There are a few bits I take issue with, but you can chalk them up to Pogue not being a serious photographer. And he does a good job of explaining what the X100's about to the sort of people who would laugh at a camera having no optical zoom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:44:00 No.1256960 Report

Quoted By: >>1256984

>A huge sensor (APS-C size, same as in an S.L.R. camera like a Canon Rebel) and a “fast” lens (f/2.0, meaning it lets in a lot of light) produce great low-light work without the flash.
>Huge sensor
>Rebel
lol

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 41KiB, 580x387

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:45:00 No.1256961 Report

Quoted By: >>1256964

Which looks better, this or that?

<3 !cjL1GCIAAo

<3 !cjL1GCIAAo Mon 02 May 2011 22:50:00 No.1256964 Report

Quoted By:

>>1256961
They both don't look that great. Interesting camera though, hadn't seen it before.

>>1256962
That's a nice photo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:57:00 No.1256966 Report

Quoted By:

>>1256962
>a review by someone who would actually buy this camera at its designated pricepoint.

This is a bad idea. By that logic, you'd want Lomography gear to be reviewed only by downtown hipsters.

It's expected that a wide-circulation newspaper would have a fairly simplistic review aimed at an average reader. If you want a more sophisticated approach, there is a myriad of other sources, from Luminous Landscape to DxO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:00:00 No.1256967 Report

Quoted By:

>>1256962
>See example photo for why this man shouldn't be reviewing any camera that costs 1200 dollars.

- It's not a bad photo actually.
- The purpose is to illustrate what an average person can expect to take with the camera in question, not to show off the reviewer's photographic prowess.

ac !!hMB1p2jaDAI

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 15KiB, 428x599

ac !!hMB1p2jaDAI Mon 02 May 2011 23:22:00 No.1256984 Report

Quoted By:

>>1256960
>Huge sensor
>Rebel
Compared to most compact digitals out there, it qualifies as huge.

>>1256962
>What I'd like to see, from a staff as competent in photography as the NYTimes, is a review by someone who would actually buy this camera at its designated pricepoint.
Pogue's their go-to guy for reviews of new tech products. And it's not a periodical targeted primarily at photographers, so I think it's appropriate to spend more time explaining to their readership why a camera like this matters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:39:00 No.1257025 Report

Quoted By:

pogue: "It also ruined a lot more shots than any camera I’ve used. "

hahahahahah

also... he's confusing the Sony NEX-5 with the Samsung NX5.

Well, maybe Fujifilm will have to make more X100 cameras to sell to the New York Times readers who hang on every word from David Pogue's column. He and Walt Mossberg (WSJ) cater to readers who desperately want to feel cool because they own the right model iPhone, etc..

The PLUS is that a lot of barely used X100 cameras will show up on Craigslist and eBay. if articles by Pogue and Mossberg cause higher sales, then maybe Fujifilm will recoup their R&D sooner and we'll see a X200 a year sooner.

The MINUS ... well, I can't really think of anything.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches