Technically, the problem being reported in regards to lens flare banding on the D750 have nothing to do with lens flare. The issue is apparently caused by internal reflection within the camera body.
Light is reflected into the sensor by the body. The problem stems from a lack of reflected light hitting the top portion of the image when light enters the camera at a particular angle.
Imaging Resource takes an extensive look at the issue, including looking at other models to see if they can detect the same issue. The tests did show banding issues with other models, including models from other manufacturers. The D750 just had the most obvious banding issue due to internal reflection.
I's a very long article with image examples.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Potential Lens Flare Issue With Nikok D750
Hat Tip: Shutterbug
Some D750 owners are reporting an issue when dealing with lens flare. In certain circumstances, the lens flare will abruptly stop at the top portion of the image.
The problem can be seen in this video:
Using a lens hood will prevent lens flare, but some photographers like the effect.
The problem appears to lie in the autofocus sensor and apparently doesn't effect all D750 cameras.
Some D750 owners are reporting an issue when dealing with lens flare. In certain circumstances, the lens flare will abruptly stop at the top portion of the image.
The problem can be seen in this video:
Using a lens hood will prevent lens flare, but some photographers like the effect.
The problem appears to lie in the autofocus sensor and apparently doesn't effect all D750 cameras.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Would You Want a Camera That Automatically Encrypted Files?
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
A Hacker identified as "Doug" has created a firmware update for the NX300 that automatically encrypts images when they are saved by the camera. The files can only be opened by someone with the correct decryption key.
Encrypting files as they are saved by the camera would require some unusual circumstances before the feature was actually useful. The images would probably need to include sensitive information of some kind that needed to be protected from unauthorized access. The encryption would protect that information even if someone somehow got their hands on the image files. (Such as by stealing the photographers equipment before the images are processed.)
Political activists or journalists taking images in areas controlled by repressive regimes might want this features. Plastics surgeons might use it when taking pictures of their patients. (No accident nude photos showing up on social media.)
There are probably other legitimate reasons for encrypting images as they are taken. I can also think of some less savory reasons for doing so (and no, I am not giving anyone any ideas by mentioning them).
A Hacker identified as "Doug" has created a firmware update for the NX300 that automatically encrypts images when they are saved by the camera. The files can only be opened by someone with the correct decryption key.
Encrypting files as they are saved by the camera would require some unusual circumstances before the feature was actually useful. The images would probably need to include sensitive information of some kind that needed to be protected from unauthorized access. The encryption would protect that information even if someone somehow got their hands on the image files. (Such as by stealing the photographers equipment before the images are processed.)
Political activists or journalists taking images in areas controlled by repressive regimes might want this features. Plastics surgeons might use it when taking pictures of their patients. (No accident nude photos showing up on social media.)
There are probably other legitimate reasons for encrypting images as they are taken. I can also think of some less savory reasons for doing so (and no, I am not giving anyone any ideas by mentioning them).
Friday, December 19, 2014
Flickr Revises Wall Art Offerings
Hat Tip: Pop Photo
Flickr has officially caved to the howls of outrage and has removed the Creative Commons material from the images available for purchase through its wall art program.
Personally, I didn't think the criticism for including the Creative Commons images was well founded, and don't think Flickr needed to pull them from the program. They only included those images officially marked by those that uploaded them to the sight as free to use for commercial purposes. They were using them for commercial purposes.
I find it hard to understand criticizing Flickr/Yahoo for selling images when the owner of the image marked them as being eligible for commercial use without the user paying any royalties.
It's not like Flickr was staking a claim to the image. They weren't preventing anyone else from downloading and using the images (including putting them on a sight where someone could purchase prints.) They weren't preventing the owner from removing the image or changing the licensing agreement so the images couldn't be used commercially.
No.
They were using the images in a manner in which they were explicitly allowed to do by the terms agreed to by the image owner.
The outrage seems solely based on thr fact that Flickr/Yahoo would make money by doing so.
Guess what?
That's what companies do.
They make money.
Flickr has officially caved to the howls of outrage and has removed the Creative Commons material from the images available for purchase through its wall art program.
Personally, I didn't think the criticism for including the Creative Commons images was well founded, and don't think Flickr needed to pull them from the program. They only included those images officially marked by those that uploaded them to the sight as free to use for commercial purposes. They were using them for commercial purposes.
I find it hard to understand criticizing Flickr/Yahoo for selling images when the owner of the image marked them as being eligible for commercial use without the user paying any royalties.
It's not like Flickr was staking a claim to the image. They weren't preventing anyone else from downloading and using the images (including putting them on a sight where someone could purchase prints.) They weren't preventing the owner from removing the image or changing the licensing agreement so the images couldn't be used commercially.
No.
They were using the images in a manner in which they were explicitly allowed to do by the terms agreed to by the image owner.
The outrage seems solely based on thr fact that Flickr/Yahoo would make money by doing so.
Guess what?
That's what companies do.
They make money.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
All Your Photos Are Belong to Us
I finally get you use the old Zero Wing reference.
Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK
The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1. Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company. (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)
This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers. Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.
Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes. Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.
What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?
That's the worst of both worlds.
I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones. With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.
They're wrong.
It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club. There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do.
The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't.
The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product. (Magazines and stock photos). How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?
Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK
The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1. Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company. (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)
This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers. Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.
Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes. Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.
What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?
That's the worst of both worlds.
I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones. With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.
They're wrong.
It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club. There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do.
The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't.
The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product. (Magazines and stock photos). How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?
Monday, December 15, 2014
New File Format Seeking to Supplant the JPEG
Hat Tip: FStoppers
(Original story at ExtremeTech)
There have been many attempts to supplant the ubiquitous jpeg file format/compression method. None have been successful so far. Even the alternatives backed by tech companies like Mozilla (mozjpeg) and Goggle (WebP) have failed to take hold.
Jpeg compression results in artifacts and blocky images. The alternatives avoid those issues. So why can't they replace a file format with obvious weaknesses that is twenty years old at this point?
Inertia.
The fact that the jpeg format is twenty years old is part of the problem that developers must overcome when attempting to replace that format. It has been around so long that just about every device no matter what OS it runs can recognize the file format and display it correctly. This includes old computers running obsolete operating systems.
New file formats lack the that compatibility. That means a new file format/compression method must offer features that ensure widespread adoption. The other major formats (PNG, TIFF and GIF) did that by offering features not provided by the jpeg format.
So, does the new format offer any features that might result in its widespread adoption?
BPG
The new format is BPG (short for "Better Portable Graphics") and is based on the HEVC/H.265 video codec.
There are a couple of features that might result in broad adoption.
First, the format offers similar or better image quality than the jpeg format when images are compressed with smaller sized files. This alone probably isn't enough for the format to supplant the jpeg. There just aren't that many applications where decreasing the size of an image from that created using the jpeg format would make much difference.
Second, the BPG format supports 14-bit color and alpha transparency. This is where the BPG becomes interesting. 14-bits of information per channel provides much greater dynamic range of information than is supplied by the 8-bits per channel used by the jpeg format. This makes the BPG much better suited for digital photography. (The ability to save transparency information makes it better suited for certain web applications.)
Finally, as an adaptation of the H.256 codec, the BGP format can be decoded by any hardware capable of decoding H.256 video. These devices would not need to rely on software to decode a BPG image.
As a side note, BPG images can be decoded using JavaScript. This means that any modern web browser will be able to display the image, even if the computer hosting the browser lacks the necessary codec. This gives the format a leg-up when it comes to widespread web adoption.
(Original story at ExtremeTech)
There have been many attempts to supplant the ubiquitous jpeg file format/compression method. None have been successful so far. Even the alternatives backed by tech companies like Mozilla (mozjpeg) and Goggle (WebP) have failed to take hold.
Jpeg compression results in artifacts and blocky images. The alternatives avoid those issues. So why can't they replace a file format with obvious weaknesses that is twenty years old at this point?
Inertia.
The fact that the jpeg format is twenty years old is part of the problem that developers must overcome when attempting to replace that format. It has been around so long that just about every device no matter what OS it runs can recognize the file format and display it correctly. This includes old computers running obsolete operating systems.
New file formats lack the that compatibility. That means a new file format/compression method must offer features that ensure widespread adoption. The other major formats (PNG, TIFF and GIF) did that by offering features not provided by the jpeg format.
So, does the new format offer any features that might result in its widespread adoption?
BPG
The new format is BPG (short for "Better Portable Graphics") and is based on the HEVC/H.265 video codec.
There are a couple of features that might result in broad adoption.
First, the format offers similar or better image quality than the jpeg format when images are compressed with smaller sized files. This alone probably isn't enough for the format to supplant the jpeg. There just aren't that many applications where decreasing the size of an image from that created using the jpeg format would make much difference.
Second, the BPG format supports 14-bit color and alpha transparency. This is where the BPG becomes interesting. 14-bits of information per channel provides much greater dynamic range of information than is supplied by the 8-bits per channel used by the jpeg format. This makes the BPG much better suited for digital photography. (The ability to save transparency information makes it better suited for certain web applications.)
Finally, as an adaptation of the H.256 codec, the BGP format can be decoded by any hardware capable of decoding H.256 video. These devices would not need to rely on software to decode a BPG image.
As a side note, BPG images can be decoded using JavaScript. This means that any modern web browser will be able to display the image, even if the computer hosting the browser lacks the necessary codec. This gives the format a leg-up when it comes to widespread web adoption.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Deal Alert: Samsung NX3000 30% off at Amazon
Amazon's deal of the day is a 34% savings on the Samsung NX 3000 interchangeable lens camera.
The deal only covers the camera with a 16-50mm lens. You do get your pick of colors and can choose the bundle that includes a memory card if you don't already have one.
The deal only covers the camera with a 16-50mm lens. You do get your pick of colors and can choose the bundle that includes a memory card if you don't already have one.
Additional Thoughts on Leica's Corrosion Problem
I posted yesterday on the news that Leica was experiencing corrosion issues with the IR filter glass used in its CCD sensor cameras, starting with the M 9.
I was pressed for time yesterday, so I didn't post anything beyond reporting the problem. I have some additional thoughts today.
I'm having a hard time understanding how damaging the coating on the IR filter glass could result in corrosion. Glass is an inert material. It normally doesn't corrode, even when subjected to corrosive materials. That's why it's used to contain acids.
The filter does apparently have a coating, but that coating should be inert as well. (The fact that the filter only corrodes when damaged seems to indicate that the coating normally is inert.)
Somehow, a filter made with two inert materials stops being inert if the surface becomes damaged.
That doesn't seem to make sense.
There are a couple of possible explanations that I can come up with.
(Discalimer: Based on limited information.)
First, the filter might have more than one coating. Having a layer that reacts when exposed to air that is covered by a second protective layer would explain what is happening with the Leica filter. The filter is fine as long as the protective layer is undamaged, but damaging that layer results in the second layer corroding.
Second, there is something in the coating that corrodes the glass when exposed to the environment. There is only one thing I know of that can damage glass this way: Hydrofluoric Acid. Unlike other acids, hydrofluoric acid has the ability to dissolve glass. (One of it's uses is etching glass.)
I suppose it's possible for the glass itself to be damaged if the coating contains a fluorine compound.
Both possibilities have implications.
The first one would suggest that someone overlooked a fairly obvious design flaw. That doesn't bode well for whatever company is responsible for the filter design. (I assume Leica, but that's not necessarily correct.)
The second would have implications when it comes to the use of fluorine compounds in cameras. This would include lenses as well as internal filters. If damaging a fluorine containing coating can result in the underlying glass being damaged, that would make those coating ill-suited for use in cameras and lenses.
Nikon recently developed a fluorine coating for its lenses. It's extremely effective at repelling dust, grease and dirt. Hopefully it doesn't include a risk of corrosion as well.
There is another issue that needs to be addressed as well.
That has to do with Leica's fix. They are offering to replace any sensor effected by the corrosion problem. The key here being "replacing the sensor".
The sensor itself s not actually affected by corrosion, only the filter. Simply replacing the filter would seem to be a much easier and less expensive fix. In fact, replacing the filter with one that doesn't use the faulty coating is the only permanent solution to the problem.
Instead, Leica is replacing the entire sensor and replacing it with one that uses the same faulty filter. That means the corrosion problem could re-occur on any "fixed" camera.
I'm not sure which is harder to understand, how the problem occurred in the first place or Leica's response.
I was pressed for time yesterday, so I didn't post anything beyond reporting the problem. I have some additional thoughts today.
I'm having a hard time understanding how damaging the coating on the IR filter glass could result in corrosion. Glass is an inert material. It normally doesn't corrode, even when subjected to corrosive materials. That's why it's used to contain acids.
The filter does apparently have a coating, but that coating should be inert as well. (The fact that the filter only corrodes when damaged seems to indicate that the coating normally is inert.)
Somehow, a filter made with two inert materials stops being inert if the surface becomes damaged.
That doesn't seem to make sense.
There are a couple of possible explanations that I can come up with.
(Discalimer: Based on limited information.)
First, the filter might have more than one coating. Having a layer that reacts when exposed to air that is covered by a second protective layer would explain what is happening with the Leica filter. The filter is fine as long as the protective layer is undamaged, but damaging that layer results in the second layer corroding.
Second, there is something in the coating that corrodes the glass when exposed to the environment. There is only one thing I know of that can damage glass this way: Hydrofluoric Acid. Unlike other acids, hydrofluoric acid has the ability to dissolve glass. (One of it's uses is etching glass.)
I suppose it's possible for the glass itself to be damaged if the coating contains a fluorine compound.
Both possibilities have implications.
The first one would suggest that someone overlooked a fairly obvious design flaw. That doesn't bode well for whatever company is responsible for the filter design. (I assume Leica, but that's not necessarily correct.)
The second would have implications when it comes to the use of fluorine compounds in cameras. This would include lenses as well as internal filters. If damaging a fluorine containing coating can result in the underlying glass being damaged, that would make those coating ill-suited for use in cameras and lenses.
Nikon recently developed a fluorine coating for its lenses. It's extremely effective at repelling dust, grease and dirt. Hopefully it doesn't include a risk of corrosion as well.
There is another issue that needs to be addressed as well.
That has to do with Leica's fix. They are offering to replace any sensor effected by the corrosion problem. The key here being "replacing the sensor".
The sensor itself s not actually affected by corrosion, only the filter. Simply replacing the filter would seem to be a much easier and less expensive fix. In fact, replacing the filter with one that doesn't use the faulty coating is the only permanent solution to the problem.
Instead, Leica is replacing the entire sensor and replacing it with one that uses the same faulty filter. That means the corrosion problem could re-occur on any "fixed" camera.
I'm not sure which is harder to understand, how the problem occurred in the first place or Leica's response.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Leica Admist to Sensor Corrosion Problem, Offers Free Fix
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
This issue has been covered by most, if not all, of the major photography news sites. It turns out that the CCD sensor used in certain Leica digital cameras have a serious design flaw that can lead to corrosion issues.
The problem stems from the IR cover glass used in the sensor. Damage to the coating on the glass can result in corrosion, which shows up in images as white spots.
The corrosion cannot be removed from the sensor by cleaning. The sensor has to be replaced instead. Leica is currently offering to do so free of charge.
Unfortunately, the replacement sensor will be one using the same IR cover glass, making the replacement subject to corrosion issues as well.
This issue has been covered by most, if not all, of the major photography news sites. It turns out that the CCD sensor used in certain Leica digital cameras have a serious design flaw that can lead to corrosion issues.
The problem stems from the IR cover glass used in the sensor. Damage to the coating on the glass can result in corrosion, which shows up in images as white spots.
The corrosion cannot be removed from the sensor by cleaning. The sensor has to be replaced instead. Leica is currently offering to do so free of charge.
Unfortunately, the replacement sensor will be one using the same IR cover glass, making the replacement subject to corrosion issues as well.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Deal Alert: Amazon Bonus Deal of the Day: 70% Savings on Olympus XZ-2
Head over to Amazon fast if interested in the Olympus XZ-2 digital camera.
The bonus deal of the day has that camera 70% off the listed price.
The deal is only good for today (Dec. 9) or while supplies last. I suspect it's going to be the latter. Jump on this fast.
The bonus deal of the day has that camera 70% off the listed price.
The deal is only good for today (Dec. 9) or while supplies last. I suspect it's going to be the latter. Jump on this fast.
Chance to Win Tamron Lens
Digital Photography School is hosting a contest with three Tamron lenses as prizes.
You can win a Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD Macro (value $629) or one of two Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD lenses (value $449 each).
All you have to do is leave a comment on the contest page stating how you would use the lens before midnight on Dec. 23. That leaves you plenty of time to read up on the lenses and compose your answer.
I wish I was in position to use one of the lenses, but I don't ave a camera body to use with any of the lenses (and no money to purchase one.) That means I'm not going to be competing with anyone that enters the contest, so good luck to all that do so.
You can win a Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD Macro (value $629) or one of two Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD lenses (value $449 each).
All you have to do is leave a comment on the contest page stating how you would use the lens before midnight on Dec. 23. That leaves you plenty of time to read up on the lenses and compose your answer.
I wish I was in position to use one of the lenses, but I don't ave a camera body to use with any of the lenses (and no money to purchase one.) That means I'm not going to be competing with anyone that enters the contest, so good luck to all that do so.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
For Those Still Shopping for a High-End Full-Frame Sensor Camera
DP Review has (finally) posted its 2014 High-end full frame roundup.
Frankly, this probably would have been better timed if it had been posted before Black Friday, but since I have no control over when DP Review posts articles you're getting it on DP Review's schedule instead of mine.
The roundup covers 12 full-frame cameras with prices ranging from $1200 for the Sony a7 to $3400 for the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. There are brief reviews for each camera along with a brief snippet on each cameras strengths and weaknesses.
The Amazon price is listed at the top of the article with a Price Grabber applet showing other prices at the bottom.
DP Review does make a couple of recommendations: best camera, best budget camera and best camera for video.
Check the comment section and forums for non-site opinions.
Frankly, this probably would have been better timed if it had been posted before Black Friday, but since I have no control over when DP Review posts articles you're getting it on DP Review's schedule instead of mine.
The roundup covers 12 full-frame cameras with prices ranging from $1200 for the Sony a7 to $3400 for the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. There are brief reviews for each camera along with a brief snippet on each cameras strengths and weaknesses.
The Amazon price is listed at the top of the article with a Price Grabber applet showing other prices at the bottom.
DP Review does make a couple of recommendations: best camera, best budget camera and best camera for video.
Check the comment section and forums for non-site opinions.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Deal Alert: 240GB Kingston SSD 80% off at Amazon!
Nope, that's not a typo.
Amazon currently has a lightning deal offering 80% savings on a 240GB Kingston Solid State Drive.
The original price was $370. You can pick it up for only $74.99 for the next three and a half hours. (Roughly 5:30pm Central time.)
Technically, it's not actually 80% off. That's 80% off the list price. The actual price on Amazon is $102.91. That $74.99 is still a very good price, and easily $40 less than you will currently pay at any other outlet. It's also only slightly more than the 60GB and 120GB drive.
Jump on the deal fast if interested.
Amazon currently has a lightning deal offering 80% savings on a 240GB Kingston Solid State Drive.
The original price was $370. You can pick it up for only $74.99 for the next three and a half hours. (Roughly 5:30pm Central time.)
Technically, it's not actually 80% off. That's 80% off the list price. The actual price on Amazon is $102.91. That $74.99 is still a very good price, and easily $40 less than you will currently pay at any other outlet. It's also only slightly more than the 60GB and 120GB drive.
Jump on the deal fast if interested.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Deal Alert: 40% Off Hasselblad H5D-40 Camera
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge
This one is for those photographers that have always dreamed about getting their hands on one of Hasselblad's high-end cameras but just could never spend the type of money purchasing one entailed.
You can now pick one up 40% off the regular price. The sale runs through December 24.
A Hasselblad H5D-40 body can be picked up fro B&H for $9995 (Regularly $$18,500). (Or at Adorama for the same price.) Both stores are also offering 20% off of lenses when bundled with the body.
The Hasselblad H5D-50 body is also on sale, but the reduction is less. It's currently available for $23,375. (Regularly $27,500)
If interested in saving more money, check out Hasselblad's list of Pre-Owned equipment. Hasselblad's Certified Pre-Owned gear is now 20% off. Pre-Owned H5D-50 bodies currently run around $12,000 when purchased from Hasselblad.
This one is for those photographers that have always dreamed about getting their hands on one of Hasselblad's high-end cameras but just could never spend the type of money purchasing one entailed.
You can now pick one up 40% off the regular price. The sale runs through December 24.
A Hasselblad H5D-40 body can be picked up fro B&H for $9995 (Regularly $$18,500). (Or at Adorama for the same price.) Both stores are also offering 20% off of lenses when bundled with the body.
The Hasselblad H5D-50 body is also on sale, but the reduction is less. It's currently available for $23,375. (Regularly $27,500)
If interested in saving more money, check out Hasselblad's list of Pre-Owned equipment. Hasselblad's Certified Pre-Owned gear is now 20% off. Pre-Owned H5D-50 bodies currently run around $12,000 when purchased from Hasselblad.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
More Christmas Season Camera Recommendations
For those still shopping for cameras, DP Review has come out with it's lists of camera recommendations.
The lists are divided into different categories.
DPReview Recommends:
Don't pay too much attention to the "current as of" dates. Some say 2014, others 2013. I suspect the 2013 number is a mistake. The Interchangeable Lens Cameras list is dated 2013, but includes a camera (the Sony a6000) that was introduced until 2014.
The lists also includes links to places where the cameras can be purchased.
DP Review is an Amazon affiliate and following one of the links to Amazon and then purchasing from that site will help support the DP Review web site.
The lists are good starting points for those still deciding what camera to purchase. They include links to specifications, sample images, and reviews (including reader reviews) for each camera.
The lists are divided into different categories.
DPReview Recommends:
- Best Compact Cameras for Enthusiasts
- Best Cameras for Beginners
- Best Compact Cameras for Travel
- Best Cameras for Social Photography
- Best Waterproof Cameras
- Best Interchangeable Lens Cameras for Under $1000
Don't pay too much attention to the "current as of" dates. Some say 2014, others 2013. I suspect the 2013 number is a mistake. The Interchangeable Lens Cameras list is dated 2013, but includes a camera (the Sony a6000) that was introduced until 2014.
The lists also includes links to places where the cameras can be purchased.
DP Review is an Amazon affiliate and following one of the links to Amazon and then purchasing from that site will help support the DP Review web site.
The lists are good starting points for those still deciding what camera to purchase. They include links to specifications, sample images, and reviews (including reader reviews) for each camera.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Deal Alert: Save $300 on a Nikon D7100 Body
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge
You can now pick up a Nikon D7100 DSLR body for $896.95 at Amazon and B&H Photo. That's a $300 price drop.
This appears to be a manufacturer based sale, meaning you can probably pick it up for a similar price at most other camera outlets. Amazon and B&H were just the ones mentioned in the SLR Lounge article.
(SLR Lounge would probably appreciate you following the above links and purchasing from either of the two mentioned sites. The Amazon link includes affiliate information for SLR Lounge and I suspect the B&H link does as well. Following one of the links and purchasing from Amazon/B&H will help support SLR Lounge.
I am not currently part of any affiliate program, so I'm not affected in any way if you decide to support that site by following their affiliate link.)
Update: I forgot to mention that B&H Photo also offers refurbished models. Those are currently priced at $799.
You can now pick up a Nikon D7100 DSLR body for $896.95 at Amazon and B&H Photo. That's a $300 price drop.
This appears to be a manufacturer based sale, meaning you can probably pick it up for a similar price at most other camera outlets. Amazon and B&H were just the ones mentioned in the SLR Lounge article.
(SLR Lounge would probably appreciate you following the above links and purchasing from either of the two mentioned sites. The Amazon link includes affiliate information for SLR Lounge and I suspect the B&H link does as well. Following one of the links and purchasing from Amazon/B&H will help support SLR Lounge.
I am not currently part of any affiliate program, so I'm not affected in any way if you decide to support that site by following their affiliate link.)
Update: I forgot to mention that B&H Photo also offers refurbished models. Those are currently priced at $799.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)