Sometimes you have to laugh

[Tannin]

Reading the paper this morning, I saw a "review" of a new full-frame "travel" camera. I say "review" but, of course, it is the usual regurgitation of the manufacturer's press release, complete with lots of attention paid to this particular camera's point of marketing difference.

It is, we are told, a travel camera which can deliver wonderfully narrow depth of field, the very thing you need to make your Instragram posts stand out from the crowd and attract more followers. With its flip-out swivel screen, you can even turn it around backwards and use it to take blurry-background selfies! Wow! Miles better than those APS-C and Micro 4/3rds things, yes? Yay! And it fits in your pocket. (Sort of.)

Right at the bottom of the review, we are told the price, which is nearly four grand, and that it comes with ... wait for it ... a 28-60mm f/4-f/5.6 zoom lens.

Yes, you read that correctly. They are talking yummy full-frame depth of field at 60mm and f/5.6!

As if.

Of course - though they don't bother to tell you this - being an interchangeable lens mirrorless thing, you can add any Sony-fit lens you like, such as (for example) an 85/1.2 or a 50/1.4. That would give you the shallow depth of field the article raves about .... and of course, aside from costing you another two or three thousand, it would be vastly too big to fit in a handbag, never mind a pocket, and weigh about the same as a house brick. (Fast lenses are large. They have to be to let all that light in. And fast full-frame lenses are larger still. It's called "physics".)

Source: https://www.afr.com/technology/sony-...0201008-p563ck

(Paywallled, subscription required.)

(Not worth reading anyway.)

(Trust me on this.)

[ameerat42]

...
(Paywallled, subscription required.)

...

We must thank them for this favour

[ricktas]

Nothing quite like a paid 'opinion' piece, is there?

Way to much of the 'news' is actually infomercials theses days. The mainstream media gets call out quite regularly for its inaccuracy etc and yet it still does stuff like this. It really is its own worst enemy when it comes to being a trusted news source. So many people have given up reading the newspapers and watching the free-to-air news services, because they see through this rubbish.

[Tannin]

^ Just so Rick.

Mind you, this was nothing compared to the multi-colour, multi-page lift-out extravaganza special feature that same paper has about once a month on ... wait for it ... watches. Huge printing costs, all of it advertorial. I doubt they sell many, not at the sort of prices those things go for, not when no-one needs a watch anymore as we all carry phones, not when those $10,000 plus watches have exactly the same accuracy as a $5 one, and less than anything which connects on-line and corrects itself daily. My guess is that they only need to sell a handful each time because the profit margin on each one is measured in thousands.

[ricktas]

My grandfather many years ago told me about watches.

You buy a $10 watch to tell you the time.
You buy a $10,000 watch to show others the time.
Other than that, there is often no difference in their ability to tell the time.