Smartphone cameras have really improved .... but they aren't worth this type of device yet.
But considering all the capabilities beside raw image quality they are not crazy far from it either.
Don't knock it until the pictures come in. ... Then by all means.
I have a orange smallish Pelican case I have used for a while on bush trips.
The latches are kind of a pain, but water has never got inside. The lid is heavy enough that it can tip the whole case over and dump my camera over a cliff if careless. Yes it is way too heavy. Never dropped it from more than walking height but it doesn't seem likely to break.
The inside is a little cheap with the foamy cutouts but not sure if there is a better way.
I think making it lighter is probably a good idea. If I dropped my current case from height, the momentum of the camera components inside the case crashing against each other would probably destroy everything anyways ... foamies or no.
And I wouldn't use a Pellican case on a plane unless it never left my hands. May as well put a big sign saying "steal me" on it.
I am hoping this was the plan all along .....
This has potential for both cinema and gaming. Currently with the possible exception of CDProjectREd (if you are very generous), computer game devs spend all their energy making gameworlds and violence simulators, but the actual finished game experience is unbelievably un-compelling.
Perhaps this tech could actually streamline production and allow game devs to focus on making a compelling game, with actual branching storylines, real choice and real consequence, and fully reactive and destructible environments.
To those that think you can replace this with PP. With a really good camera with the very best dynamic range and low noise, perhaps you can to some extent.
Water just doesn't behave in panorama and HDR because of its patterned but changing nature.
I have spent a good deal of PP fixing moving wave anomalies in panoramas. In light light environments you minimize with burst shooting and cherry picking frames. In low light well ... good luck with that.
The problem with these filters is framing ... what happens if you don't want the light boundary in the middle of the frame. This should come as a set of 3 not 2 with the extra one with the light boundary 2/3 up/down the filter.
Thank you Google ..... Why not release the source code too so that others can build on it....
These Nik plugins are really good when used in moderatio with the appropriate type of shot.
This free release may be inconvient for Adobe as CS6 users may be even less likely to CC. If some these tools got seamlessly integrated into Lightroom .... That would be good. As far as I can tell most are already there .... But there are differences. Detail extraction in Nik is not the same as clarity in Lightroom even when you fudge around with all the other LR sliders.
Nik does things differently enough to definitely be worth a free install. Yes some of it is plain ugly, especially on the wrong subject .... But
Google Nik Download stuck at 12.6/429 MB every time .... nevermind worked 15 min later
Sirandar: I would be the first to admit that cataloging new images in my collection is a chore.
The real question is whether this technology can be accurate and inclusive enough to meet my expectations and make less work instead of more.
If I need to double check my picture tags for both errors and omissions it will make more work not less.
This seems like an enticement for end users to move their pictures to the cloud as it isn't going to offered cloud free. If it works it might just do that.
In some ways the cloud is good because 99.99% of pictures are destined to be deleted when their owner dies. If they are on the cloud at least these pictures may have historical value.
Interesting ..... I am not all that worried about losing my Lightroom catalog and settings. Lightroom is constantly backing it up and I have a constant weekly entire system backup with a second monthly backup off site.
Will Adobe try to screw me over? ... they already have with CC, but I really can't blame them as few people are willing to pay for software when they can steal it.
I plan on keeping my Oly OMD for a long long time so I really don't care than nonCC Lightroom won't fully support any new camera I will buy.
And Lightroom really is a wonderfully designed database/ developer for raw pictures. It all fits together so well and even the map feature works well.
From the OP of this subpost: I use Lightroom and all my photos stay raw with adjustments unless I really messed up composure and need Photoshop. Every single photo gets fully and deeply tagged and those I define as "keepers" get a 5 star rating.
New tech and evolution of tastes and style sometimes allows re-visitation of photos you may not appreciate when you took them and tagged.
And in Lightroom a given raw can be split into numerous copies with different PP, and this takes up less space than if you actually convert all the variants to jpg.
Seem like you guys are only using a fraction of Lightroom's capability. I would never even consider leaving raw format unless i have to. Hard disk space is dirty cheap.
Sirandar: no micro4/3 ......... ?
I have been looking for a decently priced prime in the 100-150mm range and there are none I have seen.
The Oly 40-150 pro is huge and almost 2000$
@FinDERP I have looked at those m4/3 adapters and tired a few used lenses on them. Most available to try were not good as Olympus lenses, even the Oly 40-150 (non-pro) and those that were close or better weren't better enough to justify the loss of auto.
Can you recommend an adapter and prime lens in the 100-150mm range that I could fit on my OMD EM5 that would be worth the trouble?
I would be the first to admit that cataloging new images in my collection is a chore.
The Oly 75mm is a very tempting lens for me, but it is too close to my oly 45mm prime to justify the price and the extra space.
I almost bought the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 as it was also very tempting, but not tempting enough for the price and the benefit over my Oly 40-150 (non-pro)
I am looking for a prime lens as sharp Oly 45mm prime in the 100-150mm range. Not sure why neither oly or pana makes one. Oly did make a 300mm but thats too much $$$ and size.
If the price of the Oly 40-150pro dropped below 1000$ CDN I would probably buy, but it is too big for lugging around where I go.
no micro4/3 ......... ?
dansclic: Why wondering : it is stated that they will nomore produce cameras. Why should they spend money on products that no retailler in thé world will stock ??
"Because the good camera is manufactured by a company with no conviction in their own product. Why should a retailer stock any product when the company who produces it has no confidence in its success or the ability to successfully promote it."
Suppliers only care about one thing currently: "Short Term Profit" They couldn't care less about perceived confidence. They care about their cut, the number of units they can move and any sweetheart deals they have in place.
And why wouldn't they stock such a good camera?
So sad, the NX1 seemed like a great camera with excellent post release firmware support. Won gold on Dpreview too.
I hope all the truly talented that designed, implemented and supported the NX1 find someplace that appreciates them. I wonder that will be at Samsung, or they will just get the boot.
Part of this may be that Samsung bet on the wrong horse, with smartphones and cameras like the FZ1000 being a seemingly better option. With every iteration both get better .... Previously camera like the FZ1000 were quickly and quietly killed off, but times have changed and gouging for lenses just doesn't cut it anymore. Not enough people are willing to pay.
The Oly 40-150 Pro would be tempting to me if it was much cheaper, but that isn't going to happen .... right now it is 1.5-2.0x the price of a FZ1000.
Doesn't seem like a very compelling camera, but it is relatively cheap.
Not everyone can drop 2K on a camera.
Yes the sensor is small, but that doesn't mean non-cropped pictures can't be sharp enough for most uses.
The kicker will be dynamic range, as lack of this looms its ugly head quite often in casual and semi-casual shooting. I am guessing dynamic range will be crap, an Sony will try to compensate with an HDR multishot solution.
Shiranai: "chances are that if you own a late model mobile device running either Lollipop or Marshmallow, you should now be able to use the Adobe DNG Raw format."
Nope, because the manufacturer has to implement it. So there is currently just a handful of devices that support it. Including the Nexus phones, Galaxy S6 and LG G4. Huawei for instance does not have any device.
Galaxy Note 4 doesn't either