rubank: Seems very nice, BUTI don´t understand the design. The very short handgrip make for a very unbalanced feeling with a bigger lens, there is no support for the lower part of the palm. Strange.
Seems very nice, BUTI don´t understand the design. The very short handgrip make for a very unbalanced feeling with a bigger lens, there is no support for the lower part of the palm. Strange.
At 400 mm really unimpressive :(
In my experience tele zooms are more often used at max zoom than at shorter settings, and yet few seems to be optimized for the longest FL. Weird.And at that price it´s a shame.
The poor guy in the last pic seems to suffer from yellow fever...
All over, WB is not a priority, obviously. (Of course my screen could be totally off...)
These images will hardly sell that lens :D
DAJM: Corel claim that the Aftershot products work with RAW files from the Nikon D810. They don't. Or, at least, the free trial versions I downloaded don't. Has anyone here solved this problem?
I´m using D810 and had no problems working with the RAW files in AS Pro2 trial version.That I didn´t like the results (as explained further down) is another matter.Sorry, can´t help you on your specific problems with D810 RAWs, I´ve already uninstalled it.
As much as I like some Corel products (Draw and Photo-Paint which I use a lot) I have never seen a really competitive RAW developer from them. And AS Pro2 still doesn´t cut it, IMO.
Weird colour blothces in Hi Iso shots that sometimes disappear in preview and then reappear but are always there on output. And the NR sliders make no sense to me since the effect seems very vaguely related to the setting.
Too bad, seems very hard to make anything better than ACR - or even equal.
Interesting.Three control wheels and ISO both on the mode dial and as a separate button.I wonder what they´re thinking...
Aren´t these news more in line with the interests of the DPR audience?
STR54: Just one favor Tamron. Could you create a weather-sealed, close focusing 400mm F4 VC telephoto prime that is $2k less than the Canon counterpart? Please!
That shouldn´t be hard, Tamron made an excellent 400/4 MF lens some 25 yrs ago so the recipe is in the house :)(I have the 300/2,8 MF from the same era, nice lens)
Ouch!The RAWs with lifted shadows show severe banding. Unusably severe.What a shame, it´s not like there´s no good 24 Mp FF sensors out there....
Neodp: Not withstand the efficacy of the update and overall good or not enough improvement(s) then their its a much greater point here....
No one (hardly?) said (possible or not) this camera was deficient in tracking AF or low light comparatively when they were promoting it's first adopter goodness and new pros!
What does that have to do with value? It means you can't know until the camera has been out a while and put through it's paces for the tasks photographers value the most. It begs the question; what benefits matter most? Subjectivity is not a wide... as it is made out to be. Yes there's room for subjective benefits and horses for courses to a point. There no accounting for tastes. Yet that view is completely overblown; from the perspective of new camera design. Yes that should include the user need, that's the photographer that actually takes pictures. Not Gear Acquisition and paper specs alone. There's a lot more to a total camera than that. It's a warning about over priced vanity.
No, you´re not.
Searching: OK, I see it is only available in CC and not CS6.
It is available for CS6 herehttp://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/03/keeping-photoshop-up-to-date.html#notconnected
rubank: How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)
Yeah, 1/160 sec and f/16 is a givaway. Extremely bright, eh.:)
How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)
Pat Cullinan Jr: These images are flat and have a cool cast. I hit some of them hard with Photoshop and achieved snap and pop. I applied White Point to remove the cast. Digital ROC was no help.
Is this a beta example?
Everybody's having a great time on a memorable sunny day.
There are some flat and cool pics for sure, but they are mainly with the 100-300 lens as it seems (on my screen).
BarnET: Have to admit.For a 50mp sensor the ISO performance is pretty impressive!
To BarnET:Not if you process to the same output size AND the same resolution. Then the high Mp sensors win even at high ISO.
rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.
Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).
This will turn into an endless debate if we were to continue, so I´ll just recommend that you d/l the 16 Mp RAW and the 64 Mp (HR) RAW. Convert them (e.g. in ACR) and pixel peep to your hearts content. That should do it.
Don´t look at DPR:s HR conversion because there is something wrong in their conversion. D/l and do your own conversion. I use ACR at default settings.
You can actually see the advantage even when pixel peepeing, but the point is that an image is almost always resampled for output and the diffraction is the same regardless of sensor pixel pitch - it is a property of the lens.
If you have troubles seeing this, take your own studio scene at f/5,6 and develop it to a 64 Mp image and tell me where you see the diffraction effects...
You´re right about the number of images, but wrong on everything else. Diffraction isn´t worse than for a single 16 Mp image.