That sensor is so sensitive, you have to be careful what you say around it.
Petrogel: Unfortunately, Apple stays Internet depended, Thunderbolt remain useless, usb 3 is not an option (on iPads, as far as i know) and the useless 5k is the main feature for iMacs,
Well, that just means the 5K monitor is useless to you, not useless. Reports are that there seems to be no performance penalty using the 5K monitor, so the question changes from "why have it" to "why not have it" and then, "why do you specifically hate it so very much?"
This is a photography site, how is a 5K monitor "useless?" 5K means you can show and edit an entire 14-megapixel photo at 1:1 scale! The reduction in having to zoom and pan around your photo is potentially a great productivity enhancer.
steve_hoge: Does that orange case help you find the drive after it's fallen overboard? Or is it just screaming "steal me"?
I don't own one, but since it's built for travel, the orange is not a bad thing. It beats trying to find a black box in a black bag that's full of black gear, during a night shoot in the field...
Almeida: Honest question: what about android? The app needs to be updated or already has this?
@markie1977 the reasons are, iOS is said to be a better place as a starting point and to refine the design of an app before branching out to the other OSs, iOS is not nearly as fragmented as Android, in submarkets like photography iOS may actually have more share (similar to how Mac market share in creative is significantly higher than in general). And finally, iOS users are more likely to pay for apps. As an example:https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/481978101920849921
Developers consistently report that iOS Average Revenue Per User is four times higher than Android.
Hipstamatic may be losing money, but for all the usual business reasons, adding an Android version is not a guaranteed way to save the company. And if they are as poorly managed as you say, supporting a new platform could even sink the company.
The real test, of course, is to see how many of the "I miss film, digital ruined photography" crowd actually buys enough product to keep ventures like this and The Impossible Project alive.
If you don't, then it doesn't matter what is posted on message boards, you chose digital through your actions regardless of your words.
Nothing to do with hipness, just the usual business reasons why Android isn't always the best platform for develop for first. Nothing personal about it...and market share is not a good enough reason.
Joseph Black: http://opensignal.com/reports/2014/android-fragmentation/This is why developers hate making apps for Android-based phones.
"Consdering how cheap some Android phones are Apple should, by all rights, be completely out of business by now."
No, it is the opposite. Apple knows what they are doing. Every sane businessman knows that low prices don't keep a company going, margins do. That's why Apple doesn't care what happens in the low end of the PC or smartphone market. Apple is the most profitable PC vendor, the vendor with the highest market share in PCs over $1000, and one of the few PC makers consistency experiencing growth.
In the smartphone market, Apple doesn't care about the Race to the Bottom there either. Samsung just issued a financial warning that their operating profits will be down 60 percent. Why? They are getting hammered at the high end by Apple and slaughtered at the low end by Xiaomi and other low-cost Chinese phone makers.
Apple wants customers who can afford to pay for apps. Developers follow the money. It isn't Apple who is paying companies to develop apps for iOS. It's the customers.
justnuaces: For whom is asking if Apple is paying Adobe for develop the softwares for iOS (and cutting out Android)…
The answer is "yes", at least partially.
Some Adobe softwares are in the Apple App Store, and probably the delay for Android is part of the agreement.Probably Adobe had to wait for the Android version in order to spare money (i.e. lowering the fee to Apple for staying in the App Store).
I've no proof, and this is my personal opinion, but it seems likely to me.a_
It is probably not payments or anything like that. It is probably just business.
Everybody has their own pet conspiracy theory and they all sound wrong when you take a bigger look. The Android users believe it is a payoff because they don't get Android apps. But the Mac users, who still believe (erroneously I think) that Adobe hates Apple, noticed that this morning the Microsoft CEO came on stage with the Adobe CEO to help push Adobe apps on the Surface Pro 3. And so it continues, Mac users think Adobe is anti-Apple while Android users believe Adobe is pro-Apple, and Adobe just goes about their business.
Bruce Clarke: More features for iThings, and still nothing for Android. It's been a very long wait.
Android is the most used smartphone software, but that does not mean it is the most used by the market Adobe is interested in.
HowaboutRAW: So no Samsung NX1, or Panasonic LX100, or Canon G7X--all kind of interesting cameras--and IR has already posted some raws from the Canon.
Also Leica uses DNG, so unless the newest Leicas only use a very very new version of DNG, older versions of ACR should work with say the S2(type 700), so this Leica V-Lus seems odd.
if you know the history of raw developing, you know that the issue of who is responsible was obvious long ago. All software companies, Apple, Adobe, etc. have to take the time to reverse-engineer the raw files because most camera companies are unwilling to share the formats even when asked. The software companies would be more than willing to provide immediate support if only the camera companies were not so restrictive and proprietary.
There are some enlightened companies like Pentax and Hasselblad who have cameras that can output DNG. Their formats do not need raw updates from Apple or Adobe.
SAERIN: Real-World Samples.
That are almost/preface to a review of a camera.
Certainly, they are not artistic.
Just mundane images.
Please have your photographers staff post some creative work.
The purpose of the gallery is to show examples under various technical scenarios. It already takes long enough for them to finish reviews. If you are to subject the sample images to some arbitrary subjective aesthetic criteria, then it will take even longer for them to finish their reviews for no good reason.
RStyga: JPEG only? What's the point?
What would be the point of raw, since by definition the way the raw look is up to the combination of software and operator. Raw would be less useful for why this gallery exists, which is to compare to other cameras at factory settings for final output. That is a consistent baseline that you can compare to other cameras.
tbcass: What good is in camera RAW processing. Isn't JPG from a camera a RAW image converted to JPG. I just don't get it because it seems completely useless.
I should have added on...if I shoot raw for development so an in-camera JPEG would not look good, but I need a good JPEG to send immediately, and I don't have a computer on me, it would be useful to use the camera to adjust the raw and then generate a JPEG that looks good.
But that is assuming that you do have the opportunity to adjust the color and tone before generating the JPEG in camera. I don't know if that's true but if it is then it's useful, if not then I wouldn't have any use for it.
I agree that the feature is probably rarely needed by most people.
dom33: I think this will become very popular. I predict they will shift their business model from lens rental to try-before-you-buy.
I doubt they will shift that way completely. The reason lens rental companies succeed is because even successful studios can't afford to buy every lens they might need occasionally. If LensRentals just wanted to be a store they would end up competing with Amazon and B&H, which would be brutal. Anyone who wants to "try before you buy" can already take advantage of the generous return policies of those stores.
By staying a rental store they would preserve their high position in a lucrative niche.
Raw+JPEG is fine if you don't care about using up extra space on the card for every picture, and if you shoot for the way it looks in the viewfinder.
But it doesn't work for me because I shoot for optimal development, so the raws don't look right out of the camera.
Ironically if you are shooting for the perfect shot in camera, there may be no point in using raw since all the advantages of raw are hard to see unless you make big edits...today's JPEG can withstand minor edits just fine.
Any discussion of whether the LX100 deserves to exist is merely an academic exercise, after you look at the interest level. On DPR's own front page, the poll asks "What was the most interesting new camera at Photokina?" and the number one camera is the LX100 with one out of every four votes cast. And the LX100 is number two in the Most Popular Cameras graph farther down the page.
Those polls show that a lot of photographers want the LX100's camera category (enthusiast compact with non removable lens) to succeed, even if they will not be buying the LX100 itself.
I have no use for in-camera raw processing, but my guess would be it's if you shot in raw and you are still out in the field, but you need a JPEG ASAP to upload to your editor/blog/client whatever, and you aren't near a computer. Or all you are carrying is a phone or tablet with no raw decoding software loaded.
If those are the use cases, the feature is even more useful if the camera can connect wirelessly to a mobile device that can upload.
Seriously, fascinating stuff. Keep it up!
Too bad the chemtrail freaks are totally going to steal that image of kegs and republish it as "proof"...
Rob Bernhard: The premise that niche markets benefit all photographers rings hollow. Niche markets benefit well-heeled photographers. Woe is you if you are a photographer on a budget.
It used to be, a few years ago, that you couldn't get much useful unless you spent at least $1000. I saved up to get my first DSLR, a Canon Rebel XT, which was a big investment for me at $799. It did the job, but we all know what we think of that camera today: Pretty basic.
I am starting to come around to your point that enthusiast cameras aren't that much cheaper than a DSLR. But the reason for that is the realization that cheap DSLRs have gotten so good!
The photographer today who has the $800 I had benefits from a much richer selection of cameras with much better capabilities than I got for $800.
The end result of where photography is going is that the poor photographer is better off than ever. The capabilities available today for under $1000 are astounding.
And if you are truly poor, why not spend $200-300 on a used body? The market is flooded with former top-of-the-line bodies overcome by rapid advances in technology.
It's never been a better time to be a poor photographer.