What is the pixel-level quality? This image is easily of fine-art quality.
Sdaniella: user programmable pixel level multi-iso (multi-gain) full res color zone-system full frame Ultra-HDR (DR 22+ EV) stills (video) real time capture FF 40mp+ (adjustable + previewable LIVE with Canon Final Image Simulation) with IQ with clean finest detail and 'no noise' (NR that doesn't distort details) in extreme lowest light (below 0.01 lux) dual-pixel PDAF (full-frame) ... and throw in global shutter, too ... (sensor that runs much cooler than any todate; DiG!C #?) ... and up to 240fps+ (intended for HDR flexibility) ... H.265 for video 4k/8k and 2k/1080p ... and ... tri-mode evf-ovf hybrid VF with a top hinged modular VASS (vari-angle swivel screen) ... touch screen wifi remote ...
(\ /)( o.o) ---( hehehehe ... )o(")(")
as for medium format ... they'd have to create a whole bunch of EOS E-MF lenses ... unlikely (not impossible)
Made my day :-)
Really great. X100 is on my wish list for a while now. Pity DxO Optics doesn't support new sensor, would buy 100T this instant.
mrmut: This is rude. I would sue, and request reparations.
The same situation is if a remote IR trigger is set, which would result in a photo when an animal snap it. If not for a photographer, the image would not exist.
I came to think that the monkey had a hidden agenda.
Easycass: A simplified view...
Definition: To 'take' a photo means 'initiate the exposure', regardless of where the camera is mounted, what is in the frame, who or what is holding the camera, how much lugging it took to get there, how much expense, how much post-processing was done, who posted it, or where it was posted. Agreed?
Copyright: If a person initiates an exposure, whether a single shot, a self-timed, remote-released or trigger-released shot, creating a single exposure, sequence of exposures or video sequence, then, unless the person waives their rights in some written agreement, they own the copyright. Agreed?
Scenario 1: If a person is not holding the camera, but initiates the exposure(s) then copyright is theirs.
Scenario 2: If a person is not holding the camera, and does not initiate the exposure(s) then copyright is not theirs. If the exposure was initiated by another human, copyright belongs to that other person. If not initiated by a human, there is no copyright.
It is simple, really - the photographer did initiate the exposure, by giving the camera to monkey.
If he had handed a bomb to monkey, and monkey activated it, would anyone blame the monkey?
This is rude. I would sue, and request reparations.
NeilJones: 12mp is only really good for posting on Facebook. Looks like most photogs out there will be fine! Doh.
Good one. :-)
mrmut: Viewing war photos during exhibitions often makes me wander how in the world a photographer got out of that alive AND take a picture.
I am not sure if we should mourn war photographers, given that they accepted their faith in advance; mourning them seems a bit disrespectful. It makes much more sense just to appreciate photographer's work.
Apart from that, Afghanistan was not a very smart move for a woman photographer. Her presence there was insulting to locals on many levels (regardless of how that can be perceived by westerners - it is Afghans' country).
Just as an update - took a look at the documentary, but it didn't impress me. OTOH I personally met an talked extensively with some of the actual war photographers, all in all, it seemed to me that they all carry deep wounds that make them do what they do.
The color after calibration is unrealistic, especially with monks.
I have been using Xrite ACR calibrator and Color Checker while ago. - They are a joke. ACR has really bad profiles as is, and it is not that CC and Yrite will fix that. I have also tried whole load of other calibration software packages, and in short - if you want precision, you need color checked SG, ideal lighting, and very expensive profiling software. The common Color Checker useful just to very if the colors are (relatively) OK.
But there is a trick! - If you want precise colors easy, just ask the manufacturer what settings to tick in their in-house RAW developer. And voila! The only thing left is precision of white balance.
The best way to verify the color precision is:1. take a RAW photo of a colorful painting2. load and process the image on a calibrated screen3. put a painting one the side of a screen and light it well with light of correct temp
If the painting and the monitor image match, you are there.
A beautiful ode to consumerism, mixed with an enormous amount of pretentiousness (just take a look at their advert). What everyone would appreciate is that they made a Micro 43 body with CCD sensor with no AA filter. Or something in that line. This "T" is just nonsense. (Make a T camera, and not make it from Titanium at that price point. I would like to see them bragging about machining titanium.)
The comments below about how long this product is built to last is also very interesting. Any electronic or mechanical camera system can last however long you want it to, given you service it when needed. And when service is in Q, any professional system will do the same. My 11 year old Olympus E-1 is routinely sent to service, and all is fine. Try that with M8.
This is another idiotic product for rich people that don't know sh*t about photography. And yes, Hasselblad Luna immediately came to my mind. These two, and Leica X cameras all go hand-in-hand.
This is sick. If I haven't seen it, I wouldn't believe it.
It is important not to impose own values to other people, especially to those of other ethnicity / nation. Afghanistan is a very poor country that has seen a succession of occupations by powerful states during the last two hundred or so years. Each of those imposed their set of values, and each time there was many civilian casualties. Moralizing this situation from a cozy room and in front of a computer connected to internet, seems like a Monthy Pyton sketch.
Viewing war photos during exhibitions often makes me wander how in the world a photographer got out of that alive AND take a picture.
Why, the camera looks fine. It is certainly more sensible thing than the Lunar. The price just reflects the target audience, so I don't think it is a big deal.
mrmut: This is kind of nonsensical - pro workflow, but with a terrible display. MacBook Airs have displays that change color and contrast too much in regard to view angle. I tried using one, and it pi**ed me off. However, MacBook Pro is completely different story.
Thank you for replying Mr. Schloss. Why did you go for air, instead of 13" MBPro? MBP 13" is trivially heavier, and also has a Retina display.
This is kind of nonsensical - pro workflow, but with a terrible display. MacBook Airs have displays that change color and contrast too much in regard to view angle. I tried using one, and it pi**ed me off. However, MacBook Pro is completely different story.
Wow, this is a really nice move. :)
Emacs23: I got my words back: Prime is the BEST commercial denoiser right now.Here is the test, the D800E at ISO 3200: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/D800EhSLI03200.jpgTruly spectacular!And high resolution sensors, such as one used in D800(E) or A7r will obviously benefit from it: put an NR, downsample. Profit!
Yeah, I came to this conclusion myself. First I done some quick testing, and PRIME looked fine. However, now I processed several hundred of awful images, and the results are jaw-dropping. It works so well, that some 30 or 40 images of mine that I marked as unusable junk passed stringent quality control at respectable stock site.
Now, the program is sluggish, but who cares. - The computer can work over night. :-)
Tested the software a bit. - PRIME works really good, and it is not that slow - about 1:15 on my machine, per 10MP image.
Compared to ACR denoising, PRIME works better. I would say that it does much more than just one stop. The images looks smoother, and the details remain.
For the software in general - it is simpler than before, and with less aggressive initial settings.
All in all, swell. - And the PRIME is fantastic.