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.
From what I see, this might be a truly beautiful lens. I suppose it can be directly compared with Olympus stellar 14-35mm F2.0.
This lens looks so promising, that I personally am thinking about changing the system to be able to use it.
Isn't this a bit nonsensical? If a cheap camera is used OK; but this Nikon, neither the lens are cheap. To expensive professinal equipment into a field-untested homemade box that should protect the camera from impact and water?
As a stark contrast to launch of this Leica - just look at the user's comments on sigma F1.8 zoom. People love it, and are ready to pay whatever for it (me included).
If this Leica is really a posh accessory, why couldn't they make it a really good posh accessory? Constant F2.8 or even F3.5 would suffice, but what they did really baffles me. - The question is not the amount of money for this tool, but the fact it is hardly usable with sensor and lens limitation.
And when we are at lens, what kind of crap is that? The released samples show loads of problems, and at that price point, there shouldn't be *any* aberrations, or falls of sharpness. And especially on the compact with lens designed for it. I used Sigma DP1, which I was not happy with, but the lens sharpness wide open were top-notch. Now, if you consider the price of DP1 compared to this, it seems like they think buyers are idiots. And literally - owner of this camera would be close to an idiot (I apologize on the wording).
mrmut: Acceptable price for a great lens.
When they published specifications of this lens, that was the reason for me to start thinking about system change. Somewhere in that time Canon also announced their small and light camera, so there two would be paired beautifully.
Thanks for replies; All.
I am aware of the weight issues, but consider this: I currently use E-450 (which is even lighter than the Canon's offering), with ZD-25 F2.8 lens, which is incredibly light (about 100gr). However, today, I had to mount Sigma 35 F1.4 to that same camera, to photograph an event. All vent fine, but sigma is about 500 gr or more. So, when you consider the gain from such an astounding zoom, and (relatively) small weight penalty, I am all in it for this. Essentially fro all purposes, from travel to even photography (I really like small cameras).
For the m43 comment - I don't like them. Even SLR cameras are sterile, compared to rangefinders [and I don't want to pay for Leica (cameras and lenses are expendable tools)], and m43 is even more so. When you look through that digital window into the world, it cuts you out completely from the scene.
Acceptable price for a great lens.
Sean65: I like it. The more I look at it the more I like it BUT I wish it had a fixed f4 and was £500 cheaper. I also think from a design perspective the command dial would have looked better in black.
Not surprised to see all the usual hatred this forum is famed for from it's non photography, flat earthed members who still think more everything = better. lol.
This is nonsensical camera, it is slow even during daylight, and to compensate for the lens slowness, it needs to be shot at ISO 1600-12000 which won't produce much usable images.
This is kind of a posh carry-around. Even suggested F4 is too slow, but that could be somewhere like acceptable, but not this.
As it seems now, this camera is consciously designed piece, and as such I don't pity them as they became joke of the day, along with Lunar. Imagine if Apple would produce something as stupid as this? People would bury them.
And it is not the question of money, either, just common sense, exactly on which they play a bit dumb game. (Meaning - people aren't that stupid.