pdelux: Another nail in the coffin of the M4/3 format. Not long now before this Format dies as the experts have predicted. How can anyone survive with so many brands using it, too many lenses to choose from, too much competition.
Whats next Kodak back from the dead with M4/3 mount?
Come on people, isn't it obvious pdelux is being sarcastic? And yes, BarnEt, he does know about the Kodak, which is exactly why he threw that sentence in, which I'm sure he thought would make his sarcasm obvious. I guess you can never be obvious enough on the net.
AliRoust: This computer's LCD only displays about 67% of the Adobe RGB color space. And, you can only see 8 bit color!! For this price tag it's simply ridiculous. For those photographers and graphic designers that have worked in a 10 bit color space and have high end monitors ( such as NEC, EIZO, Lacie) displaying 98% of Adobe RGB, this is a major downgrade... By that I mean, going from about 1 billion colors to 16.7 million. All that "Retina" labeling sounds good but definitely doesn't look good...Apple makes no LCD, laptop or computer that can accommodate that!? Yet their prices are up there...Unfortunately for those of us who have seen 10 bit images, there is no going back.See my detailed review under comment section on Amazonhttp://www.amazon.com/Apple-MacBook-ME294LL-15-4-Inch-Display/product-reviews/B0096VD85I/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
We're talking about *laptops* here, not high end desktop monitors! Can any *laptop* reproduce AdobeRGB? None that I know of. So how can that be a knock against the Air?
Greg VdB: There's several alternatives by now with ultra-high resolution screens, some not weighing more than a Mac Book Air.(for instance: http://blog.laptopmag.com/top-retina-macbook-pro-alternatives?slide=1 )This in itself doesn't make the article uninteresting (I'm all for little glimpses into a professional's workflow), but somehow we never see other brands than Apple mentioned on these kind of articles on DPR... (correct me if I'm wrong)
Your article cites alternatives to the MacBook *Pro*, which is far heavier than the Air. Apple bashers would have a lot more credibility if they got their basic facts straight.
Such a limited lens at such an inflated price - with AF problems and at an odd focal length to boot - and it gets a silver award? I understand that it has some specialist appeal (particularly as a portrait lens, but arguably at the wrong focal length), but shouldn't it be a whole lot more of an all-round good performer to get an award?
Am I the only one who thinks the original unmodified shot is superior? Indeed, I find I almost always think that when I see these Photoshop tutorials - fake, hyped colour can never look as good as the real thing IMHO.
Sonyshine: A nice effort from Panasonic and it will probably do well as a second or third body.
It also strikes me that Nikon got it just right with their 1 series cameras - its just such a shame Nikon first got their pricing terribly wrong, then panicked and slashed their prices, then panicked again and told the whole world the 1 series future is up for debate - don't Nikon understand that their 1 series is really really good? Their cameras are small, the lenses are extremely small and light and compact.
They just need to get out there and sell it properly!
JWest: you're only looking at the camera itself; when it comes to the lenses, APS-C is huge compared with Micro 4/3rds (and the bodies themselves). The latter is a much better compromise, as IQ is virtually as good, but the lenses really are significantly smaller.
This is proof of how much colour adds to a photo. The current trend in PP of "black and white equals art" is massively overused, and usually detracts more than it adds.
IMHO, the amount of post processing on so many photos these days means they *are* more like paintings than photos. The only image I would consider to be a true photo here is the house one, and possibly the first one (if so this *is* a remarkable illusion). We need a new term for these sorts of images - they may be based on photos, but have been taken far from them.
Careful if you compare images from the three Olympus: DPReview opted to use the mZuiko 45mm on the E-M1 & E-P5, but the (better) Zuiko 50mm f/2 on the E-M5... As a result, I deem that this test - for my own purpose of deciphering any sort of IQ difference btw the three said models - isn't as reliable as I had hoped! Just be careful not to come to believe that the E-M5 is significantly better than the new E-M1; just arm the E-M1 with the 50mm or the 12-60mm, and let the real show begin...
Thanks for pointing that out - I was wondering why the E-M5 sample images looked so much sharper than the E-M1's. DPR, please correct this - stick with the 50mm so we can do accurate comparisons with other 4/3rds models (and there will likely never be a sharper lens anyway).
A predictable response from the purist snobs, but I think these actually look more realistic than a lot of the over-processed photo-paintings so many professional (and amateur) photographers churn out these days. Absolutely brilliantly done.
I can't think of a better advertisement for gun control than the first photograph. I can't think of a better advertisement for birth control either.
Getting a shot like this is the reason cameras were invented. Refreshingly, it doesn't look PPed to death either.
It just doesn't work for me - it looks like he's superimposed translucent strips of colour over a base image or something. And given that you have a single set of fireworks stretching over three time periods (for example), this is obviously true to an extent. The clouds are the same throughout the first image too. If he wants it to work, he should do what he says he is doing without this trickery.
Frugaltraveler: I'm certain mine is just as stunning http://www.flickr.com/photos/frugaltravelrus/9277188731/
Actually, I like yours much better - it actually looks real! Mother nature looks infinitely better than the massively over-processed so called 'photos' (I would call them Photoshop art) that professional photographers churn out these days.
I must say I'm very disappointed with DxO's lens testing chart - it doesn't allow me to visually determine lens sharpness at all. The old DPR chart (with its cross hatch boxes) was far better for this purpose.
The most artistic shot in this challenge, but it only gets two and a half stars and 55th place. Hmmm...
Frozenshutter: Too bad this was shot at 6400 ISO. Kind of hard to tell about lens acuity when all the resolution is smeared away.
Agreed - I went straight to this image thinking it would be a good test of lens performance, but the high ISO noise and NR smearing make it completely useless for this purpose.
Is Pentax on some kind of mission to produce the dumbest mirrorless product ever? First there was the Q system itself, then there was the K-01 with all the disadvantages of both a DSLR and mirrorless without any of the advantages of either, and now the most absurd, pointless and useless adaptor ever conceived. I'd be amazed if they even sell one of these!
scorpiondrums: This is such a great capture!!
That's not a capture! That's a creation.
Derek Bach: Is or will ACR 7 be available for PS- Elements 10? I cannot find it on the Adobe web siteDerek
I was wondering about that too, but in the info for the latest update, it says 6.7 is the last version for Elements 10. So the only way to avoid the CS tax is to get Lightroom it seems.