Jogger: Makes no sense to not include the Nikon Df or D4s.. in terms of sensor performance, they are the most logical ones to include in a test of low-mp FF sensors.
That is true for their reviews and using the studio comparison tool, but in this particular instance they wanted to compare these cameras using the same exact lens in an outside the studio scenario.
It would make more sense with the Nikon Df than the D4s due to the price difference between all the cameras, despite them using the same/similar sensor.
While in comparing sensors it makes sense, for this scenario it would not be a complete identical comparison since the Df would be using a different lens. One of the points of this comparison was to see how all three cameras compared using the same exact lens.
What may be a better comparison is to have a separate comparison using the A7S, A7R, and the Df with the same Nikon lens mounted on all three of them.
JamesD28: The only 2 nude photos in the whole challenge take the top 2 places...... coincidence?
I didn't miss the point, it's quite obvious what you were implying. But you said that the only two nudes took the top places when clearly that wasn't true.
I do agree that I think there are better pictures or ones that are more clever in the use of the challenge subject, but the votes come in from forum members and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see it all the time at my camera club too. A picture doesn't always have to be technically superior, it just needs to appeal to the viewer/judges better than the other photos.
Entry that took 19th place. Very nice black and white that is deceiving at a distance. Pretty tasteful, has character.
Apparently, you didn't look at enough of the submissions to see that is not the case.
Stefan Sobol: This shows the problem with using "the cloud". If the provider of the service you are using has technical issues or just goes out of business, the application that you rely on or the data the your business needs could be unavailable or lost. Even if the provider is still operating, if a guy crashes his car into the pole that holds up your internet line (for example), it could be days til the internet provider sends someone around to fix it (ever tried getting cable TV installed in a timely manner?).
Every internet provider contract says they are not liable for any damages if the service is unavailable for any reason, just that they will fix it as soon as practical (i.e. when they get around to it). I'm sure the EULA for Adobe Creative Suite also says pretty much the same thing.
I might use "the cloud" for remote access storage (e.g. Dropbox). However, I would not ever use it as a necessary service or as my sole repository.
On site storage is cheap but a high risk if it is the same place you keep your backups.
The benefit of cloud (ie, offsite) storage is the ability to reduce the risk of loss due to a catastrophic failure or disaster. A "don't put all your eggs in one basket" situation, so to speak.
Using cloud storage isn't bad providing you don't rely solely on it, just like how local backups are not bad providing you don't depend only on them.
gmke: I am NOT interested in this camera because of some Sony snake oil. Here we have the world's premiere maker of photo sensors building a defect into a camera design that seriously hampers deep ISO. The claim is that the "translucent" mirror only steals 1/3 of an f-stop. Go to the SLT-A77 jpeg noise page and choose the Oly E-M5, Nikon D5100, and Panasonic G3 for comparison, all at normal or standard noise reductions. Note that the noises at ISO-3200 on the E-M5 and D5100 are very well controlled. Then drop the ISO back to 800 and notice how noisy the A77 getup is. Roughly speaking, one might conclude that the translucent mirror makes the A77 as bad as the four thirds sensor in the Panasonic G3. That's a two stop drop, not 1/3. These observations make it very difficult to care about improvements in the AF system.
123Mike, the reason people call it a JPEG engine or JPEG processing is because when saving an image as JPEG, the image processor is applying certain techniques that only get applied to images being saved as JPEGs (they do not get applied to the RAW). So while JPEG compression is a standard, the work done to those images that is exclusive to just the images that get saved as JPEGs are not.
To just call it image processing or processing engine can mislead those that are not informed to think that the same work and processing is being done to every image regardless if it is JPEG or RAW. Calling it JPEG engine or JPEG processing let's individuals know of specific processing steps that are exclusive to images being saved as JPEG (lens correction, DRO, area specific noise reduction, etc.).
Abuelo Paul: Having owned my A77 for 18months, and fired off almost 30000 frames, I won't be upgrading yet. There appear to be very few benefits in this markII version. My main criticisms of the A77 are: Poor high ISO resultsConstant problems with sensor spots after changing lensesPoor after sales service ( lost the rubber eyepiece and can't get a replacement)But on the plus side:Easy to usesuperb resultsEVF previews the shotMinolta glass compatibilityAll in all why change when I'm happy with what I've got. I had the EOS 500D before.
I find my A77 does better at preventing dust on the sensor than most other cameras, especially those that have moving mirrors. While not a 100% preventive, I find the non-moving SLT does a pretty good job at minimizing the amount of dust that appears on the sensor.
My A700 had a higher likelihood of getting dust on the senor.
First, you are not comparing sensor sensitivity as much as you are really comparing JPEG processing capability. I'll admit that compared to the current cameras, the A77's JPEG processing is not the best. The A77II has a much improved JPEG processing algorithm that should help improve image quality. But since I shoot only RAW, it doesn't really affect me either way.
Second, go back to those other cameras and look at their EXIF information using identical ISOs. You will see the shutter speed varies which will add to the discrepancy in sensor sensitivity. This gives as around 1/3-1/2 of extra advantage to the other cameras that are shooting at a slower shutter speed than the A77 at the same ISO.
Lastly, it isn't a 2 stop difference between them when you factor the above. Just look at the other review sites that do a better job at equalizing the playing field.
snow14: Sony DSLR always good on papers and that is it. the other thing i yet to see good looking DSLR from them (beauty speaking ) it is important ! isn't it?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so your opinion may differ than mine when it comes to its looks.
But more important than looks is how does it feel in the hand, how does it handle, and does the button layout feel natural?
Since it is practically identical to the A77, which I own, I can say that for me the answer to all of those above is : Comfortable, very well, and yes!
The A77 is a very comfortable camera to hold with very well placed buttons. It is easy use with and without gloves. It's got a solid build with a nice heft to it. Add the vertical grip and it becomes quite a camera to work with.
Epkappa: If I say that i prefer, honestly, the images before the calibration? The calibrated one looks too neon for me..
Are you viewing these images on a wide gamut display?
If so and if you are using a browser that doesn't recognize monitor profiles, the colors may look more vibrant than they really are.
retro76: Personally. I am all about 'attractive' color, not necessarily accurate color. Color taste is quite subjective. I kinda like the Before Examples over the After calibration results.
Wrong comment. Disregard.
NikoKiko: One thing nobody mentions here is that manufacturer states that the colorchecker is only good for two years and after that you should buy another one. They say the printed colors start to change after that time and your color calibrations won't be precise any more. I have one colorchecker passport from 3 years ago, so maybe it can not be trusted anymore, who knows.Seem rather expensive if you need to change it every 2 years. And they should also print manufacturing date on the thing in that case, so you know.Of course you'll need to change only if you aquare new cameras or want to recalibrate after it .... "expires"LoL
How much they change depends on how much UV exposure they get.
The nice thing about the SpyderCheckr from DataColor is it has a "wear" indicator that changes from Red to White when the amount of time it has been exposed to light can potentially impact the accuracy of the colors.
tabloid: One picture looks slightly lighter than the other…is that it.
No. If that is all you are seeing, then your monitor must be way off in calibration. I see more than just that on the uncalibrated display I am viewing it on.
The most obvious changes are in the tone and warmth of some of the colors. But it isn't all the colors changing, so it isn't like someone added a warmth filter and called it a day. Each color is receiving its own treatment of adjustments. For example, oranges and browns may see the biggest change while blues may see no changes.
Iliah Borg: Steve, the following needs a complete revision:"As I am capturing raw files, I will have the camera set to the AdobeRGB color space and not sRGB, which is better suited to JPEG shooting. AdobeRGB gives a wider color gamut, and is the best option for raw images that will subsequently be edited on a computer. You should use the same color space for both the calibration shot and subsequent images which will use the same profile."
The colour space setting in the camera does not affect raw data.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that line.
Ron A 19: The sony a6000 is 1/4 the price and has an evf
HowaboutRAW, take a look at the newer FE lenses which work on the the APS-C emount as well. The reviews of the Zeiss 55mm by Sony have been very high, just short of the Zeiss Otus that cost much, much more. The Zeiss 35mm by Sony also rated pretty well too. Also don't forget the Zeiss Touit lineup.
The other nice thing about the E/FE mount series by Sony is with the proper adapter, you can use almost any lens available.
While I like what the E/FE mount cameras have going and a little jealous of some of their primes, I am still having a hard time getting over their size. For most of my work I use fast zooms and primes that can be quite large in comparison to those mirrorless cameras, giving a very off-putting feeling to me on those smaller bodies (which is why I prefer the larger, DSLR/DSLT cameras). The new A7/A7r/A7s cameras come closer to meeting my needs, but require a vertical grip and even then are a little smaller than I would prefer. Maybe the next generation will fix this.
Mike_V: Everybody except for Mac users.
Ok, so that makes five people that haven't seen this picture.
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, it's more like 10 people that haven't seen this picture then because they use a Mac. ;-)
Let's not forget the people that ran Boot Camp or Parallels on their Mac so they can run Windows.
iudex: Another great lens that is not available with Pentax mount. :-(I have been waiting for Sigma 18-35 for 6 months or so; Sigma promised the K-mount would be available by the end of 2013, it´s April now and still nothing. Sigma USA wrote first shipments were expected in late April, but I am sceptical.
Only 6 months?
I preordered mine in June 2013 for the Sony mount when it was originally ETA'd for end of July 2013. Then it got pushed back further and further to the point where it was supposed to come out in February 2014. Now the latest I am hearing from an e-mail I got from Sigma is early to mid April for the lens and early to mid May for the USB dock.
And here I am, still waiting...
_P: If by any chance Sigma marketing is sweeping through forums in order to gather hints for product demands then I'd suggest next Prime Art lent to be 135mm/2 or maybe even /2.8
Any supporters? :)
I would also be interested if they make a 135mm F/1.8 or F/2.
I have had my eye on the Sony Zeiss 135mm F/1.8 for a long time but with it still being screw driven and the high price have held me back. But the pictures you can get from it, even at wide open, are breath taking.
If Sigma can produce an equivalent that matches or exceeds that at a fraction of the cost, then I would buy one in a heartbeat.
Prognathous: Very interesting interview, but I wish he was asked about the aspect of compatibility of Sigma lenses with new bodies. Unlike Tamron and Tokina lenses which are practically always compatible with newer bodies (same as lenses from the camera brands), Sigma lenses frequently have compatibility issues, requiring them to be "re-chipped" or updated if the lens is recent enough. If the lens is old, then no such luck. Either use it with an old body, or try selling it to someone who does.
Is the reason for these issues the use of reverse engineering instead of getting the specs from the camera brands and paying royalties? This is the most common assumption, but it would have been interesting to hear the CEO take on this.
BTW, fitting lenses with a common micro-USB socket could have made updating lenses easier, more accessible and less costly than having to buy a dedicated USB Mount Dock. Hopefully they add it in future lenses.
In regards to Tamron communicating with camera manufacturers, I would think they at least communicate with Sony. Sony is their second largest shareholder, plus Tamron has been known to have made/designed some of Sony's lenses.