mike earussi: This review was obviously written before the K1's DR test was done, because the K1 beats the Nikon in Pixel Shift mode by several stops.
No, you can't duplicate it in software, the Bayer averaging has already taken place before it's saved to the raw file. Also the accuracy of the Foveon emulation is directly dependent on the accuracy of the Pixel Shift, which seems pretty good in the K1.
It does, that's why so many photographers who own Sigma cameras are interested in it (I'm one). For certain situations it will give us the best of many "worlds," much higher DR (and much faster processing) than any Sigma camera along with pixel equivalent resolution. There are still some differences, between them, though, as the Foveon chip produces its own unique color palate.
Pixel Shift is "sharper" because there's no interpolation. A Bayer sensor produces color by averaging adjacent pixels. This averaging lowers edge sharpness as there's no clean separation between between adjacent pixels of totally different color or brightness--it produces a slight blur.
Pixel Shift allows even adjacent pixels to be of a totally different color and brightness and still show up as unique. This means an adjacent totally black and a totally white pixel will have a sharp edge difference, hence the increase in edge sharpness, and also resolution. That's why so many are interested in it.
Depends on what you primarily shoot. I mostly shoot landscapes so for me it's very relevant.
This review was obviously written before the K1's DR test was done, because the K1 beats the Nikon in Pixel Shift mode by several stops.
The limitation seems to be in the Pentax lens used, as the K1 is sharper in the center than the 5DS R but not on the edges. So now the wait is to see if Pentax can come out with lenses good enough for the K1 sensor.
Bright stark white backgrounds literally burn the eyes out. One of the main reasons I appreciate this site is because I can look at it for long periods of time without developing eye fatigue. If you do change over I hope you give people the option of choosing which background they want. If you do you'll find that most will stick with what you have now.
For those who haven't bothered to read the fine print, by using NIK you give Google permission to use in any way they want any photo you've processed with NIK:
Under Terms of Service: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services."
Interesting, but it doesn't seem to be able to do more than one row, which would make it useless for high resolution panos.
I've yet to figure out why Sony would go to all the trouble and expense of designing a high quality camera only to ruin the output with lossy compression.
And as for not encountering it for years, that's BS as that would mean they're not shooting at night or indoors, specifically what the new BSI chip is designed for.
All Sony had to do was include an opt out selection and this would not be a problem. But I do so much of my shooting at night that right now this camera would be worthless to me.
Their high prices for ink were driving so many customers to third party inks that Epson probably decided it was better to get into the game than to lose out altogether. The actual net effect will be, of course, to lower the costs of third party inks as their competitors are forced to lower their prices to beat Epson's new lower ones.
Sharpness isn't everything, it's also nice to have a lens that isn't heavy with CA. Too bad about the focus shift, though.
I want one ( just as soon as they fix the compression algorithm).
And just how long is the$11.99 price guaranteed for? Once they have you "hooked" you have to pay up no matter what they charge or lose access to everything.
With a pixel size of 2.2um, diffraction will start to destroy the resolution after f2.8, so I really don't see this having any practical application for regular photographers. Nor do I think any lens currently on the market can shoot at this level of resolution at f2.8. So this is a technical achievement, not a practical one, unless it's considered for it's PR value or for bragging rights.
I'd be far more impressed by Canon increasing the DR of its sensors, which would have practical value, instead of just their MP count.
The last one is great, really creative.
My question is why bother with a mirrorless MF system in the first place? MF systems aren't small or compact anyway so how does the absence of a mirror help?
mike earussi: Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?
I already own two Hoya HD CPLs. That's why I wasn't sure what the Manfrotto PR release was talking about. ASAIK the Hoya HD CPLs use the best polarizer material available which results in a 1 1/3 stop light loss instead of the usual two.
Joe Mayer: Sure, why not? Because the pro filter market isn't already covered by B+W. There aren't enough (good and great) filter manufacturers. Interesting move on their part unless they think their name will help them and the profit margin is insanely high because I doubt they'll dent the current makers, especially B+W. Of course, I'm biased and think B+W is the best and I wouldn't put anything else on my lenses.
At least it isn't Hasselblad coming out with a rebranded $50 Hoya adding wood trim and charging $500 for it.
Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?