Hugo808: So what you're saying is I can't just point my phone at the sky and get shots like that. Damn....
Not unless your phone has a camera in it.
AndreaV: Really great shot! Nice composition and beautiful colors!Pity only for the CA on the left and right trees against the sky. Is it a HDR or composite shot? Which lens did you used?
Given the large amount of CA, this is likely an HDR (CA tends to get accentuated for HDRs in post if you do not make specific efforts to reduce or eliminate it). I suspect the lens was a zoom shot using the widest available focal length (perhaps the 24-85mm f/3.5-f/4.5 VR that is included in the D600 kit?).
ConanFuji: Very pretty. 8 secs to get that?I would have thought at least 30 secs.
Maybe it really was about to take off :D
Jogger: why dont they just make a universal head for cellphones with the standard tripod screw.. they could pack it in with the normal version
+1 for the griptight, that thing is brilliant for phones. As for Joby's gorillapods (the ones with the articulating sections), eh, not really a fan of those - so many moving parts, the design of those things just looks inherently unstable, and they are pretty bulky considering the weight limits on most of them.
I use the griptight with one of their micro 250 tripods (which is rigid and compact) to watch videos/movies on my HTC One while travelling - the combo is great for media consumption and extremely portable (the griptight mount and the micro 250 fold down to about the size of a pocketknife). You can also remove the griptight section from the micro 250 tripod and use the tripod with a compact camera (it's stable enough for my RX100 and EOS M w/ 22mm f/2 lens), or want to mount the griptight to a different tripod.
I love how "streets ahead" actually caught on.
Combatmedic870: Very impressive results in all conditions. Beats out all of the popular phones.
Sure, the extreme corners aren't perfect, but still, within the context of camera phones, the results are pretty darn impressive.
Can we get some IQ tests of the camera with the wide angle adapter in place? Because a 21mm (35mm equivalent FOV) wide angle in this small of a package sounds pretty awesome...
Just a Photographer: "Stu wrote about my comment on Lightroom: It's a lot more than that if you actually use the program every day."
Now my question to Stu are:
So where are my layers in Lightroom Stu?Where are my channels in Lightroom Stu?Where are my calculation in Lightroom Stu?Where are my multiple curves in Lightroom Stu?Where are my levels in Lightroom Stu?Where can i find 'apply image' in Lightroom Stu?Where can I make selections in Lightroom Stu?How can I select color ranges in Lighrtoom Stu?How do I apply masks in Lightroom Stu and How do i invert them in LR?
Do I need to go on?Lightroom is ACR added with some stuff that nobody really needs.Whats wrong with a smart file structure to find you images back?
LR is greatly overrated by many and especially by Adobe who want us to believe that LR is as powerful as Photoshop, while Lightroom only consist of the ACR editing module.
Therewith LR is practically worthless to the main community who have no need to have their files in a database.
Having used LR4 briefly, I agree with OP. LR4 is greatly lacking in functionality compared to Photoshop and the database import requirement was a frustrating, time wasting step that caused to immediately regret my purchase, and I all but abandoned the software after a week or so of use (luckily Adobe did gave me a coupon for $400 off PSCS6... so I guess it wasn't all bad).
Processing my images via Bridge/Photoshop feels so much more streamlined to me (does a better job w/ photos stored on my NAS, don't have to deal with reimporting files across multiple computers - I can just access them, not to mention that all the expanded image editing tools are there when I need them: 32-bit HDR tiffs, Photomerge, etc.). LR4 is basically ACR paired with a constricting/inflexible database layer.
semorg: The case for this lens is sold separately for additional $650, BTW!
Adorama/B&H's product listing pages for the lens indicate that the case is included...
Roland Karlsson: But ... but ... but ... I cant see how to aim the camera. Its just a stand, and not a tripod methinks. Or?
It doesn't lock, but is quite stiff. I've used the tripod portion with an RX100 with no issues - it's plenty study for any of the pocketable compacts out there (it's conservatively rated to 250g/9oz). Also, I'm pretty sure that they also make a slightly bigger/beefier version aimed at M4/3's as well.
Regarding the arbitrary fine art paper margin limitations - just use a different program to print. This is exactly what I do with my Pro 9500 Mark II printer (which suffers from the same margin limitations when using Canon's software to print on fine art papers) - I print using Photoshop CS6, which lets you set any margin you'd like regardless of the paper type/color profile you print with. Using this method I can do borderless prints on any paper type, and I suspect you can do the same thing with the Pro-10.
SirSeth: Samples look good, however, small camera + big lenses = not a cool as Canon want's us to believe. Olympus made very small DSLRs with the E-4xx series, but not until they got rid of the mirror could really small lenses be made to match the body sizes. This SL1 will sell really well for those just sticking with a small kit lens, but mirrorless means a much smaller bag for those who want some versatile optics.
Agreed, a few wider-than-40mm EF-S primes would pair very nicely with such a tiny body.
Bamboojled: I just did a corner comparison in RAW to see how sharp the lens is against the other cameras, the Nikon A is the only one that is showing the texture of the wall and clearly defines the checkered target.
It definitely does way better in the corners than my RX100 at equivalent focal length (that's my only real disappointment from the RX100 - even stopped down, the corners can never be considered great). The JPEG engine in the A also seems to do a decent job at reducing moire while retaining a high level of detail - but the moire in those RAWs would probably drive me nuts from time to time.
Very sharp, but plenty of moire. As such, some of the fine detail rendering is rather unappealing (in particular, the red bit of fabric below the fur patch looks pretty poor).
///M: WOW, Canon can spend all this R&D on matched cinema lenses (which will likely be only sold to rental houses) for this niche market, but can't come up with a viable mirrorless camera with compact lenses, really? 1/2 of the DSLR sales in Japan are mirrorless cameras, it does not matter how small the crop sensor bodies get, they are still big and bulky compared to the micro 4/3 and other systems.
I just want to know where the 35L II is. And isn't Japan the one country where EOS M sales were/are actually pretty good?
psn: I would really love to see Sigma SD1 studio samples to compare with all these other cameras. Would have bought an SD1 if Sigma wasn't so stupid and greedy. Anyway, I still think the image quality of that sensor is the one to beat. Not Fuji, Olympus, Sony, or those other guys.
Damn it, Sigma, why do you have to suck! There are many more dumb@ss photographers like me out there. You can make money, just don't try to cheat us.
For now, I might get another NEX.
You can compare them from this page:
Dpreview really needs to fix this bug.
Edit - the SD1's pixel level sharpness is really something to behold.
FreedomLover: Apparently an IS version is expected for later this year.
Thing is, rumors are rumors until Canon actually makes an announcement, and even then, that doesn't mean the lens would actually be available for purchase.
Shunda77: The design is based on the ability to fit in a pocket, it's surprising reading the complaints about lens speed in this regard.
Even so, it is still doing better in equivalent aperture than the previous champion in this size class. Nikon is late to the party for sure, but this is directly comparable to the Canon S series and for not bad money.You want a faster lens compact? then there's always the slightly larger class like the LX7.
It won't fit in your pocket though.
"But no 24mm or GPS."
Well, duh. Then just get the Canon or the Nikon?
Those complaints are likely from users familiar with the RX100. The difference in thickness is only 4mm (32mm vs. 36mm), but the Sony has a much faster lens and bigger sensor, and it most certainly does fit in your pocket. Not exactly a fair comparison given the difference in price, but the form factor is nearly the same. The Canon S series is still the slimmest at 27mm thick for the S110.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review