This is more useful to me than a drone camera. I like the fact it tracks my position instead of me having to control just one more equipment. Always hate off-the-camera flash, because the need to carry one more tripod. (imagine this and do a 4-hour hiking). This should be interesting, if affordable then I might get one. Great new use of drone. Wish I could have thought of that.
citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.
This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.
My set up has been Olympus Viewer + LR, so I don't need to run the RAWs through one more software in the workflow. I've used DxO as part of the workflow, but I gave up on it since OV does everything better. What OV is lacking is cataloging and user-interface. That's where LR comes in. I select my photos using LR as loupe and then only if it requires extra process, I export them into OV, because OV loads photos slowly. I mostly use LR for cataloging reason (batch tag, add location info, etc., and exports output to website and local storage). I do like some parts of LR, that's why I can overlook its quirks (and LR has tons of weird bugs). It has value to me, but not $99/year is all I am saying. Especially I still have CS5 which I only use a fraction of its features. Choosing gears (and software is part of the gears) is a lot of compromise between requirements and budget. This isn't a fantasy talk where everyone always have the latest gears as if money isn't a consideration.
CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.
Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."
"The longer lens you can get, the better. "
Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.
"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "
Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.
"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."
At totality, it will be very dark.
"...the moon is bright white"
The moon is a dark charcoal gray.
"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."
That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.
"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."
You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.
"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."
That's almost total baloney too.
While most of your response is spot-on (the article is filled with incorrect information), but some of your info is wrong also. Like another person already pointed out to you, ground light WILL affect resolution of your photo due to stray light (that's why you need to use a lens hood).
And yes, use manual focus. AF will always off by a little bit, especially when the bright subject in a pitch dark environment like the moon will fool the AF very efficiently due to extremely high dynamic range.
General rule of thumb, be very prepared. Test the exposure before the actual event. Every camera will be a little different, so the only way for super accurate exposure is test it out. This is digital age, you can test shoot as many shots as you like without becoming expensive. The most expensive shot is the one that's incorrectly exposed when the time comes. Keep in mind, this is lunar eclipse..., so the final exposure will be different from the test shots, so use your judgement.
Smart social satire. :)
Kurt_K: I know it's not weather-sealed but is it metal or is it plastic?
Don't know about the top plate, but the bottom plate of my silver E-M10 already has chipped paint after a few days of use, so I know that part is plastic for sure. This camera needs an eveready leather case to protect it. It's very hard to distinguish plastic and light metal nowadays. The leatherette portion feels quite good and assuring. I don't find the grip too small or hard to grip.
One part I don't like is the built-in flash. It has the tendency to use 1/60" instead of 1/250". Sometimes it doesn't even fire at all even when choose to force fire in the SCP (but gives a weird sound). When the shutter speed is out of the range (not enough power to lit the whole scene), there is no warning (like flashing shutter speed and aperture), and gives you an underexposed photo instead. Maybe I received a defective one.
pacnwhobbyist: Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but unless you do a lot of critical low-light work and plan on spending money on additional lenses, I think the Stylus 1 is a better choice in this price bracket for most casual photographers. Not to say this is a poor choice or a bad camera, it's neither. But if you're willing to put up with a smaller (but still good) sensor and the limitations it has you get a lot of the features from the OM-D series and a nice constant aperture 28-300 lens. That sort of lens option just doesn't exist in the M 4/3rds realm right now.
You're not wrong, but I've seen quite a bit of Stylus 1's photos (it interested me while I was waiting for E-M10 to be announced), so I know its usable ISO range is limited. And due to smaller sensor, so for best photos, you'd be shooting near wide open (f/2.8) most of the time for best IQ, even with ample of light. If you're planning on using kit lens with E-M10, I think it'll be a difficult call between E-M10 and Stylus 10, if you plan on using them as travel cams. But if you are the kind who likes photographic control and pixel peeps, you might want to go for a m4/3 camera.
Lots of people missed the point. This isn't just about cloning-in/out issue. This is about "trust" issue. If the photographer had submitted the unaltered photo, and then asked if photoshopping, in this very instance, was appropriate, then proceeded with proper guideline, then he wouldn't be fired. This is all about trust. How can anyone trust the integrity of his photos again?
Quote from the review:
"This means that you can't both get the corners and centre of the frame at the same time, and in turn explains the striking drop-off in sharpness of the test data towards the corners - in effect they're slightly out of focus."
This is a classical design philosophy for "film" camera lenses. Since photographic film is not flat like sensor, so by designing it this way, the corner would be sharp. DPR's test photos also back this assumption up. Corners are soft because they're out of focus. This is why a "brick wall" type of test shots are important (and make sure focal plane is parallel to the subject plane) for testing big aperture lens.
That's why "all digital" design philosophy of Olympus's 4/3 DSLR lenses (not m4/3) uses expensive telecentric design. Alternative strategy is, change the layout of the the sensor, so it's "bend" like a film, which what Fuji uses.
LarryLatchkey: Wow, a lot of luminance noise at higher iso (studio scene)! really grainy… but that way it seems to keep considerably more low contrast details than competitors, even entry-level D-SLRs.
Olympus will be forced to lower the price of its M4/3 cameras soon, because this one comes with a nicer kit lens & (to my taste) better IQ at exactly half the price of an E-M5 or an E-P5! Even the E-PL5 is more expensive.
Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympuses. (is that the correct plural of Olympus? ^^ )
The correct sentence should be:
Plus I actually find the A1 fells more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus'. (notice the apostrophe at the end)
Because it IS used as a possessive. It's a contraction of "Olympus's cameras" like harrisoncac suggested. You know, the OP could avoid the confusing sentence structure by complete the entire sentence, which should be:
Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than Olympus' cameras (notice "the" is omitted if the entire sentence is spelled out).
What is being compared as more comfortable? (Fuji) A1 vs Olympus's cameras OR A1 (camera model) vs Olympus (the brand). Be careful with subject parallel agreement....
madeinlisboa: I'm gonna photograph cat poop with different shapes and textures in different environments and perspectives and get famous. The sky is the limit!
(agrees with BartyLobethal with some ambivalent and conflicting feeling)
Well, yeah, I suppose most of us will be destined for obscurity.... And I do agree with your argument. Art is a creative field, and people like madeinlisboa will never get a work like this. And yes, a cat poop can be art and if he has some talent to execute it nicely. It's not the subject that makes the art, but the vision behind it. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Not all subjects are tangible things. Some are "conceptual." I am not the artist of this work, so I will refrain from misinterpret it, but I'm going to say, this photo features a dress, but the subject is not about the dress, but the story behind the dress. She said it's personal to her, so it's a visual analogy to her own journey. Dress is what you see, so that's why most people are mistaking the physical thing itself as the subject.
Now I am back to dedicate my life working at conventional art. Obscurity here I come...
PeterAustin: Was Gaylord entitled to the sole copyright? Things to consider are: The basic design to the memorial was given to Gaylord, and so was the concept for a Korean War memorial (the court found that this context was significant in denying fair use, but that context was given to Gaylord). Also, others were involved in creating the memorial. If Gaylord creation is seen as a contribution to collective work, is it work for hire? Lastly, as a photographer, I disagree that the snow on the statues is solely "Nature's decision" and its depiction not a transformative act by the photographer. I disagree with this notion. There is no question that the choice of snow cover and lighting was a deliberate artistic decision by the photographer, involving a fair amount of creative effort. The court ruled that the creative component of the image was an act of God and not of the human mind. The ruling states first that Alli's copyright as a derivative work is not questioned, only to deny it later.
Ali has no part in this case other than being a witness. When the PO bought the photo, it's PO's responsibility to check for possible copyright issue before it bought it. After the PO bought it, PO is responsible for the liability for publishing it. Ali is not responsible for the punitive damage unless he also sold the arts on his own behalf.
Actually a professional is more likely to be sued than an amateur. Because it's indefensible if you're a pro, as you should know better this is clearly a copyrighted infringement when you did it.
The case PO should use to defend itself is, PO is part of the government, and if Korean War Memorial was paid for by the government as a public art to honor war heroes, then how can the owner (the government) not own the right to its own asset?
Well deserved 1st place. :)
yabokkie: it looks that there were two competing teams and one team won.
it's interesting that DPReview call Sony "big brand." I call them third class: 1c, need no words, Canon and Nikon, 2c, make products proudly in own brand, Pentax, Oly, 3c, make products in someone else's brand (not OEM), Sony, Pana, no confidence in their own products.
I shall declare yabokkie the silliest person on DPR Forums with this post....
Though my optical design knowledge is rudimentary, but looking at the two designs above, they would have different light collecting properties.
The middle element in the Sigma design is thicker. Unless Sigma decided to use ED or Super ED glass, the refraction of that lens will be significantly larger, and light traveling pattern after that would be different. The front element of Sigma's is over-engineered compared with m.Zuiko's. Don't know how much those etches around the edge of m.Zuiko lenses would affect the optical quality.
So yes, different proportion of element's size and glass used will change the final IQ. They're still of the similar design, but IQs would be different. And production costs would be very different due to whether ED elements are used or not (and Olympus's production technology is higher than Sigmas's).
citizenlouie: Most lenses are based on Zeiss formulas, so it's not surprising many lenses designs are similar (but not identical, because that would patent fringing). This is especially true for telephoto lenses (not super telephoto) where elements are smaller in number.
Actually that's not true, dbateman.... I remember reading a little history about that. Nikon became a well-known brand in the U.S. because many soldiers brought back Nikon products from WWII. The story was about a soldier first discovered Nikon because he went on board of a Japanese submarine and noticed how bright the scope for looking at the surface (whatever that is called) is. And it was designed by Nihon Kogaku (now Nikon). I am pretty sure they designed the lens before Japan surrendered.
Same for Olympus. From OM Lens manual, Olympus said many of their 35mm ambitions were destroyed during the war, so they had to restart 35mm camera designs from ground up. But before that, they had a lot of good blue prints already.
@Marty Because many people dwell on their laurels. So a little hardship is actually good motivation for innovations. Once a person thinks he's the king of the hill, he has no motivation to become better. Romans fell the same way.
Here, lens design diagrams. As you can see, many lenses from different manufacturers use similar designs, just different element sizes or switch around certain elements from the basic design, but most of them are stemmed from Zeiss designs. http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html
Before CAD, design your own lens from ground up without following Zeiss formula is just too difficult. Now with CAD, even zoom lenses can be designed with high quality. And Olympus is the pioneer of using CAD for optical designs.
Ferling: Third party OEM is nothing new, so long as they have the tools and talent to meet the clients specs and stick to them. Who cares what the origination address is?
In my search for vintage lenses, I remember an article (for which I can't find the link), that the majority of early Japanese lens manufacturers were all based a stones throw from one another, and consequently, copied each other.
In the 80's Sear's had a few good lenses made by Tokina, and it requires some research to know which ones were gems hiding under the name. Vivitar was well known for utilizing many different OEMs for their lens designs. There were several different OEM's for a given lens (i.e. 4 different 70-200 series 1), and their serial numbers were all telling of those of whom made them, (Tokina, Komine and Kino are regarded as the worthy versions).
It all basically boils down to a great design, supported by a vendor with solid capability. Sigma sells some very decent lenses, so it's no surprise.
The Sears/JC Penny/Vivitar don't make their own lenses, so they contract OEM makers and rebrand lenses. That's a very different business model than manufacturing lenses using other people's lens formula.
It's true most early Japanese lenses makers were copying each other's lenses. Olympus, wasn't one of them. Olympus was and still is a microscope company, and their "original" intention to make camera lenses was to create some lenses for their microscopic division, so they had the incentive to create lenses in house from ground-up. Many OM lenses are not copying or a modified version of Zeiss formula, which was not the norm at the time. OM 135mm f/2.8 is one of those original designs. I think the legendary OM 50mm f/2 is also another fine example.
I've used Sigma 19mm f/2.8 for m4/3 though.... RAW performance (i.e., non-software corrected performance) is not impressive. Contrast is very low, CA is very high, but geometric distortion control was good.
Joseph S Wisniewski: Makes a lot of sense to me. The thing I don't get is why Oly?
75mm is a bit of an odd duck on four thirds, 3.5x the "normal" focal length for four thirds (a 150mm equivalent). The classic portrait lenses are 85, 105, and 135mm, 2x, 2.5x, and 3x normal.
75mm is the portrait lens that everyone wants on APS-C, where it's 2.5x normal, but quite awkward on four thirds.
150mm equiv makes sense on 4/3 format. I have one. You have to remember 4/3 sensors have squarish aspect ratio, so the extra reach actually makes up to feel like a 135mm, and I love that FL.
And your 2.5x normal and 3.5x normal doesn't make sense to me. 135mm and beyond is telephoto. Telephoto has a very different feel to them (compression). It has nothing to do with how many times of "normal" focal length (which is actually 43mm).
yabokkie: I'm also (and more) interested in 12-60/2.8-4 for the SLR 4/3". Oly didn't have much know-how of modern lens design but this lens was very different.
Olympus was the first company to use computer aid design to make lenses..., when all other companies were still using trial-and-error method back in the 80's.... Not knowing how to make modern lenses? Enough said.