Meyricke: I don't currently use Photoshop - I use a version of Corel Photopaint that is a few years old. My concern is that if Adobe are going down this path - as Microsoft also appear to be trying with the new version of MS Office - how long will it be before the other main software houses follow suit?
Like many others, I wish to own the software that I use so that I know exactly what I own and how much it costs.
I think if you read the fine print you will find you don't own any of your software, you have just bought a perpetual lease on a license to use it.
Is DPR actively helping Adobe with damage control?
It seems like they are trying to provide Adobe with some feedback on how to make their marketing change more acceptable to DPR's readers. Is that a bad thing?
tesilab: I've read the camera guide discussing the different types, and was astonished that so much of the information about mirrorless systems is out and out false!
What is with this list of disadvantages?
* "Fewer models / brands to choose from" -- Fewer brands? Panny,Oly,Sony,Canon,Nikon,Pentax,Samsung is fewer?* "Limited continuous ('burst') shooting capabilities" -- is 10 fps limited? This implies bad burst speeds to the uninformed* "Electronic viewfinders cannot match the clarity of a good optical finder"-- this may be still marginally true, but there is no mention of the exposure/effect preview benefits of EVFs to counter this"Current models offer relatively poor low-light performance"-- this isn't defensible given comparable results for the same sensor sizes on DSLRs.
Also, I realize RX1 is new, but the flat out statement that FF is only available in DSLR format, is just not the case. Is this recycled text from years ago?
Agreed, and to that I would add:
"the 1.5 / 2X crop factors of mirrorless ILCs offer less control over depth of field than full-frame DSLRs" While true, this is a function of the sensor size and not the mirrorless format. The same could be said about some of the most popular DSLR models (with mirrors) from all the major manufacturers. It isn't a mirrorless disadvantage.
Cary Seipp: I suspect the lack of touchscreen on the viewfinder models is down to left-eye dominant shooters. A touchscreen is fine unless you're constantly mashing the screen with your nose every time you bring the camera to your eye! Not an issue for right-eye dominant photographers, but for those of us who are left eye dominant it would drive you nuts.
That's a good point. The screen does shut off when you put the camera to your eye but perhaps it's possible to activate some unintended function before that happens.
JesperMP: I am in the camp of "dont care about beautiful or ugly as long as it takes pictures".
Now after thinking about it, I think that Nikon missed out on one opportunity.The big viewfinder hump (which seems to be what people dislike so much) is big enough that it could have been tiltable ! And since it would be integrated into the body it would be much more rugged than the add-on VFs some other mirrorless offers as options.Now THAT would have been a distinct advantage no other current camera has.
My old Minolta A2 from 2004 managed to pack in a tiltable viewfinder, tiltable view screen, auto screen/view switching, popup flash, and a standard hotshoe. Plus it had a PC synch socket. Still waiting for a modern small camera to match those features. The V2 manages only the popup flash.
Everyone has their favorite elements in the existing test screen. I often use the detail in the globe someone mentioned earlier. Also, it's amazing how many cameras, including some pro and semi-pro gear, have trouble resolving the double tic marks on the hours in the watch at the lower right.
marike6: Why not just carry something like a CF Benro Travel Angel or if you just want a stable platform for a P&S, a Joby GorillaPod? The Travel Angel is more than sturdy enough for my D800, yet extremely lightweight, making it not at all a burden to carry.
The Travel Angel weighs three times the Zipshop weight and sells for eight times the price. These may be reasons "why not?" for some people.
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson: I live in Iceland, I'm an Icelander... may I go against the grain, i.e. be a bit critical
and comment on my country... as a native
these pictures are not Iceland... they are over-processed ... the Barbie-Ken version of Iceland /photography... if you like...
very good technically.... but they don't portrait Iceland as Iceland is...
what I'm trying to say is this, the pictures are excellent, but Iceland is something else...
a windy place,,, light, dark... and very moody,
these pristine and excellent photos capture a dream.. 1% of Iceland,, the 2 week tourist selection of best photos...
Undoubtedly true, but I don't think it was the author's intent to create a documentary. He tried, and I believe succeeded, in creating beautiful images, gleaned from a harsh environment, that are unusual to those of us from lower latitudes. (and from what you say, may be unusual for Icelanders too!).
Not many readers are likely to think he just stepped out of his hotel and snapped these shots. The fact that they required significant planning, effort, and talent just add to their uniqueness. I appreciate that he included some details, technical and otherwise, to help us learn.
Overprocessed? Again, he said he was creating art. Also, until cameras can capture a scene as we see it, or imagine we would like to see it in our mind's eye, some processing will be necessary.
choochoo22: I'm confused.
Not so long ago we had compact cameras with CD autofocus and DSLRs with PD. The compacts all used live view. But live view only works without a mirror or the mirror up, and PD only worked with the mirror down. So $100 compact had full time live view while a $6000 DSLR could not, but it focused faster and more accurately. Accurate summary from a few years ago?
Then Sony comes out with the SLT design using a fixed, translucent mirror to allow live view and PD to work at the same time. Now you could have both, at the cost of losing some of the light.
More recently, the Nikon 1 (followed by a lengthening list of others) demonstrates that PD points can be incorporated on the main sensor to provide full time live view with fast, accurate focusing, and no mirror or light loss. So, SLT obsolete. I thought so. I expected next generation NEX and "A" to incorporate this. But they didn't.
Now the A99 uses PD on sensor but STILL HAS SLT MIRROR. Huh! What did I miss?
@winedarksea & @ bobbarber
OK, learning here. But still, the hybrid combination in the Nikon 1 seems to work well without a mirror and second PD sensor.
Hopefully the tests will show how much the two sets improve performance.
Raises cost and leaving out the mirror would have put 30% more light on the sensor, improving the speed of every lens used.
Sounds like a bit of a disconnect between engineering and marketing...
"the EOS M - is unashamedly targeted to [compact-camera upgraders]"
"Targeting an enthusiast buyer, the camera plus 22mm pancake will be available from speciality photo stores only for $799"
choochoo22: Shot with identical settings, the new sensor is visibly brighter. It will be interesting to see what other differences might exist.
SHood I think you're right, they do seem to darken as they scroll up the screen.
Shot with identical settings, the new sensor is visibly brighter. It will be interesting to see what other differences might exist.
Thanks. I read reviews with images on my big screen PC but I check the "what's new" list and scan articles for interest daily on my Droid. This is a BIG improvement.
choochoo22: Could someone who would actually consider buying one please help me understand why a professional photographer would put up with cameras the size and weight of a D4? Is it really just "mine is bigger than yours"? Unless you are using them to club your way through crowds it can't possibly be an advantage to wield a 4lb (guessing) camera the size of a shoebox. There's nothing in there that isn't in a D5100, just a slightly bigger sensor and more computing power. I would think Nikon, or any competent camera company, could build something like this half this size if the market demanded it. So why aren't people demanding it?
Back in the 70's the OM-1 showed the world an SLR didn't need to be so big and heavy and in a few years all the companies were making smaller models. It seems way past time for a similar revolution in DSLRs.
Sounds like a little bit each of:
a) You don't believe the electronics can be shrunk. (the physical elements already exist in smaller cameras which, themselves, should probably be shrunk) I think anything electronic can be shrunk.
b) You like having the vertical grip built in vs removable.
c) You like mine-is-bigger-than-yours.
Thank you, now I think I understand
DimiExter-- I think you may have missed my point. I'm not suggesting you don't need the features of a D4 or that a D5100 is in any way just as good. I'm just suggesting that the D4 functionality could/should be in a smaller and lighter package. Wouldn't those sports and conflict shots be easier to capture with a more agile camera, particularly in crowded situations? Not to mention transportability.
cjep1- Balance seems like a valid concern but when you are shooting hand-held, don't you generally support the lens-camera with the left hand and control with the right hand. I don't quite see how a lighter camera would be a disadvantage. Weight aside, it would seem the bulk of a D4 would be a hindrance in any hand-held situation.
aaaja: "mirrorless"? what an unword! - why not "coffeeless" or maybe "tireless"??
So please guys stop that please..i beg
Revenant-- I agree with your line of thought but the water is muddy.
The SLT designs generally are included in "mirrorless" discussions for good reason, even though they do have mirrors, and the new Canon G1-X and Fuji X100 will doubtless be compared to this group because of their sensor size although they aren't "system" cameras.
Could someone who would actually consider buying one please help me understand why a professional photographer would put up with cameras the size and weight of a D4? Is it really just "mine is bigger than yours"? Unless you are using them to club your way through crowds it can't possibly be an advantage to wield a 4lb (guessing) camera the size of a shoebox. There's nothing in there that isn't in a D5100, just a slightly bigger sensor and more computing power. I would think Nikon, or any competent camera company, could build something like this half this size if the market demanded it. So why aren't people demanding it?
Where's the filter thread?
Am I the only one who thinks a camera in this class needs to accept threaded filters?