My local Nikon service center told me:
1) They could fix it within one afternoon2) The only thing done to the camera is a new firmware3) The camera will NOT be opened/disasembled
=> the fixed camere is in no way different from a new batch (where the new firmware was already played in before being sold)
There are other sources on the net (and a person on the Nikon help/service phone es well!!) who assert this is not true. Does anybody of you know, whether there IS or IS NOT a difference? ^^
Background: I wonder wether I should send back my affected body and wait for a new batch or whether I should simply get it fixed during one afternoon.
Chiemsee: From what official Adobe document is the number $19.99/month (for the second year)???
By the way, of course Adobe doesn't say the price is FIXED... But I didn't see the 19.99 anywhere... Maybe effectively hidden?
(Just a side note: The German Adobe website is kind of horrible concerning spelling, grammar and especially style... seems no native speaker ever looked over it. Kind of embarassing for a - former? - international top company... Of course it's not a problem for me or anybody, but it nevertheless somehow shows the the attitude of a company towards its customer base one could argue.)
From what official Adobe document is the number $19.99/month (for the second year)???
Ayoh: These comparisons does not seem fair as the exposure differs between cameras. For example look at this option:
Canon 5D Mark III and Olympus E-M1RAWISO 25600LOW LIGHT
The exposure parameters are:Canon - 1/60, f7.1Olympus - 1/50, f5.6
In the comparison EM-1 has similar noise to 5D under all sizes(full/print/web). The amount of light received by the camera sensors must have been different between the cameras to get this result.
But that's not a dpreview specific problem but a problem of photo image test websites in general.
But let's think positive:
If engineers built bridges after doing material tests this way, you wouldn't want to drive across them any more... ;) With photo tests it seems to be o.k. Better this way than the other way around.
R Butler wrote: "We have a pretty good understanding of what our tests do"
Let's assume that's correct. Then still most of your readers don't have this understanding. And they use your tests in a, well let's say 'dangerous' way.
A lot of discussions concentrate on MINUTE variations at pixel level.
Without analyzing- sample variation,- RAW converter influence,- interaction effects of certain lens/body combinationsquite a lot of the conclusions are, well let's put it in a simple but unfortunately true word: useless.
Again, discussing MINUTE variations based on sample size 1 tests without even given a ROUGH estimation of sigma are - scientificifally speaking - massively flawed. It could be regarded as intellectually dishonest to offer those test to the (often scientifically untrained) public without explicitly indicating the limitations... ;-/
Greg VdB wrote: "and dpreview reviewers generally know very well what they are doing..."
How do you KNOW this?
I would say dpreview knows (obviously) quite a lot about photography. But unfortunately they seem not to be trained physicists/statisticians... The results here LOOK very reputalbe and professional. But in my opinion from a scientific point of view they are not.
I don't think this is tragic - it's just a sad thing that the LEADING websites on the web (concerning camera/sensor/lens tests) neither do have scientific standards nor scientific training in what they are doing (including DxO unfortunately :( ).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everything is wrong here. I just feel that many people take results here as absolute and objective and apodictic truths.
The most obvious problem with the tests here is (of course) sample size. With a sample size of 1 (and often minute differences discussed) you couldn't publish any scientific paper anywhere without being laughed at...
Again a camera with crippled firmware (no 2 or 3 EV difference when bracketing e.g.)?? :-|
Adobe should add the following pricing sheme:
REALLY cheap price for hobbyist using the software only a couple of days a month (and not having to pay during longer breaks/holidays).
Then EVERYBODY would be happy:- Hobbyists: cheap, if you don't do much or take breaks from using it.- Large companies: expensive but always the newest stuff- Adobe: No incentive for pirating, popularity, money
Seems pretty obvious to me. What about you? What about Adobe?
Chiemsee: By the way, is it unproblematic to access the SAME raw files in a given directory structure with DIFFERENT raw converters?
E.g. LR4 and Photo Ninja... do the share the same xmp-file?? Are the settings completely independent?
I was asking whether different RAW converters write to the same xmp-file?!? But to completely seperate sections within this sidecar file?
Do they keep their settings COMPLETELY seperate? I'm thinking of properties with the same name in both converters (e.g. "Brightness")?
In other words: Is it possible/save to browse/import a directory structure full of RAW-files with different raw converters COMPLETELY seperately and parallel (not affecting ANYTHING in the other converters when e.g. changing brightness in one converter)?
By the way, is it unproblematic to access the SAME raw files in a given directory structure with DIFFERENT raw converters?
steve88: Pathetic! They still have "Embiggen" enabled by default in the Slideshow mode. Does anyone at Flickr even know anything about photography? If I upload a 900X600 photo, for example, and it's viewed in Slideshow mode, it's "embiggened" by default (stretched to fit across the entire screen). So, if someone has a 24" monitor, that 900X600 image is going to look like garbage (soft and mushy).
This is a major pet peeve with a number of Flickr users and I can't believe they still refuse to address it. I know there's Lightbox mode where the image is not "embiggened" but I still have to provide step-by-step directions to anyone I email a gallery to in order to explain how a slideshow in Lightbox mode works.
I was waiting for this so-called upgrade to come along with the hope that they would address this issue but obviously they have not done it.
Again, does anyone at Flickr even own a camera or upload photos to a website. Unbelievable!!!
There are people out there who INTENTIOULSLY upload downsampled images; especially some professionals protecting their high res files.
Fromt this point of view the comment "900x600 isn't a photo" is not very informed...
What does "AE Bracketing: ±3 (3 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV steps)" mean? If maximum increment is 1/2 EV, how is it possible to do +-3 then with 3 frames???