gwenhael appere: I'm really not happy with Adobe. All their photo editing software get the dehaze tool, except LR 6 customers (i'm one of them) !
It was made quite clear by Adobe so you knew that beforehand.
That said, I feel the first CC feature update followed little too quick after the perpetual release.
All in all I'm happy with the perpetual model. The CC version gives nice hints as far as the development focus. This far looks to me little has happened on the essential side, I'll be checking thoroughly whether the LR7 is a go.
aftab: Since the age of 6D and D800 it has become a norm to compare Sony sensors with Canon to see the difference in shadow lifting. Its all good and dandy. But no one, including DPR, showed any comparison (or put proper importance to it) between a properly exposed shadow area at ISO100 vs having the area dark and then shadow lifted. If someone do this comparison it would be clear that lifting shadow is a compromise no matter how little you lift. It is always better not to lift shadows. It is science and physics. It is always better to use exposure bracketing, fill flash, filter etc than lifting shadows. Choose any Sony sensor camera from DPR tests, look at properly exposed ISO100 scene, then compare it with same scene with shadow lifting. If you do, you will come to the same conclusion as I did using an Exmor sensor FF camera for last two years: it is better not to lift shadows if you can. All these DPR tests should have a disclaimer: Do not lift shadows unless you must.
ideally, the exposure should be ETTR (expose to the right) without clipping the highlights. Pushing shadows has got a lot better but it is still hard to beat the colors and details from a proper exposure.
I personally find it not so rare to utilize more DR without any HDR intention in mind. When travelling, anything inside with windows during daytime (churches, castels). Midday contrasty scenes outside. Evening scenes - not to blow out the city lights yet retain all the shadow details.
luchs: > Too bad Affinity Photo is for Mac only. > Almost twice cheaper than Elements and rather in the Photoshop league.
Good that there is also PhotoLine (www.pl32.com). It works natively on Windows and also natively on Mac. You can use it on Linux with Wine.
It implements non-destructive photo editing completely, unlike Affinity even for the liquify tool and the RAW import. Unlike Affinity it also supports non destructive perspective correction, smart objects (linked images) and multi page documents. It's PDF export is perfect and supports Pantone / HKS colors, too.
Affinity is a very good system and I prefer it for GUI symbol editing, but it is Mac only and there are also some areas which needs improvement, such as the masks built from multiple layers and working in different color spaces.
With Photoline you can make any tool or work layer (i.e. unsharp) work on one dedicated channel only, such as "luminosity".
Thanks, will check it out!
Too bad Affinity Photo is for Mac only. Almost twice cheaper than Elements and rather in the Photoshop league.
M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.
*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.
One caveat though - the Adobe DNG is only readable by a limited number of software, mostly Adobe itself. For example, those dng-ed files cannot be processed anymore by the Capture One Pro.
Is that the first SureColor-P printer which doesn't require time and money consuming black matte/glossy ink switch?
I wonder what is the print quality with 7 inks compared to 8 (+1 replacement black) ink SC printers.
Turn everything into money.
I think it would be fair if one wants desperately "protect" a genius architectural achievement from viewing, be so kind and build it in a far land.
In public places, one has already agreed to share.
Though I can understand if it is strictly commercial interest. Then again the rules must be utterly clear and when public interested is overrun then just abandon the idea of the law. No messing around.
The world seems to be over-regulated these days.
rrccad: I'm starting to think that it's either dpreview or that photographers on the whole are turning into crotchety old geezers that bitch whine and moan about everything. heck half of them can't seem to carry anything over 1lb, and I'm sure soon that will be subbed with a cane the way some are going on.
all of which makes me scared :/
a cool tool - and now we'll be swamped with overdone simulated fog images ;)
(however I have to admit, I can think of a few photos i want to try adding haze to just to see how they look).
My sub for LR/PS is around 9.95 per month. LR is a rather useless for me (can't handle IR RAW's and can't handle Sigma), but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades? did you ever see the sticker price of PS before?
if you can't afford it, really, leave your sniffling somewhere else.
it's getting pretty nauseating.
"but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades?"
That seems to be point of miscommunication - why insist/assume everybody needs PS?
I for one am completely the opposite, not interested in a single bit in PS and in that context the price is definitely not reasonable by seeing the opportunity cost (i.e. upgrade price for LR only spread over the periods).
It is important to stay in the context - standalone users knew there might be regular upgrades coming to CC which by itself is not an issue. However, introduced that shortly after the full release gives impression of forced choices.
ihv: The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
Suddenly, shortly after the release of the perpetual version the CC gets a feature update. I find this utterly nasty business practice.
No. Because the feature set was rather short for such a long development period and yet sholrtly after the release new features appeared - too quickly to be developed after the full release.
I completely understand the different licencing policies, but this seems to be rather cheating.
Trk: Even though Adobe declared perpetual license as "snapshot" of features of CC version at the given time, they should put these new features into LR6 this time too as some sort of customer protection, otherwise it look very convenient for Adobe to release new features so shortly after version release, where I do not remember such a update in previous versions.Also current companies practice is to support perpetual software licenses 18 months including minor feature upgrades which at least de-haze tool is.I will probably wait for LR7 and keep now LR5.7 and I wanted to upgrade to LR6, but current Adobe practices are too aggressive. To those who think subscription is cheap, maybe in US in $, in Eur it is very expensive for me, if they offered subscription in my country's currency, maybe ...
Not less important - the subscription is just plain expensive for LR only. I don't need PS.
The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
ihv: Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.
Hum, looks to me like a software add-on (with P1 price(!)) because a software license is needed.
Doesn't the Photoshop CC have this technology for compensating motion blur?
The P1 effect of this is yet to be seen.
NB! All that FMC claims is to compensate for movements because higher ISOs are impossible on CCD, not because CMOS wouldn't allow something.
Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.
That's a great news. GoPro has became quite slow in recent 2 years - no rectilinear option, no raw photo, battery life has remained the same.DJI could start to create much better platform for video & stills focusing on mft.
Vivid1: Couple this camera with a 17 or 24 T/S and you have a landscapers dream... IF it lacks a stop or so of low ISO DR - it will be absolutely no dealbreaker (Landscapers can do multi shots and studio photogs don't need it)
One thing is for sure - this camera IS creating quite a splash - the way this thread has grown is total proof.... I hear people who are non photographers, talk about this 50Mp monster. So congrats to Canon for being the first to break the 50Mp barrier on 35mm format.
Well, this is the thing, for me and many others bracketing is not an answer. One effectively looses some of resolution and increases postprocessing time. Before the D800, I had many Canons up to 5D2 starting with the D60 from 2002. So I have a general idea what to expect from Canon (the 5D3 doesn't take the DR miles ahead, also tried it out shortly before switched).
Maybe I just overreacted to the word "splash".Fine by me for people whom the 5Ds series looks like a bargain.
Sometimes examples speak more.
I'd have had hard times to get this with Canon, I didn't want to blow the lights: http://ihvweb.net/tmp/sm_side-by-side.jpg
The IS works pretty well for a handheld shot@36MP. For light travelling having a solid tripod is not an option and one doesn't choose the weather.
Well, the Pentax 645z is 50MP on a larger sensor with relatively high DR. A single shot will get you there so no merging of separate images is needed. By the way I mean no HDR at all, just the ability not to blow highs and still retain shadow details.It is not like DR is needed for every shot but it is indeed very handy to have, the more the better.
martindpr: Somebody mentioned the use of bracketing regarding the supposed equal DR as the original Mk3. So, in order to increase the DR, you'll have to make several shots, which raises a few problems: 1) How will those affect the resolution, bearing in mind that tiny vibrations shift the sensor plane and blur the image, let alone physical changes in the environment which change it (wind, rain, light, etc...) Than, lenses... Will you end up with 50MP image? Second, and most important, why do we need a 50MP camera? Moire isn't an issue, at least not for large prints with my D7100 which only has 24MPix. But, of course, detail, lot of people may suggest, but this doesn't hold either. Make a poster (say, size A0), and have a look at it from 3-4 feet distance. Will you notice any difference between anything produced by a 12MP camera (say D300, 5D1, D2X, 1Ds1, D3, etc...) and 5DMk3, D600, D7100, or even D800/E/810?? Out of experience - no, there isn't any difference in resolution, other than DOF,DR,etc
Agreed that it is little bit awkward looking camera: low ISO, low DR , high MP, minimal video. A higher price and very high MP points to a specialized camera. Then again, the specialty excellence advantage isn't fully utilized because of not so high DR. Generally speaking the D810, a proved camera quite long available in the market, looks a tad better to me than this yet to be released camera - the former having better low AND high ISO, better movie, truly removed AA not "canceled out" (provided one prefers the camera without the AA).
How would you stabilize outside movement, that was the question.With such a precision of detail registration, even short bracketing gets two different pictures of foliage etc.Agreed the lens choice for Pentax is quite less what Canon has to offer.
You are kidding, right? How you plan to combine two shots of a landscape with wind or other movements registered by ultimate details of 50MP? Not even talking about conveniency.
Much better tool for the job would be a Pentax 645Z.
As to "splash", it gets more and more controversial about Canon. Used to be quite different before 2008.