I checked also and Mond is correct, $119 for Film 01, not free.
exapp: Hope they fixed the performance issues with Lightroom CC, develop module is almost unusably slow.
CC version is a disaster to use and is many many time slower than LR 5.7 and that's on a current gen PC with lots of RAM and SSDs hate to see what it would be like on an old machine.
exapp, I'm experiencing that exact same problem. Usually the first crop works, but if you try to crop a second time with that image the blue screen appears.
The very day I upgraded to these new versions I encountered BSOD 0xc000021a -fatal error. This error requires a complete OS reinstallation which wipes out all apps. I spent 2 days reloading Windows 8.1 then reloaded my apps including Adobe PS + LR and as soon as I attempted to restart it crashed again. I'm wondering if anyone else here is running into this issue? It would be helpful if I could narrow down the cause to this Adobe upgrade.
Richard:Will the Auto ISO work when aperture and shutter speed are manually set?
fastprime: Are these shots taken with pre-production firmware (0.2) or production firmware (1.0)? Panasonic has requested that shots taken with 0.2 should not be published.
The sample pictures, especially the first batch, were criticized for appearing mushy and unsharp. Some even suggested that DPR obtained a faulty camera. I'd be interested in a response from DPR about the picture quality and the apparent disconnect between the specs and the posted output.
I'd still like to know if the LX100 will allow ISO to float when in Manual Mode (selected S & A).
Are these shots taken with pre-production firmware (0.2) or production firmware (1.0)? Panasonic has requested that shots taken with 0.2 should not be published.
For me (and YMMV), the limitation is the resolution of the sensor in the various crop modes.1:1 9.5mp16:9 11.3mp3:2 12.2mp4:3 12.7mp
while these are fine for screen or magazine display, they limit print size for wall art to (@240ppi):1:1 13"x13"16:9 19"x11"3:2 18"x12"4:3 17"x13"
It would be different if the entire sensor resolution was available or if the sensor resolution was 20mp or higher, but with the cropping too many pixels are lost to print bigger than the above figures while retaining image quality.
I wonder how big you could print without degrading image quality? Is there a way to ball park this?
blork: Wow, I had no idea this was coming. What a huge jump for the LX line!
I've had the LX-2, LX-3, LX-5, and now I use the LX-7. I pretty much only use ot for a particular type of street photography I do (shooting from the hip with the lens at the widest placement and manual focus set for a specific DOF range). My biggest problem with the LX-7 in this context is that I wish the IQ were better. (I use an Olympus EM5 and a Fujifilm X100s for other work, and I really see a difference.)
This might solve my problem! But I need to know more about manual focusing and if the new model has a DOF scale the way the LX-7 does. Has anyone here seen anything written about that?
Another super-bonus would be the ability to set manual exposure and have auto ISO be the variable to account for changes in lighting. The LX-7 can't do that (auto ISO doesn't work in manual exposure mode). Looking forward to learning more!
I've asked Jeff/Richard about auto iso in manual mode twice on this thread with no response.
Jeff/Richard:I'm wondering if you can float ISO when manually fixing Shutter and Aperture?
Ezra, my suggestion to make this shot more interesting would be to position a beautiful (nude) Icelandic female model on the ice, standing tiptoe with arms outstretched above her head. That should satisfy all the critics who find the shot uninteresting!
The sample gallery is very impressive. The skin tones of the children in particular look perfect to m eye!
Critics in the use of Photoshop (or other pp sw) must all be jpeg shooters, 'cause last time I checked RAW files have to be converted and adjusted through a post-processing workflow. JPEGs go through an automated conversion process in-camera.
If the photog is not going to adjust the RAW file after opening it in software(i.e., file open>file save as) they'd actually get better results shooting straight jpegs, cause unedited RAW files look flat.
Wonderful images, thanks for sharing them. Wish I had that kind of talent. As for all the douche's whining about PP, there wasn't that much done IMO. A little blur on some, a burned edge on some, perhaps some desaturation on some. Pretty minimal compared to what heavy PP would look like, and not dissimilar to film-era darkroom techniques. Most of the work was done in planning, setup and capture with lighting and composition carefully staged. Taking the studio outdoors as it were.
Shouldn't it have a faux frame advance lever?
I don't get why the frame rate is only 5.5 when they are using the D4 16mp sensor and the same Expeed 3 processor.
Adobe CC = Adobe Compromised Creditcard
Thanks for the tutorial. Ignore the haters. Haters hate.