Earthlight: I am now very happy with my decision not to get a 5DsR last year. Give me a 5D4 with this sensor tech, say 28 mp and that is it. It would give very, very high quality 50x75 cm prints from a single frame. Stitch to get gigantic enlargements and panoramas.
I sold my 1DsMkIII in anticipation 6 months ago and have been shooting with a pair of 6D bodies since.
Cannot see myself that 80D is better @100 iso than the 5DS/R from ev+1 to ev+2 nor that it is better than the 5DS/R @ev+5 at same file size?
Wow 31 people already owned these cameras... and I did not even notice the opening sales? Good I'm with Canon. There has to be a catch since Nikon users are dumping these models so fast.
digidog: >>Working as a travel photographer, I tend to make a custom profile for each location area.
No need, the profiles are illuminant specific. You can build one for daylight, use it all day long, morning noon and late afternoon. This is illustrated (and you can test this yourself) here:
In this video, we’ll look into the creation and use of DNG camera profiles in three raw converters. The video covers:What are DNG camera profiles, how do they differ from ICC camera profiles.Misconceptions about DNG camera profiles.Just when, and why do you need to build custom DNG camera profiles?How to build custom DNG camera profiles using the X-rite Passport software.The role of various illuminants on camera sensors and DNG camera profiles.Dual Illuminant DNG camera profiles.Examples of usage of DNG camera profiles in Lightroom, ACR, and Iridient Developer.Low Rez (YouTube):http://youtu.be/_fikTm8XIt4High Rez (download):http://www.digitaldog.net/files/DNG%20Camera%20profile%20video.mov
@digidog we simply do not have the same expectations when it comes to color profiles - so we will never agree on any of this. Enjoy your 5DS/R with the standard Adobe profiles. I'll enjoy mine with custom profiles.
@digidog you prove nothing - and I will - later - post samples showing very clearly why what you write is either nonsense or because you choose to exclude the impact of color casts.
I proved that's not the case in my video**! Various DNG profiles built in differing locations and times of the day IN daylight produce identical results! Test it yourself.
>>PS: I do not think Eric from Adobe is the best source to quote.
You're kidding right? Do you know who Eric Chan from Adobe is?No. I know exactly who he is. He is the person claiming that nothing is wrong with Adobe's 5DS/R profile. That's his credentials to me. Being wrong at a high technical level does not make your views more credible.
@digidog - @VictorEngel is spot on with his comment. In real life light does not have the same spectrum just because there is a theoretical daylight spectral invariance. Environmental issues can have a huge impact - including the obvious issue of reflected color casts from your surroundings. Start going into a forest and try your luck... Now you may be happy with a "good enough" average but frankly then why bother color profiling at all? Just use a standard profile and adjust WB for visual impact - works for the 99% (and nothing wrong with that, people should just know what the trade-off is).
PS: I do not think Eric from Adobe is the best source to quote. At the end of my 5DS/R review http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56919326 I show the very real difference between using Adobe's standard profile and your own. Notice that I come away far better with my own profile with both highlights and shadows - at the same time(!)
Rob: Suddenly, I'm no longer that excited about the upcoming 5D Mark IV update. If the a7R II fulfills all of its promises and 5D Mark IV doesn't include the features I really want, there's a chance I'll be upgrading to the a7R II from my 5D Mark III. Will have to wait and see just how good the PDAF on the a7R II is for subject tracking during AF (for stills and video).
Count me in. On paper lots of reasons to get this caerma. Imagine the 135 zeiss in the dark with image stabilisation! Will of course need to see the reviews proper and will still wait to see the Canon 5DIV (but only if it comes out this year). I hope it will exceed expectations (=match my needs... :-)) Or else my next DSLR will not be a Canon.
Parry Johnson: I bought a Fuji S2 in 2002 for over $3000, sold it to a friend in 2006 for $400, and recently sold it again as part of his estate for $79. Resale value should not be a concern in this industry. Usefulness value should. I never expect to get any money back from my camera equipment, but expect it to pay for itself (and then some!) through actual paying clients or through the pure pleasure of the fun of photography.
So, for those well-heeled amateurs, go for it! For those not-so-well-heeled professionals and professional-wannabees-who-have-another-actual-full-time-job like me, euh... maybe, but only if it's really going to "pay off."
@Parry Johnson for some years now I have buying/selling lenses - widening my photographic opportunities while not getting stuck with too much hardware.
So far total resale value has exceeded my total purchase costs.
I have certainly been on the lucky side of Canon's rising lens prices and I also sold a couple of "bundled" lenses which were practically give-aways compared to the cost of the item I actually wanted.
So for me lenses have been a better "investment" - even if it has been more luck than anything else.
Interesting. But I think 99% of all DSLR photographers would get even better color correction if they could be bothered to set the camera color temp correctly. No - you can't just rely on doing it in post because you shoot RAW - as you are likely to introduce tonality shifts (not sure about the English term here).
I think the like/dislike function can be useful. I have seen it work well on another very large forum were feelings often run high - however with a very important twist.
In stead of showing number of likes/dislikes it only shows the "sum" of likes/dislikes. I'm not sure why but it seems to work better in practice than the like/dislike flaming that some times goes on forums. Youtube being a prime example here.
I just realised that there is also a consideration "hiding" entries with a certain number of dislikes - please, no more censorship than we have already...
maiaibing: Boycot? Against what?
Its their Rock show - they set the rules. If you and others do not want to comply, just stay away. Musicians and other live artists are struggling hard to make their ends meet and to protect themselves from being ripped off in this digital age.
Its like newpapers not wanting to pay for interviews. They end up not having any interviews with rock or film stars. Its not a big deal its just a choice they make. Make your choice and be at peace with your fellow artists.
@JDThomas did you read my post? "Its like newpapers not wanting to pay for interviews". However, lots of magazines do. Some TV-shows do. Lots of people in showbusiness and other artits only give interviews if you pay them.
Boycot? Against what?
Lou Gonzalez: Some people here are complaining about slowness. I had performance issues with LR4 as well. I went digging around for information and Adobe has released an article detailing all of the things you can do to optimize performance. Check it out here: http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html
I was already doing much of this, but the biggest thing that helped me was creating 1:1 previews on import. It takes a while but once they are done LR4 moves much quicker. Give it a try.
Also read these tips and also find that it helps making 1:1 previews from the start. A fast machine will do it at almost the same speed as reduced sized previews.
Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?
@Stig Nygaard I am also unhappy with the March 1 curfew. However, its a fact that flickr counts photos in the hundreds and hundreds og millions which surely was important for the decision. The problem is that a lot of people use flickr for free...
What I hope is that flickr remembers that it also has PAYING customers - whom they should not disappoint in this way. Clearly, it was more important for flickr to not upset its large non-unpaying crowd than doing the right thing towards its customers.
I'm not renewing my subscription if this does not change before next renewal is up.
Jan2009: Excellent composition... was this in Philippines as per the title suggest.
Thank you - and yes it was!
40% of everyone in Copenhagen rides their bike to school or work - every day. Together they bike more than 1.000.000 km a day.
Kim Letkeman: "Fair Use" : Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
One wonders exactly which of those uses the lawyer was claiming that her video-for-money might have been classified under ... what a stretch :-)
Which is why that argument was dismissed by the court back in July...
michi098: The whole concept sounds pretty neat. I would be willing to try one. However, the fact that I can't share my pictures except by going through their website is an absolute no-go. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way?
Agree. The limitations in hosting the pictures is very likely a killer for the tech. Facebook is fine for some - but its not a place photogs go to upload their pictures or to show them off. I have around 100.000 pictures on the web - and maybe 100 of these are hosted or have been uploaded to Facebook. Meanwhile I have some blog-sized pictures at flickr. Just including a photo sharing site such as flickr could already make the tech interesting for a lot more people that have a main interest in photography. Facebook is not a place for them...
Sound disbelief can be a very good thing. Already. I have this strong gut feeling that I will not upgrade to the next edition of PS just to get their new magic anti-blur technology...
Very Danish city scenery (though typically smaller cities). Could see it was from Denmark - even as a thumb nail. Nice pic.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Some of you are hilarious. I'm not aware of a single lens Sigma makes that costs more than the Nikon/Canon direct equivalent. Every sigma lens is 2/3 of the Sigma MSRP at announcement time. Not sure why everyone is getting so excited over the MSRP. Clearly it will be around $800.
"I'm not aware of a single lens Sigma makes that costs more than the Nikon/Canon direct equivalent."
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is more expensive than the Canon f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.4 is more expensive than the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Sigma 15mm fish is more expensive than the Canon version (in most countries). Maybe there are more that I just don't know of.