Came here expecting tons of people not getting that it's a one-off design for a specific thing that will be auctioned off for a charity. I was not disappointed.
It's a wonder that most of you can still see, with how far your eyes rolled back in your heads...or have fingers left with how fast you just HAD to get to forums and type out your indignation over all this!
sunnycal: On sensor AF is good, but I have my fingers crossed for real improvement in IQ.
@T3 - thanks for the clarification.
Scorpius1: I am very curious to see if this sensor improves on the banding and pattern noise problems of previous sensor's..The only issue's preventing me from buying a canon body(still have most of my L glass..)
That's what I figured NetMage, but you never know in this day and age as some use things from different manufacturers, such as Nikon using Sony sensors in some of their cameras.
Having read up more on the 70D, I can see now how new this sensor is.
I didn't see it mentioned, but will this go with the trend of having no aliasing-filter on it like the Nikon D7100 and others did?
Not sure, but beware of banding if jumping ship to Nikon as their 7100 suffers from banding issues in the shadow areas. I'd say just read up on it a little and not do what I did, get the camera and THEN only discover the issue popping up. Just something to be aware of. Not sure if the 70D will have the same issues because I don't know if it's the same sensor that the new Nikons use also.
jennyrae: poor choices. I have better list selection than this.
Then feel free to share with the rest of the class.
ksgant: Any fix or perhaps lessening of the banding you sometimes get in the shadow areas when pushed?
Hmmm, I'll check, but I think I got my electrons at....HEY!
Yes, but I had a situation where I had something that was barely half a stop under exposed and the banding reared it's ugly head on me. I was quite surprised by it. Seemed be an isolated incident for me, but still was surprising.
Any fix or perhaps lessening of the banding you sometimes get in the shadow areas when pushed?
micahmedia: What a garbage "me too" product. Why remove one of the most desirable features of the Fuji mirror-less cams. I hope this model tanks as a lesson to the entire industry, which causes everyone else to jump on the integrated EVF bandwagon.
...but that ain't likely to happen. Because most people haven't had the experience of using an eye level finder to know how awesome it is.
I used to shoot Leica's with film, had an M3 and later an M6. I have the opportunity to shoot Leica's now with digital. I don't shoot Leica's with digital.
I personally have been enjoying the electronic viewfinder in the more modern cameras. The older ones were lower rez, they lagged a lot and I just didn't care for them. But I've found now that I use the Electronic viewfinder in my X100s more than I do the optical.
But...that's neither here nor there. The camera at hand has neither optical nor electronic so it doesn't matter.
rsjoberg: I'm currently using Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS 3. I'm awaiting an Aperture upgrade to see about making the jump.
Obviously, not everyone needs Photoshop. I'd say a vast majority of hobbyests that used it didn't really need it. And you're right, programs such as PSP would probably suit them better. But I personally need Photoshop. There's a ton of things in there that just can't be done (yet) in any single other package. I welcome the day when that's possible, and one where the myriad of plug-in developers flock to. Right now, they make their plug-ins for Photoshop, some that I rely on, on a daily basis.
Peet Venter: We may not like it, but this is the future of ALL software. rather get use to it. Adobe, let me have it please, Why kick against facts, why try and dry the oceans with a plastic bucket. Guys, in 12 months all of you have come around. This is not nice, not good and not right. but this is the way of our brave new world.
They're going more with pros with this SemperAugustus, not the amateur. Yes, it sucks for them and it can be a burden to do. So I expect lots of amateurs to dump it. But for a pro...one who makes a large percentage of their income from the Creative Suite, this will just become a monthly business expense like electricity or even like film was in the old days. Just the cost of doing business. If it really buggs us, we just pass the costs on to our customers :) (I'm joking there....a little...)
bigdaddave: I think it goes without saying the best option is simply not to subscribe so Adobe quickly realise the error of their greedy ways
You're probably right Josh152. I mean I've heard people complaining about this louder than anyone, yet they haven't upgraded since CS2. I don't think Adobe is going to be missing them.
Aperture may replace Lightroom for you. Even Camera One could replace Lightroom for you. But neither are replacements for Photoshop.
As it stands of now, there is no replacement for Photoshop. There are some that do a little of this and a little of that, but no true replacement that can do everything Photoshop can. Hopefully there will be one day, but it's going to take a while.
trungthu: """ Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame."""When we use the same shooting frame in both sensor sizes (APS-C and Full Frame).""" What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image."""As I know, in normal condition, the gather of light at each aperture is different with others. The lower number, the more of light. But when we have a quantity of light is "a" to be right exposured, that means the light come to the sensor is "equal" in any aperture (in relate to shutter speed), or any sensor size, not only at f/1.8 (in APS-C) # f/2.8 (in Full Frame)I don't know why the author say that...
But, it doesn't mean anything. I'm a "bottom line" kind of guy and this lens is a f/1.8 lens. Now, what that means is, if I have this on my camera, and I'm taking a light reading with a hand-held meter (which I do from time to time) and I dial in f/1.8 for a given ISO on my meter, I put that in my camera....regardless of m/43 or APS-C or Full-Frame...and take the picture. That, to me at least, is what matters. What the author is talking about is depth-of-field.
This needs to stop, and julieng is right, it plagues the m/43 forums all the time. It confuses the situation and seriously has no use in the "real world". In the pixel-peeping world which seems to dominate DPReview, it's a different story obviously, but those guys aren't taking pictures nore are into regular photography. They're into measuring and looking at noise tests and things of that nature.
Hey, I'm sure it's a fascinating hobby.
ryanshoots: More video sucks. Buggy players, mandatory commercials at the beginning and so on. I'll take a photo by a professional any day over 99% of the punters with an iphone video.
I understand the economics of it, but don't think for a minute that quality is going up.
They're trying to stay in business. They have to make money to do that. How would you propose they do this? Go back to the "old days"? They're dying using that model. Go behind a pay-wall? Nope, everyone hates that too. No one wants ads, no one wants paywalls, no one wants change....but the newspapers can't stay in business.
Weegee: I wonder when The New York Times will finally decide to do the same? People are so visually illiterate and tasteless that we knew it would come to this. Just look at the content of TV. "professional" photography is dying.
Certain aspects of it are. But I would say that my business is going stronger now than it ever was. I totally welcome the amateurs and "I got a friend that's pretty good with an iPhone" crowd because it allows me to stand above them a bit and when potential clients see my work, they're more used to Billy on Instagram instead of a portable studio environment with lighting and things of that nature.
Photojournalism is a different beast though.
AndyHWC: they should make it available to non-google+ users. Why force users join Google+? Too many privacy settings to check. :(
I see now you were talking about a Youtube app for Windows PHONE. I doubt you'll see a Google made app for that, as they don't have unlimited resources and since WIndows Phone is such a tiny market, they're not going to waste resources on it. Microsoft KNEW that when they made that app that Google would have to issue a take-down. You realize this, yes? They specifically violated the Google terms-of-service on purpose. They wanted to rile up people like yourself, and it obvious worked. But you need to do a little more research into this, as I've shown you that you were wrong on your video search assumptions and you're wrong on the Google Maps issues for iOS. Google didn't have to "give in" to anything. Apple totally screwed up by dumping Google as their maps solution and Google could have let him hang in the wind. This was Apple's doing, not Google's. Their contract with Google was ending and they chose not to renew. This is all well documented and got Scott Forstall fired.
Interesting enough, you're wrong about searching for video. Case in point, I put in the search term "Closer NIN" for the video by Nine Inch Nails and searched in the "videos" tab for Google. First result was...on Vimeo! Which is NOT a Google owned video site. First off the bat, was something other than Youtube.
Also, why should Google have to make any app at all for Windows 8? How many YouTube apps does it have for OS X? Hmmm...none. Hey, how about for Windows 7? None. It's a web service.
And also, how is a search engine a monopoly like Microsoft had? You can live your entire life and never ever ever touch a Google product or search product if you choose. You're not forced to use Google. You can use Bing. You can use Duck Duck Go. Then again, I didn't feel that Microsoft truly had a monopoly back in the 90's as I was going fine with my Mac then, as now. A monopoly was AT&T when they had ALL the phone service in the 80's in the US. You didn't have a choice at all. THAT'S a monopoly
They're luxury items now. Investments really. I mean, is there anything these cameras can do that you can't get any other way? Then why spend the extra on them? For intangibles such as the "prestige" and "fit and finish" and things like that. Sure!
Think of it this way, you can buy a Tiffany lamp that costs thousands and thousands of dollars, yet still lights a room no different then any other lamp, but it's a Tiffany! It's the same thing here. Buy a Leica M now and you might be at an Antiques Roadshow 30 years from now.
"Ah, what have you here? Oh, it's an old Leica M! I haven't seen one of these in 25 years. It's in excellent shape too!"
"What did you pay for it?"
"My father bought this brand new for just under $8000"
"Ah, wonderful. That must have been a lot in those days. Well, at auction, with the market for these things now since the industry moved away from digital 20 years ago, you can expect to get around $30,000 to $40,000 dollars".