 |
sigala1
Joined on
Oct 13, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Ivan Lietaert: So glad dpreview is reminding us on a weekly basis that one can only make artistic photos with an iPhone! plug plug plug
Well other smartphones suck compared to Apple; people who own ugly Samsung Galaxies feel very little inspiration to use it as a poor-quality camera.
Wayne Pilling: Why the need for such speed? What's wrong with taking a 'better quality' image on a camera that shoots raw, then processing it in say, LR? You then email it to the patiently waiting world from your work station! Too much to ask?
He should get a Canon 6D. It has a wireless function so it automatically sends photos to the mobile phone. That way, he can instantly upload 6D-quality photos to Instagram, and have a 6D-quality raw file for future editing.
People are violating the spirit of Instagram by using borders to make the photos rectangular.
Bruce McL wrote: "On a phone you can edit and publish as you are photographing. No other equipment is required. That ability is what makes using a phone different from using traditional cameras."
So people want to be acknowledged as Fine Art Photographers, but they are too lazy to copy the photos from the camera to a computer. OK.
These iphone articles don't make any sense. Yeah, it has a good camera for a phone, but at $650 it isn't cheap. My LX7 is so much better a camera for half the price, and you can even buy extra batteries for it.
sigala1: Why did the guy have to drop from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone?
Surely there are many in-between cameras that are small and non-intimidating yet offer much better image quality than a smartphone. My Panasonic LX7, for example, blows away my iPhone, but you can easily hold it one handed.
It's easier to use one device sure. But for an extra 60 seconds of work to take the SD card out of a real camera and plut into an iPhone so you can upload the JPEGs to Instagram, you can also have high-quality RAW files to use for other purposes later.
Why not use small but high-quality camera like a Sony RX1?
sigala1: Why did the guy have to drop from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone?
Surely there are many in-between cameras that are small and non-intimidating yet offer much better image quality than a smartphone. My Panasonic LX7, for example, blows away my iPhone, but you can easily hold it one handed.
Apple sells an adapter that lets you take the SD card out of a camera and plug it into an iOS device and then it automatically imports JPEG files.
Why did the guy have to drop from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone?
Surely there are many in-between cameras that are small and non-intimidating yet offer much better image quality than a smartphone. My Panasonic LX7, for example, blows away my iPhone, but you can easily hold it one handed.
BingoCharlie: So glad we got this review. Forget the NEX-6, GH3, XE-1, and 6D. A review of the Coolpix S800c is what DPR users have been clamoring for.
This review doesn't answer any of the important questions.
How well does the Netflix streaming app work?
How much batter life for listening to MP3s?
Does it even make phone calls?
pugilist: what are "complimentary colors"?
Colors that tell you how good a job you're doing. "Wow, great photo!"
RedDog Steve: JUST SAY NO ! to lossy formats.
Adobe will ruin the future of .dng.
The whole idea was to have a 'future-proof' open archival format.
Compression is OK, but lossy compression is not.
rd
"Adobe will ruin the future of .dng."
Adobe is offering this as an OPTION and not something you have to do. Adobe is making DNG better by making it more versatile.
G Davidson: Sounds very good. Major reasons to use Raw for me are white balance corrections, adding my own choice of sharpening and, of course, more flexibility with exposure. In all these cases, a lossy Raw would be a lot more useful than a jpeg and these days Raw files are just getting too big to store, growing at a much faster rate than hard drive sizes.
I think all manufacturers should include a 'save to DNG' option, as the format will definitely be more survivable than their jumble of proprietary ones. Or it's part, if Adobe is going to have newer versions that are incompatible with their older software, there should be free tools to 'convert' them to be usable. It's not much of an open format if there aren't free tools avaliable to access it.
"adding my own choice of sharpening"
Yes, one of my biggest annoyances at out-of-camera JPEGs is that they have sharpening which can't be turned off (even when dialed down) and introduces sharpening halos which you are stuck with.
Brek01: Speaking for myself, I am happy with CS3, it does all I need it to do, so I am not upgrading to any new version anytime soon, which means no revenue for adobe, so I guess I see why they are doing it.
I already had CS3, so it was around the same price to upgrade to CS5 than to buy Lightroom. And I tried the demo of Lightroom, it's just a different interface around ACR, and I'm not a professional photographer so I had no use for the fancy database. Bridge works fine for my purposes.
But yes, a cheaper way around the ACR problelm is to buy and update Lightroom; the Lightroom updates are half the price of the Photoshop udpates.
Brek01: Speaking for myself, I am happy with CS3, it does all I need it to do, so I am not upgrading to any new version anytime soon, which means no revenue for adobe, so I guess I see why they are doing it.
The problem is that CS3 does NOT directly support RAW files from cameras from the last 3 years, and even when you convert the RAW file to DNG, CS3 will only use an old DNG format which is missing some stuff--it doesn't work well with the new Olympus cameras, I had to updgrade to CS5.
Adobe is using their monopoly power to increase profits.
avgcitizen: I have an S90 which has unacceptably soft corners at telephoto. I regret having not replaced it or sent it to Canon for warranty service. Lately (after 2 years) it will not focus at normal-to-telephoto range, whether manual or auto, and it is now sometimes struggles to find enough contrast to focus at any focal length.
My older EOS 450 still performs admirably, but its EF-S 55-250 lens has always suffered from extreme softness at various focal lengths.
It looks like dpreview has gotten two bad copies of the S100, which further suggests that Canon has quality control issues. Is it so costly for Canon to perform basic lens tests on their higher end products before the consumer is stuck to deal with it?
I wanted an S100 but now I am seriously researching my options...
"I have an S90 which has unacceptably soft corners at telephoto."
And my S90 has really soft corners at wide angle. And really bad contrast at ALL focal lengths. But then the S90 tested by dpreview also has really bad contrast.
I think that the S cameras just have a cheap P&S quality lens.
"PEN Mini has no mode dial and fewer external controls"
You mean the Mini has fewer buttons.
Some people reading this might think the Mini doens't allow you to control the camera, which it certainly does, you just have to use the "Super Control Panel" for more things instead of having it one-click on a button. Furthermore, the E-PM1 allows you the change the useless flash button into a more useful ISO button.