Timur Born: I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
Too bad, I would have been more tempted if I knew that I'd get two versions of Lightroom for about the same price that I'd have to pay for two upgrades, with Photoshop CC on top (owning LR4).
Yes, the LR4 in my backhand is good to have. I was very temped to buy a second license when LR5's full version was down 50% for a few days, making it cost less than an upgrade. Strangely it was only down 30% over Black Friday/Cyber Monday.
Anyway, one year of CC will give me two upgrades (LR5 + LR 6) and Photoshop as a bonus that I may or may not use regularly. If I stop the subscription afterwards I can just buy some LR4 -> LR6/7 upgrade and be good with it.
After reading a statement on a German Facebook page run by Adobe I took the plunge and just wait what happens once LR6 comes out. If it works out then one year of PS + LR subscription will cost me little more than updating LR two times (4 > 5 > 6).
I took the plunge and am very curious how the Lightroom 6 part works out.
The DPR test scene shots reveal the strength of the LF1 sensor and its lens weakness outside the center. That being said of all the cameras listed here only the S120 and LF1 fit somewhat comfortably into jeans trousers pockets, even if they stay there all day during walking, driving and sitting.
Between these two the LF1 offers more reach at the long end, viewfinder for when needed (bright sunlight, dark stage audiences), but lesser wide angle and close to zero JPG controls (sharpness, noise). the LF1 is considerably cheaper than the newer S120 here in Germany.
And yes, the RX100 offers a larger sensor, but its lens construction suffer from the same compromises (even worse in the corners) and lack of long reach also evens the sensor size and resolution advantage for the long end. But more importantly, its depth makes it more of a coat pocket camera, and if I need to use coat pockets I can already use Micro Four Thirds.
So we get different statements from different people at Adobe. On what information should I base my buying decision. To be clear: I specifically asked the shopping line about upgrades to version 6. Of course it's very possible that he didn't know better, but then how should I?
And if you look through all the pages concerning this offer I found all but *one* repeating the specific wording of "Lightroom *5*", including the paragraphs about updates.
Depends on the series of cameras (price range, I guess), i.e. no firmware updates for known issues of the X10 in years. And one could argue that some of the features listed here should have been part of the package right away.
Still you have to give them that they do deliver new functions in "old" cameras where other companies would ask you to buy new hardware. (Ok, they ask to buy the X20 to get the fixes needed for the X10, not so nice.)
I am missing the Panasonic LF1 as maybe even better alternative to the Canon S120. Not only does it offer a better reach to get that shot across the room, but more importantly it's the only one coming with a viewfinder. Nothing is more of a turn-off at a party than someone running around with a bright screen!
I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
PC Wheeler: Canceled the S120 order and decided to give the LF1 a try. Some of the samples posted in the forum and in reviews here http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LF1/sample_images.shtml and here http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lf1_review/sample_images/ are pretty impressive. This "Lens very soft at the borders and corners with very visible aberrations" could be from LF1 sample variability.
Worth a try: The EVF and 28-200 mm range are appealing. If a no go, then the S120.
Absolutely do give it a try. Much of the lens softness is at the wide end with wide open aperture, so there is room for improvement via stopping down. Post processing helps, too, but it also very much depends on your usage case. I am mostly shooting people, so I don't really care so much about wide landscape shots with the LF1.
In this shot I demonstrated heavy processing of an LF1 file. You may notice that I added strong vignetting, which not only focuses the view on the tree, but also helps to hide corner lens aberrations and blur. ;)
In my opinion the S120 currently seems priced too high for what it brings to the table versus the S110/100 (much cheaper), a RX100 Mk1 (same price) or LF1 (cheaper). The LF1 delivers what I need at a reasonable price (now that it came down).
Timur Born: Most people should just stay in sRGB space throughout their whole processing pipeline (camera, software, display, printer) and get away from the bigger-is-better mentality. Not to mention that today most images are viewed on all kinds of displays which more likely are working within the limits of sRGB than anything else.
Things can get *lot* more complicated once you want to use proper color management. Not only because of the "management" part of things, but also because you only really can make good use of it once you understand what you are doing and what the corresponding benefits and *limitation* are.
Thanks for writing this article and trying to help everyone get a better picture (pun intended) of all this.
Proper color management can get complicated, even more so proper monitor calibration, especially with inexpensive monitors. It's no magic, but still over many peoples' head without them noticing.
Who knows how many people use AdobeRGB profiles on their camera and maybe even monitors, just to post images on the sRGB web or have them print at some service whose printers use sRGB profiles, too.
All that being said, I am not against proper color management. I am just saying that many people who lack the knowledge or equipment to do it right are better off staying within sRGB. And even if you do it right it doesn't necessarily lead to better looking pictures. The number of possible gradations stays the same, you just stretch them more out. It all depends on the intended outcome.
Not to mention that in our mostly artificial world there ain't so many extreme colors around anyway. Not everyone does photos of a Caribbean beach. ;)
M size, DR 400, ISO 100 = EXR DR (one sensor half lesser exposed)
M size, DR 400, ISO 400 = HR DR (full sensor lesser exposed, then pushed digitally)
M size, DR 400, ISO 800 = HR DR
M size, any *non* EXR DR = SN (pixel binning of both sensor halves = noise averaged out). But most people think that only M size, DR 100 = SN (X10 doesn't agree with that).
walkaround: I don't know where this term "brightening" came from. It's GAIN, since this is signal amplification we are talking about. "Brightening" implies there is no downside, but there is: noise. I would like camera buttons to say "Gain" instead of "ISO"... but current cameras and the people who use them (myself included) are still in a film mindset for many things. You probably won't change this any time soon.
Thanks for another helpful article. Personally I often use the words "gain/ISO" in threads, often accompanied by "digital" and "analog". And I would suggest we keep the use of the word "gain" to describe a somewhat straight amplification of the source signal by analog or digital means. Analog = physical sensor level, Digital = software level (though often including some form of tone-curve already), ISO = often a mix of both, but mostly associated with Analog by users.
But "Brightness" is more than just gain, just as "Loudness" is more than just gain. Equalizing, tone-shaping, compression, noise-shaping, filtering and alteration all modify "perceived loudness" in audio, just as much as they modify "perceived brightness" in images.
One could call all of these things gain modifications on specific aspects of the signal, in the end it's all just adding and multiplying of numbers. But there is reason why we use different terms for specific and broader meanings of what we want to achieve.
Most people should just stay in sRGB space throughout their whole processing pipeline (camera, software, display, printer) and get away from the bigger-is-better mentality. Not to mention that today most images are viewed on all kinds of displays which more likely are working within the limits of sRGB than anything else.
Curiously there is no mentioning of EXR improvements on the download page or in the readme PDF. Have these improvements been part of the 4.4 RC already? Time to check.
DxO offers better demosaicking than LR4 for RAW images coming out of the E-M5. LR4 uses a BayerGreenSplit/Green equilibration offset that smear the very finest detail. And after manually removing that offset there are labyrinth patterns. DxO and Raw Therapee have an edge in that department, cannot tell about Capture One.
On the other hand DxO not only struggles with shadows and highlights recovery compared to LR4, but also suffers from strange behavior of its filtering pipeline, especially where moire is concerned.
RoelHendrickx: Looks like the dream of any Urban Explorer.Sadly, it will now probably be run over by eager photographers anytime soon...Roel
A bit strange how the Bond film told the audience that the island was kind of "just left" while everything obviously fell apart quite some time ago.
Was the studio scene shot with a preproduction or broken unit? There is awfully distinct pattern noise in the shadows, especially at higher ISOs. And even the corresponding JPGs look very smeared in these areas.
First: Thumbs up for optimizing your studio test scene in order to satisfy the needs of better measurements! :)
Things I am missing:
- Larger areas of diagonal lines (45° in both directions), which reveal weaknesses in non Bayer pattern cameras (especially EXR) better than the small sun-stars.
- More shadow on the fur inside the shadow box. The yellow fur in the old box did reveal shadow/dynamic-range performance of different cameras very well, especially in the dark upper left corner where the single hairs of the fur stood out.
- More different color patches in more shadowy areas. The color chart left to the green bottle (especially green patch) and the label of said bottle (especially words "Road" and "Product") would very much reveal loss of saturation and resolution due to high ISO noise and/or JPG noise-reduction.
- I agree about the blond/contrasty hair vs. dark hair part.
Overall I like the the design optically, albeit the black/white boxes are very contrasty on the eyes. It looks classic (good), though.
I do not like how much screen estate gets wasted by less than important things. Half the vertical space is used for other things before the posts list is showing up.
- The "New thread" and "Ask Question" buttons + text are HUGE compared to the rest and there is a BIG blank field left empty beside them.
Simple solution: Put the text to the right side of the button image, instead of below. Maybe you can squeeze in the "Expanded/Compact" buttons right beside it, too?!
- The popups are a problem on the iPad (Safari), because they happen easily when one wants to scroll and don't vanish anymore.
- Clicking on the last post (date/time) does _not_ link to the last post in non-threaded view anymore (never did properly in threaded view anyway).
- When the last line of a quoted post is deleted during edit (first non quoted line) you cannot enter own text.
thomy: This is one of the lamest new firmware i ve seen for a camera, Olympus do not listen to their costumers, what a shame, take example from Ricoh for example !
Olympus, You Can't !
I can imagine that reprogramming the IBIS part alone was quite a major task.