Amazing. This is actually pretty much worthless. Artifacts all over the place. Guess they were using The Surface to render?
Thanks, Microsoft. Another winner.
InTheMist: Downgrading my account.
Adobe, you suck for forcing this subscription mess on users.
So hateful, Henry, like so many internet commenters you debase honest discussions about ANYTHING. You think you're clever? Grow up.
Gavin Abegglen: Really a $1000 , for a toy for under $200 you could get something that can do the same and even better . For a $1000 you could something , like a DJI Phantom or Wakera QX 350 PRO, which did even more including flight time .
have to agree with :By RichRMA (2 hours ago)Annoying, Apple-like, 20-something hipsterism.
Hilarious, snark-like, 40-something superior-ism
Because what the world needs is YouTube videos of cats, babies, and people falling down in 4K? Thanks, Sony.
The GOOGLE march to world domination continues apace. Resistance is futile.
Of what use is comparing a Sony with a Zeiss lens to a Nikon with a Nikkor lens? Is that a test of lenses or cameras, or what?
Also, what are we looking at in RAW mode? Isn 't it another jpg? Is the same raw processor used in all cases?
Seems like all one can do is compare "this" lens with "this" camera to "that" lens with "that" camera.
What am I missing here?
Useless pretty much on a smartphone. Navigation in Safari dodgy. So far, no good.
IcyVeins: Why are cine lenses measured in T stops and regular lenses in f stops?
To which I would add depth of field is still a function of the F/stop, and would be somewhat less than the T/stop.