plasnu: In RAW, Magenta is extremely strange, why?
@Just a Photographer
We *did* use the ACR8.4 beta - it's the only version of ACR to support the X-T1.
peevee1: DPR wrote: "compare the E-M10 to a growing list of cameras in our new studio test scene. "
Your comparison is useless, for ISO 25,600 you use f/5.6 1/2500s on E-M10 and f/5.6 1/5000s on E-M1. Whole stop difference in exposure!
The E-M10 can't shoot at 1/5000th, so we had to reduce the lighting by 1EV.
rocklobster: It's hugely dissappointing to keep hearing about how complex it is to enable the SCP or to change any other configuration parameters. Anybody who has owened a recent Olympus camera will find it quickly and for anyone else there are the forums. This is not a deal breaker by any stretch...
By default you get the screen mode version of SCP - an interactive panel *instead* of live view. Switch to live view and pressing the 'info' button brings up the early-90s-compact-camera-style interface.
Engaging SCP as the main means of changing settings is an awkward affair. We have to review for people who aren't existing Olympus owners. Our point is that the E-M10 can be set up to be one of the engaging cameras in its class, for keen photographers, but if you pick it up in a camera store, you may not realise this.
helltormentor: DP reviewers, Can you please tell us why you insist on converting X-Trans RAW files by ACR? It might be a good converter for other RAW files but, certainly, it is not for X-Trans files. I, myself, am very thankful for all the efforts that you put into shedding light on camera's capabilities but the truth is, when it comes to Fuji cameras, your evaluation cannot help photographers to make their minds because ACR outputs leave a lot to be desired. I am well aware that there is always a big inertia against changes but if conservativeness was the way to choose, we still had to shoot with pinhole cameras. If you don't have to stick to ACR for commercial reasons, please switch to a better RAW converter for X-Trans files. Otherwise, save your time and energy for reviewing cameras with conventional Bayer sensors since your reviews on them are truly informative.
Ultimately, though, any converter we choose (or any combination of converters), will be open to just as must criticism. This is the most meaningful and least bad compromise.
And the point you've ignored entirely is that we provide the files to allow everyone to draw their own conclusions, based on their own workflows.
@Michael Berg - Every survey I've ever seen (including one we conducted a few years back) put ACR out in front my a country mile. I've seen no data to suggest this has subsequently changed.
@helltormentor - For a start, I disagree that ACR is a long way off other converters, when it comes to X-Trans. Its initial attempts were a bit disappointing, but I think we've re-processed all the Raw files of X-Trans cameras with one of the more recent updates (I forget which, and when).
What we're doing is entirely consistent, regardless of whether you consider it fair. As soon as we change to an 'optimal' converter for one camera, we have to assess and test all cameras with a range of converters, to check that we're not disadvantaging them (an essentially endless task).
Yes, our approach presents problems for cameras that aren't supported by ACR at all (our old scene allowed us to isolate files, so that they could only be displayed on pages that explained their inconsistency).
@helltormentor - there are three reasons we use ACR to process all the cameras in our test scene:
1) Consistency - If we start cherry-picking converters for each camera, then the scenes would be less comparable and we'd have even more complaints that we've chosen the 'wrong' one or used the 'wrong; settings. There is no 'right' way of doing this, so we have to choose one way and be consistent with it.
2) Timeliness - Adobe has been very good at providing support soon after launches, which is essential for us to be able to start work on reviews.
3) Relevance - The ACR engine (through Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom) is by far the most-used third-party Raw converter and it is central to many people's workflows. A camera's performance in ACR gives those people an indication of the results they may get.
Ultimately, we can't provide everyone with what they think is their optimal process, so we always provide the Raw files so they can see for themselves.
RichRMA: Someone needs to get a "universal lens" and shoot all the cameras in manual mode to really establish their real ISO speeds. What good is "claiming" 3200 ISO on one camera when it gives results like 1600 or 1200 on another, in-terms of illumination? This can negate whatever claim to "low-noise" a camera may have.
We do just that at the top of the Noise page of each review.
gerard boulanger: A teasing before a full review Friday?
Probably not Friday, but the review is progressing well.
Heaven is for real: This article was published today so why the comments are 1 week old or so?
The article extends our existing content, so the comments were made on that original content.
Horshack: hmm, SRAW on the 16MP D4s but not the 36MP D800.
The bullet-point list on page 1.
Terry Breedlove: Fuji nor Sony have anything even close to this.
In the sense that they don't even try to compete in this sphere?
Noticeably BMW doesn't make anything as fast as Mercedes' F1 car. Does that mean BMWs are suddenly rubbish?
Just Ed: Surprised that IDC did not include figures for Sony.Since they are all the little darling of all the posts lately it would be niceto know how profitable, or unprofitable, mirrorless is for them.
I tried the link but it did have the full report. (edit)
This story is not based on IDC's figures - it's a summary of several companies' quarterly results and CIPA figures, augmented with some analysis by IDC (which looks at the whole market).
Sony doesn't split its camera figures out enough in its results statements for us to be able to say anything meaningful about its business.
Revenant: At first, I thought Casio EX-100 was a typo, and that they meant EX-10. But it seems that Casio has released another enthusiast compact, this time with a 28-300mm F/2.8 lens, similar to (or the same as) the one in Olympus Stylus 1. The form factor is the same as EX-10, though, so no built-in EVF.
I wonder why these are only released in Asia? Has Casio abandoned the European and American markets completely?
We didn't have a press release when it was announced, but [the EX-100 is in our database.](http://www.dpreview.com/products/casio/compacts/casio_ex100)
Lee W: What about LR?
I got thrown-off because the LR5.3 RC link from our last news story has now been broken (I thought it might always have been).
Either way, they haven't (yet) announced a LR5.4 RC.
Mikity: Will these updates work for Lightroom as well, or does LR require separate deivce updates?
You'll need to wait for LR updates - although it's based around the same processing engine, it doesn't use the same plugin structure as Photoshop.
ginsbu: I like the way the comparison images are presented, but it would be nice to see a more direct comparison without the DR expansion mode confounding the results.
I've had a look around and there's not much to be found - the weather here means I've only got a handful of images that are shot in good light, with greenery and blue skies. Almost none of those are in DR100.
I did find these, though:
[Camera Provia JPEG](http://www.dpreview.com/files/news/4246991885/DSCF0012.jpg)
[ACR Provia Profile](http://www.dpreview.com/files/news/4246991885/DSCF0012.acrP.jpg)
[ACR Adobe Standard Profile](http://www.dpreview.com/files/news/4246991885/DSCF0012.acr.jpg)
I agree - sadly most of my images in good weather were shot with DR Auto on, which is rather too keen to shoot at DR200%.
I'll see if I can find better examples.
Cheezr: DPReview is being a little over eager, this is the Adobe Labs beta for ACR 8.4 and you need to use their links because the usual Adobe updaters will not pick it up until it is a released product.I just installed it (it comes with an installer) and it works in both LR CC and PS CC
We are, as we have regularly done, reporting the availability of Release Candidate versions on Adobe labs.
Frederico70x7: Is there an update for LR v4?
I don't *think* v4 is still being updated. Based on recent behaviour, it looks like LR 5.4 will be launched along with the full release version of ACR 8.4 (rather than at this 'Release Candidate' stage).
It looks like Adobe only does full updates of LR - not 'Release Candidate' versions - which would suggest the update will come when this version is finalised.