Perhaps you can do another article discussing which apps play nice with easy home printing straight from the phone. We bought a Canon MX890 wireless printer a while back and I keep a stack of 4x6 photo paper in the top loader for phone prints. Works like a charm and the prints look great. Much more fun than waiting for the mail.
Wow, excellent article. Enjoyed it very much, thanks.
DerpyWebber: Wow, that looks like a Leica S.
It does a little. I'm sure someone sells red Leica dots you can stick over the G.
If the set-up were on a bicycle I'd be impressed. It would give the subjects a chance to run him down.
Looks like it is competitive for high iso, but not any kind of killer sensor. The K5s has slightly better noise, and the OMD looks about as good. The X-E1 is very smooth like is has a little too much noise reduction on-chip. So buy the camera for the other features, and know that it will be just fine as far as IQ goes.
Digitall: Too much PP for photojournalism pictures?
This I can agree on. Many of them look like overdone landscapes or model shots. It's like being a print journalist and insisting on using a flowery font for all your articles. Gets in the way of the story.
I have the 45 and 20 with an OMD and this lens looks very much in the ballpark with those two sharpness wise. I don't know what people are seeing when they look at these images, but here's a tip: look for the area that is actually in focus when judging how sharp the shot is. It's not always the eyes. Olympus eye detection is not perfect, especially in dim light.
Significant price drop, which is good. Makes room for a better, more expensive zoom eventually.
Lovely light. Always fun to see a small sensor camera win these things.
If it's newsworthy you'd be better off selling it yourself , after registering the copyright.
This is the single biggest improvement to the forums I have seen (well the new moderators are good too). Love being able to pull up a larger version as a slide show, with the loupe if the photos are larger. Makes looking at the photographs more fun. Thanks, and nice job.
acidic: It should be noted that just because the LR Catalog file is backed up does not mean the image files are backed up. Someone will undoubtedly confuse the two and will lose their image files as a result.
My biggest gripe with LR is that it lacks metadata import/export functionality. It would be nice to be able to export IPTC/EXIF data form a catalog (or subset of the catalog) as a .csv file, as well as import that data back in. Many image databases allow this, so I'm sure Adobe is more than capable of adding such a feature.
Lightroom creates a copy of the imported raw according to your needs. You have to have a copy even to see it on the screen, a jpeg preview. You need a high res copy to work on images at 100 percent. But you can tell Lightroom how long to hold on to these previews (a month, etc) so that too much space isn't used. If you go back to look at older images, new previews are created.
Gregm61: Having to import images "into" Lightroom......flat sucks. That's all there is to it. I just want a program that will open up any file I have on my computer.....from where I originally put it. Photoshop does that, and that's all I need.
Lightroom works for me. I have it create new folders for each import (unless I wan't images added to an existing folder). I can tell it to copy the images or just add them from the existing location (useful if you have already put them in a folder where you want). It doesn't store images away in some secret location...they are right where I want them, in my case on a couple mirrored external drives.
Apewithacamera: They all look soft and whats with all the CA coming through the tree branches? :(
Take a look at the portrait of the man in the blue coat. The eyes are a little soft at %100 because it seems front-focused a touch, but the teeth and lips have incredible detail. You just have to search the images to find where the plane of focus actually is.
I assume he was trying to show how it looks at extremes, and you can assume that stopping down will make it better.
Another good shot, and a good lens test too. Looks sharp, though it has that slightly smooth look that I assume is from the AA filter.
Love this shot. Looks like a nice lens to me.
Cane: So if you are outside and don't have wifi, you are stuck using the cable only, like it's 1980?
Oh, I guess I didn't read the fine print. I just assumed it worked off bluetooth when wifi wasn't available.
Many phones can indeed act as hotspots, though that's another fee.
TORN: Corner to corner sharpness, well...
Sure, you should have an 11x14 inch view camera.... There are times when you want to maximize the quality of any format, if you can. I really enjoy using the 12-60 on my OMD in part for the range but also for that extra contrast and resolution.
Sure, but actually read Potka's words and relative enthusiasm for the lens. It has better micro-contrast, so it appears sharper than the Panasonic. It also is better with back-lit situations, with less fringing. Sounds like he likes it, but he's keeping his 4/3 12-60 for the best 17mm performance on those occasions when image quality matters most.