Steve Balcombe: Overall I'm in favour. I think many of the objections are just a 'shock' reaction which will dissipate pretty quickly as people get used to the new look and work out how to use it.
BUT - I think they've made one hideous mistake, which is that we can no longer browse photographs with the data on the right. Sure we want the best possible view of the photographs (which was already possible using the Lightbox) but sometimes the data is part of what you want to browse and now you have to actively scroll down to see it. Imagine doing that dozens or hundreds of times...
Also in the views where we have screenfuls of justified images, I'd like the option to choose much smaller images.
One final thought - I have fibre broadband so it's all very slick, but I wonder what this is like to use on a slower connection???
I agree options would be helpful.
The new layout does however look amazing on a high resolution screen. On my 3840x2400 screen it's simply amazing, and Flickr just gets it right with the lightbox--I always get the highest possible resolution available, no borders or otherwise wasted space.
Hopefully Apple with the Retina display, and Google with the Chromebook Pixel set the pace for higher resolution screens. Why keep buying 10, 12, 16 or more megapixel cameras but have only 2 megapixel screens to look at them.
The text says:"Non-directional stereo microphone"
The specifications say:Videography features[...]Microphone: Mono[...]
Now which one is it? I assume stereo, as I observed two strategically placed holes left and right of the lens.
Nevertheless, sounds like a great camera. Similar to the new Nikon A. Having used the Ricoh GXR for quite some time now, I imagine this camera would triumph in usability as well. To me, that's a big plus; I've got no time to mess around in quirky menus.
Nice image but also a good example of missed auto-focus... if you look at this image at a high-resolution screen or zoom in to 100%, you will notice that the bridge is out of focus and the background is sharp.
Yet with such a high resolution it does hardly matter, at least not when this nice 36 megapixel image is viewed on a typical 2 megapixel screen (HD is about 2 megapixels).
eost: Moire on top of the building?
The moire only appears in the small images. Open the original, and you will notice that it's gone. Thus it must be a result of bad resizing/compression.
marike6: This camera is very interesting as IQ at low ISO is absolutely incredible. I won't be buying it because I'm invested in Nikon, but when the DP2 Merrill is released, I will definitely purchase one.
"This camera is very interesting as IQ at low ISO is absolutely incredible."
Yes, but not as incredible as the medium format slides from my Mamiya 7 camera projected on a 8x8 foot screen.
Irrelevant, I know, but I couldn't help myself throwing this into the discussion ;)
angrytoe: "The DP1M will be available in March for around $2,299. Pricing and availabiltiy of the DP2M will be announced." - Adorama; http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/Sigma-announces-DP1M-and-DP2M-with-15MP-Foveon-sensors
Edit: Just realised that that's the same price as the revised price for the SD1 - I imagine someone at Adorama has buggered up here.
Adorama seems to have updated the page mentioned above already. It now says:"Pricing and availability of the Sigma DP1 Merrill and DP2 Merrill are pending."
MikeFreeze: Thanks for this very interesting article. However, I can't agree with your assertion that a FF DSLR produces better resolution photos than a MF film camera. Do you have any data or references to back this up? High resolution scans made from film are arguably superior to images from DSLRs, especially when the scan is made from a larger negative than the DSLR sensor. DSLRs are great, but film still rules for the ultimate landscape photos.
For your pixel-peeping satisfaction:http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
It clearly shows that the resolution of film is extremely high, and that medium format film _can_ beat a full frame DSLR. It just depends on many factors like the film, the scanner etc.
Nevertheless, digital sensors have come a long way.
Digital projectors haven't though--"HD" means 2 megapixels. For me landscape photography is just a hobby, I don't sell prints or even print much for myself. I prefer watching slides on a 8x8 foot screen... without the 2 megapixel limit...
Compare this to 1963, shot by my dad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/4897319068/in/set-72157624338032021/lightbox/
Ztaz: Who needs ApS-C ( even Foveon) for 9000$ ????? Its ridiculous)))
You should consider the Pentax 645D for this comparison, you will probably get away spending less money and getting better image quality.