Mescalamba

Yes and I wouldnt buy it even if I was pro, there are better things to spend on than Flickr. :D

Well, if she looks like this, than that remark about Pro photographers was like shooting into your own lines..

Canon or Nikon didnt make it from simple reason that it would be in their case really big and heavy. And even more expensive. I think 24-70/2.8 L MK2 is expensive enough as it is..

Andy Westlake

Sorry, I read just that small table of facts about lens and checked performance tab. And its not noted in that table of facts. I guess ppl which "read" it way I do wont notice either..

That me laugh. Nice comment. :D

If it was Vogue, you can be sure there was plenty of post-production even in film days. In regular newspapers, hardly, they were usually happy if photo had reasonable image quality. :D

That comes from "being used to". In this case people which takes photos for this kind of magazines are used to do it with certain category of models. People which make dresses for them too. And last but not least, post-processers too.

There are criteria which didnt change much in past decades and according to them she was choosed to be model.

Plus I doubt that editor hired her. There are other people for that too. :D

Its whole system that goes on and on in its rails..

I would only add, that Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM dont have stabilisation for simple reason that Sony system doesnt need it. Should be noted there that all Sony dSLTs and dSLRs have built in stabilisation system, so every lens on it is stabilised (as long as camera knows there is lens on it and it has proper focal length in chip coded).

So simple "No (stabilisation in camera body)" would suffice.

If you are colorblind, then its maybe indistinguishable from Canikon. Most people are to certain degree, photographers included.

Tho as question was about colors, no its not Canon or Nikon, but colors are good. Better than Tamron had before. I think thats good enough. Anyway, you can make color profile to match it to Canon or Nikon lens, if you are bothered by natural colors from that lens.

Contrast seems ok, its better than before too.

Overall, probably one of best lens Tamron made so far.

Interesting note, but Im afraid you simply dont know how to use RawTherapee. I agree there isnt much "how to" on the web, so one does need to experiment a bit.

But strictly to point. There is currently no better demosaicing algorithm than AmaZe. Variant of it (slightly crippled, but with slightly better noise smoothing) is used in CO. Which right now is actually better than most in detail squeezing.

And exactly because that ACR/LR cant match it. If something can its most likely Aperture from Apple.

I did side-by-side comparsions. Btw. DxO is by far worst of them. Current lineup is RT, closely followed by CO (and most likely is Aperture either on same or better level), then ACR/LR and then DxO. I didnt include ACDSee, tho I guess it wouldnt fare badly.

I understand you need to defend what you bought, but suprisingly it might happen that commercial app isnt best. :)

Depends on version. My latest is 4.0.10.69, reasonably stable, if it fails (usually when you export) it finishes last export and rest stay in queve. No other problems for me. Using x64 Win 7 SP1.

ACDSee doesnt seem to be bad, unless you need to do "everything in RAW processor". Which I dont.

RT not only can touch CO or ACR or anything else. It can wipe floor with all of them. Most converters have quite old demosaicing algorithms, not exactly cleverest sharpening and pi** poor color control. Even while CO has decent color profiles, its far from near 100% accurate that RT has. ACR/LR has probably worst color profiles possible. Ofc you can create own color profiles, but in case of RT, I simply dont need to.

RT gives me more resolution, great sharpening and near perfect colors. Plus it can do way more stuff than others. Recently (4.0.10.x) they improved denoise aswell, so its up to level of others. Even tho as in every RAW converter there are far better plugins for PS. But its there.

DxO 8 is interesting, but on "auto" it tends to overcook photos a lot. And its not particulary amazing in squeezing most detail (or anything). Colors mostly so-so. Slightly disappointing considering its same company which makes DxOmark. But just my opinion.

Not much idea about others. Only that Aperture seems to produce pretty good output with minimum effort needed (which is very handy if you are pro). I guess thats reason why so many pros like Macs. And its most likely best RAW converter for X-Trans (you get bit of moiré and noise, but its way sharper than anything else).

I would say that RawTherapee is very good choice for developing RAWs. Especially considering its free. Only developers are pretty grumpy guys, so rather dont ask questions too much. Software itself is more than good, if you take time to understand it. If you combine it with GIMP (you can export directly to GIMP from RT), its complete free package of pretty much everything you need.

Only downsides are speed (lack of it) and stability (lack of that too).

ACDSee is pretty good as viewer (fast) and very decent for developing RAWs as they took care to have pretty good color profiles. It does most things you need and its cheap. In general I have pretty positive experience with it.

Capture One 7 is very fine software, unfortunately on pixel-level their current demosaicing algorithm might produce some funky artifacts. And it can create black edges against bright background (probably result of some sharpening system). Supports a lot stuff. Has quite bad DNG support tho..

How bad is compression of photos now?

waxwaine

If I dont mind its high contrast subjects with textures, which makes it easy to any AF, then this video isnt much "real world". Unless you shoot photos of lens for living. :D And it didnt say anything about accuracy.

Another thing is that Pentax most likely did what I suggested and latest kit lens from them are exactly those hybrids I described. Remember they did K-01 which is regular Pentax KAF2 mount, yet its mirrorless. I would be suprised if they didnt do any improvements to increase AF speed in LV because of that. And those improvements must been on both side, which means they have lens suitable for this.

Im sure Pentax users are happy that their LV AF works faster then with other dSLRs, especially cause despite what DPreview wrote, regular AF leaves as usually a lot to be desired.

Btw. its always nice to read "just another" Pentax fanboy. Amusing how you desperately try to find something good about these days Pentax.

I dont like Pentax much now (absolute opposite to film times), but K-30 seems much less "fragile" then these things. Plus its pretty nicely beefed with various features. Except video, but if you want photos..

I agree, nothing wrong with D90 (or D200 if you want it really cheap and like CCD look, tho be careful about dead lines on sensor). Or D300.

There are options, just usually not brand new. D300 is probably one of best, thanks to very good AF. Unfortunately bit weak on ISO.

Articulated LCD with combination of LV or even focus peaking is one of best "inventions". One thing that I think a lot of Olympus and later Panasonic loved about their cams.

I dont think its for amateurs, great thing for macro shots for example, or when you want "from ground" perspective. Certainly more comfortable than lying on ground or using angle finders.

You can use delayed shutter (1 sec or so). Works reasonably well on most Nikon cams that dont have MLU (or even with those which have). Im using it with timed shutter.

Better than nothing. But ofc regular MLU is much better option than any workaroudn. As its usually with any workaround.

My point was that it should be mentioned somewhere "that AF in LV isnt particulary fast, neither in video mode" but it shouldnt be con.

Its not bug or mistake, its just inherited "feature". Therefore it shouldnt be con.

You really blame dSLR for being dSLR and mirrorless for being mirrorless. If they were alive, you would be sued for racism.

For example you can make "neutral" between pros/cons and write there that due being dSLR LV and video mode is slow and it will be until technology changes enough (or Nikon changes :D).