Dear Leica, please stop hasselblading.
A new gadget for desperado/gangsta-photographers: the "rolling coffin".Go in: bring the lighting eq. in (or not)...Go out: roll out with a dead guy in it.
Is it only me or those portraits do look like a zombie parade?
...We are the borg...
Langusta: 80 MP raw... wow
10368 x 7776now do the math ;)
80 MP raw... wow
Apple starts copying Chinese manufacturers now... lol
Langusta: How big are the files?
If that is the actual size, then this feature makes sense indeed. Only thing to improve would be to go to full resolution.
Well, my question was to the weight of a file made with "post-focus" function. I'm curious if there is more to it than a focus bracketing can provide.
How big are the files?
Langusta: What a shame...not that I'm a user of fan of this brand, but it's bad news to everyone when an ambitious player quits the race. The competition now gets more movement (no pressure on R&D, more marketing b.s. instead of a genuine progress, "funnier" pricing policies, etc...) and customer gets less options.
Ok, then using your "logic":If I do not buy products off all brands in given business, I'm not a fan of a free market?Let' bounce it back even shorter: "if you don't buy a product of XX brand your'e a communist". LOL indeed
What a shame...not that I'm a user of fan of this brand, but it's bad news to everyone when an ambitious player quits the race. The competition now gets more movement (no pressure on R&D, more marketing b.s. instead of a genuine progress, "funnier" pricing policies, etc...) and customer gets less options.
Joe Ogiba: It's amazing how clueless people are about 4K here on DPR. Most top selling smartphones from Apple, Samsung, Sony , LG etc shoot 4k UHD video. Most TVs produced of 50" or more will be 4K UHD in a few months. 4K UHD is 8.3 mp vs 1080p with 2mp so you need your eyes examined if you can't see the difference between 8mp and 2mp. I have two 4K monitors and two 4K TVs because I hate looking at lower resolution . My NX1 and GH4 4K videos look fantastic on my 4K displays along with 4K Netflix and Amazon movies and TV shows. Youtube is now showing 8K videos.
So it happens that I did look at it, and only then I did calc to understand what I saw. What people usually miss is the fact that they are watching the 4k/HD samples in the shop from a distance much smaller than a typical viewing situation. Other thing is that the "old tech" for comparison is often being fed with worse signal/setting to make the new appliance shine.Try checking ~50" 4k/HD from same distance (say 2.5m, which is already pretty close imo) and make sure that feed/signal is comparable. You will not see the difference.The simplified formula is a viewing distance 4.2cm/1" of screen diagonal for HD and 2.1cm/1" for 4k respectively. Anything more distant would grant no benefit in terms of visible detail.For HD (@2.5m) you would need 60” screen to have any chance of ever seeing the pixels. In other words you would start potentially seeing benefits of 4k if you get something significantly bigger than that size.PS: and no, I had no envelope to help me in the calc ;)
Ok, maybe people are clueless, but apparently you did not apply yourself properly to check basic facts/math:Angular resolution of a human eye is approx 0,3 microradians (~0.3m at 1000m distance).Your screen is 50" (1270mm) so at 3840x2160 it translates to 0,28mm pixel size.At angular resolution mentioned above you need to be not more than 0,96m away from screen to actually use the resolution offered by your display...not to mention 8k, where the distance shrinks to 48cm.In short, I assume 4k makes sense to you, but it can be only true if you sit nearer than 1m away from your screen...Congrats on buying all that stuff, that's what consumption is all about after all; now you can enjoy inspecting your screen from close-up!
bovverwonder: I've never heard people talk about circular polarizer sharpness before until now.
Well, that's a typical side effect of a pure marketing "I'm sooo great" fella trying to talk engineers/physicist language.
Langusta: 1st: measure it...transmission, extinction ratios, coherence, cast, reflection, etc.2nd: put it in a user-digestible form, publish it3rd: make reasonable claims such as above.
or just skip the points 1 & 2, but the "reasonable" part is out from point 3.
Check LensTip:http://www.lenstip.com/139.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_2015.htmlhttp://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=115http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=119IMO they have most scientific approach and produce quantifiable results, allowing realistic comparison.
I would prefer the panda leather and genuine ivory combination. Leatherback turtle would be also nice.
1st: measure it...transmission, extinction ratios, coherence, cast, reflection, etc.2nd: put it in a user-digestible form, publish it3rd: make reasonable claims such as above.
It's time to take a step further - I would patent square shape in general. That would allow me to sue both Polaroid and GoPro; both would be subjected to 6 lawsuits, one for each wall of the cube.Let's not forget about the patent I have for red color (in general).
Langusta: OOOOPS...another overpriced marketing bubble.A7 or even E-M5II (especially with pixel shift) perform similar / better.That is unless red dot is must-have.
@ HowaboutIf you do not agree with "value" name it "quality level". As for "absolute", the remaining part of sentence should tell you what I meant by "relative".Of course lab samples are not the deciding factor, but still, an important element anyway. Judging by those samples, can you say that there is a major advantage on SL side?On top of that, if you consider the $$$ spent, can you justify the difference?