Steve in Scotland: Shoot raw/jpeg. Choose neutral, vivid, monotone whatever in camera the same way you could choose film type. Submit the jpeg as the entry and the raw file as the proof.
neo nights, any person choosing to enter a competition will do so accepting the stipulated terms. that MAY require submission of raw up front or upon finals or as winning foto. it's generally for verification and any commercial terms agreed to upon competition submission. often organisers reserve some or all rights to use entries for promotional materials.
if you enter a competition you do so to get sometging out of it. usually free advertising and wide recognition of your work/skill. generally a successful entry that results in finalist and/or winner has far more value to the fotog than the value of a single foto. you, the artist, still retain full ownership except in some cases.
really there's no amount of money an independent photographer can spend to get the kind of exposure they can get from being a finalist or winner. that's very valuable and can be used for your own self promotion.
arrr: These dinosaurs need to evolve, many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure. It's no different than smacking a filter in front of your lens. Cloning out a distracting element shouldn't be an issue either. This is something any talented printer could have done for you in their darkroom. Photoshop aint cheating baby... it's part of the camera.
Photography Purists need to go back to shooting film and processing it a Walmart.
many competitions allow you to do basic editing/toning because you are still manipulating the existent data. what is generally not allowed is when you add of remove data. so really they allow you to tone, dodge/burn your image to taste. just dont clone detail, dont add and dont remove and dont manually manipulate the objects in the scene to something it originally wasnt.
most photographers only really need to tone and dodge/burn any way so that's fair enough. i do not think this limitation negatively affects them at all.
it's like i say, once you start editing beyond basics, you should be entering into a digital arts competition, not a photography competition. as digital art you are allowed max leeway to composit and edit at whim. a photography competition is about what you shot.
fmian: So... Don't buy the MKII cause something better is coming soon...I see...
@fmian, except that's a fact. he's being truthful about it. you could wait. and wait. and when the next camera releases, you know the next one will be better so what? you wait again. and wait again?
every product you buy will improve, for the most part. you buy thrm now because you need them now. if i need to replace my camera tomorrow, it's not practical or reasonable for me to just do without a camera for another 1-3 years until the next iteration.
most cameras now are so competent they will do what you need. if you're just gear heading and not shooting, sure, keep waiting for better and better cameras. me, i make money now with my cameras and i make picture now and tomorrow to capture my life.
when a better iteration comes and i need to upgrade, i will. if i don't i wont. my upgrade cycle is every 2-3 generations of body.
Richard Schumer: Now I think I understand why Sony bought such a big part of Olympus a little while ago....
we knew this when it was first announced. i was very excited as i thought sony had great cameras but olympus had really desirable features like IBIs. I'm still hoping Olympus can lend Sony some of their jpeg rendering engineers. Sony jpegs are really meh.
jhinkey: Let's face it - there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes "pro" gear. A competent photographer (pro or not) can make fine images with an array of digital camera formats and lenses. Be that as it may, I think we all tend to think of "pro" gear as being more durable with faster glass at more exotic focal lengths (from ultra-wide angle to long telephoto) as well has higher performance in video, stills, and action than "consumer"grade gear.
I've made fine images with my m43 gear that anyone would have a hard time figuring out which format I used. Other times full frame was really necessary to get an acceptable image.
Assuming the image quality is excellent from this new 7-14/2.8 I'm sure it will be able to make professional images - I will certainly buy one if I can as there are many times my FX "pro" gear is too heavy/bulky to make the trip (and maybe even unnecessary).
pro generally denotes overall quality, fit, finish and reliability/durability. outright IQ should be good but that's a given but i would not buy a pro lense with janky construction or unreliable performance.
take the 45 oly vs the 12-40 for example. the 45 is a great lense but it has a weird plastic bit that can drop off and it's completely plastic apart from the connectors and glass. and despite its great IQ, the 45 doesnt reliably focus.
the fit, finisg and construction of the pro lense as well as its overall performance and reliqbility is why i would consider buying it and putting it into the pro category.
neither is the panaleica 25 comparable to the 12-40 pro dewpite it being fast and stellar IQ.
is the term arbitrary? sure but pro usually denotes general high quality and reliability... for a price to match.
Jonathan F/2: It's a phone. Big whoop.
@pavi1 so basically, it's just a phone.
brianj: It provides a very expensive P&S camera without any zoom, I wonder why people fall for it.
all smartphones are classed as communicators. this is a mobile computing device with native connectivity and internet based device. when psion and nokia first made these populars they were the first true smartphones not much different from modern smartphones. the term smartphone only came later. the class of device was called a communicator because it was a TOTAL communications platform.
great pictures and glad you made it out ok to tell the tale. next time be more careful!
uhh i dont think you need to "hack" flikr. as long as the high res pic exists there, you can get it. it doesnt matter what protection is built in. it is quite elementary.
the best solution, if you really fear you high res being stolen, is not to put it online.
marc petzold: Sadly, some ppl just don't get it - the V3 isn't the ideal system camera for everyone - but for some people it'll do way fine it's job, it wasn't designed for ppl looking for the best IQ & the lowest price, of course. For instance - i'm way happy with my older V1 Nikon 1, the sensor isn't great "says DXOMark", so goes the same for the Lumix G1 - and i've made good pictures with both of them, technical specs, facts are one thing - and the other half, or truth is, what you'd make out of it. Good light, i'd consider to go out and make photographs, instead of discussing this thing here.
your logic is a little odd. you seem to be implying that if picture quality isnt a concern and high price isnt a concern, this is a great camera.
frankly, if the food isnt good and the price is high, i simply wouldnt eat at that establishment. if the price was commensurate with the food quality, sure it makes sense.
i have nothing against the nikon system as it can fill a need for some, but your logic seems way off base.
wansai: while applaud dpreview for doing this article, i have the distinct impression all it is doing is confusing more ppl than it is helping.
camera settings for any exposure of a scene is done for your respective sensor/camera. it's not useful to consider its equivalence, only what focal length/reach do you want, how are you framing it and what settings on THIS camera do i need to get the exposure.
equivalence is purely academic and is being used almost entirely by fanbois to support either of their cases for superiority.
when taking a shot, what does it matter what the Ff ewuivalence is? here, now, my camera, i need my f stopped to x to get a certain amount of dof. i need the iso and shutter to be set at xx. i expose.
that's all that matters.
absolutely it is. I'm not saying otherwise. I am just finding that the article seems to still be confusing the whole lot. That's not really your fault.
But perhaps it would be more helpful to include an intro to that matter.
while applaud dpreview for doing this article, i have the distinct impression all it is doing is confusing more ppl than it is helping.
Jogger: Not sure what the point of the PEN line is now that the OMD line has EM10. An entry level body would make sense, but, a mid-ranger.. might as well just get the EM10, esp. given the cost of the EVF attachment.
the pen are the mid tier consumer lines. these are going to be sligjtly more compact, less complicated cameras while still retaining features at cost to ergo and controls. non enthusiasts will likely never get an em10. it's relatively afgordable but it is also more camera than consumers can handle.
if it means anything i see a lot more women using the PEN cameras than the omd models. they are just friendlier, simpler devices and more approachable to the consumer.
em10 upwards are designed with bells and whistles because enthusiast and semi pros want that level of complexity.
everytime i give my wife my em5 or em1 to handle, she chokes and gets overwhelmed even when i tell her how to simply take a shot. hand her a point n shoot format and no matter how advanced, she takes it and shoots, no worries.
its the smae when i hand em1 to a waiter to take our photo. they just stare at it, flip it around not sure what to do with it.
AngryCorgi: I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
i dont hate the 1 series like some ppl but come on, you're talking about paying that price for handling and ergonomics? you're better off getting an OMD and still have enough left for glass. you still get supern af, superb IQ AND handling and ergonomics are better all around.
this particular camera may fill a niche for some ppl but frankly the price does not justify whatever you get with this camera.
about the only thing it is competitive on is AF speed and FPS burst. at $400 i'd consider it a good buy. at $1000++, no way in hell. not when the competition outclasses it in nearly every respect and does it at better prices.
CameraLabTester: Posted the alleged apology on it's website.
Test case: DPReview news item release.
Ruse NOT working.
OK, no further escalation.
DPReview please delete article.
What? You can't?
i dont think this has much to do with more demand. from the wording, it seems to be an apology for slower than expected production. as in they estimated to have X amount in stock by Y date but production delays made the camera more scarce than intended. had they met the predicted X shipments/stock, there would be no cause for an apology.
Fabio Amodeo: Interesting article, but… If I think to real life situations, the equivalence matter seems to me much less important. Let me explain. Situation A. I'm at a concert, with very little light. I'll take out the fastest lens I have, and bump up ISO. In theory FF is better, because it should give me better high ISO. But the faster lens I use wide open might have too thin a focus. My problem is not how much out of focus is the background; my problem is to have something in focus at all. So I'll stop down, and lose the ISO advantage.Situation B. I have to shoot food, and I want all the food creverly prepared by the occasional masterchef to be in focus. Here a smaller format should have an advantage, due to bigger dof given the same perspective. But I know I'll be in full diffraction-danger zone by f/11, where many FF lenses are still good. And I know tilt lenses were made for this, but I'm too lazy or too poor to own one, Conclusion? It's always a compromise we live in.
richard, i think that was his point, no? there is an equivalence but for practical shooting we tend to end up shooting at similar overall equivalent settings anyway.
i finished a wedding shoot on my em1 shooting from, mainly f2.8 to f5 despite having lenses that could go as fast as f1.8 and f1.4. had i been shooting on the FF, i would have stopped to f5+ anyway to get enough focus in the frame to capture the couple who may be at different planes for focussing. even in low light venue, i would have to stop to f5 to ensure i can get both the couple when they make their entrance.
while FF may give you more lattitude for working in various types of shooting, for practical purposes, at least for some or many shoots, what's important is making sure our subjects are properly in focus and there is enough dof for them to be in focus. so we end up shooting with the same equivalent settings regardless of format.
veroman: Equivalence is important to understand. But, in the end, I don't think the choice of tool should be based on equivalence but, rather, on the very basics of photography and acquiring photography gear, i.e. budget, subject matter, whether amateur or enthusiast or pro, size and weight one is willing to carry, etc.
I've owned full frame for most of my digital years and am now primarily a micro 4:3 shooter. I'm at a point where the end result hardly looks any different than when I was shooting with the 5D and 1Ds II.
One area where equivalence matters to me and that I do take into account is the ISO setting. ISO 200 is really ISO 400 on my M4:3 gear, and that really is important to the end result.
I think the handwriting is on the wall. I believe that the traditional DSLR is slowly but surely being replaced by these smaller, highly capable cameras ... in the same way that 35mm diminished medium format, particularly 2 1/4".
it's actually not true. the phone camera will not look as good as m4/3 by a long shot even at the phone's best setting. where the phones perform adequately and more similarly for IQ to low to mid range point n shoots, is in good day light.
the scene/lighting range it performs at is far more limited. m4/3 have far more allowance to shooting in various light conditions right down to dim light. its performance in end IQ is on par with apsc cameras. FF has larger leeway still for shooting.
but in general images you can get from m4/3 to apsc to FF vary only a little within their shooting parameters. only once you exceed each of the individual's parameters does the larger camera start showing obvious signs of superiority. aa phone camera, even at its best, in perfect light, still shows obvious signs of lack of total IQ.
depth of field is highly personal and does not at all make it a consideration when IQ is on the table. it's an effect that is more useful in some circumstances than others
b craw: What a ****storm this comment thread is. Where is yabbokie to set us straight?
yakkobie takes truth and draws highly questionable conclusions from it. that is still wrong. that is why no one listens to him.
his comments generally boil down to : an m4/3 50mm f2 lense is equivalent to FF 100mm f4, thus you cannot take photos with m4/3 cameras. lawl.
why would anyone listen to that dribble. having good facts placed in wrong minded statements and wrong minded conclussions still ends up with him being wrong.
vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.
No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.
Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.
Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.
@vfunctit's quite obvious you dont care for quality nor the clients you produce for. there are plenty of clients out there that do care for quality and they will take notice of it. most of the ppl i work for and with will absolutely notice it. they will say something or get me to make corrections if it is not up to snuff. plenty of art directors WILL force you to correct what they see as a problem.
let's not pretend like you can speak for all professionals or all clients.
when i pay a photographer for work, i expect it comes to me fully corrected. When i use photos for my design works, i will ask the photographer to fix any problems. i am not paying him so i get the pleasure of making corrections on my end.
difference between you and me is the difference between a professional and a scrub.
photogeek: People are missing the bigger picture. In another 2 years or so, tablets will have CPUs comparable to those currently found in laptops. For laptops the Moore's law is over (actually, not Moore's law, but Dennard scaling is over, but let's not get too technical). For tablets that's not the case. They are not held back by having to support software written 20 years ago. Their CPUs are much simpler, and they are being developed taking past (very expensive) lessons on how not to do it into account. Laptops will stay about the same, just as they did in the past five years. Tablets will take over for most people, with pros preferring laptops and desktops, 5% of the overall market. Put simply, there's not enough money in this market for Apple to be interested in it. Apple is about focus. They are betting on a different horse, nothing more, nothing less.
it is still at least 5 years away before tablets can really handle heavier loads. they will also be hanstrung by capacity and memory. what apple is doing is aligning and following consumers. that is all there is to it. this group is less demanding and can be catered to with less resources at maximum profit. ios software even in 5 years will still be relatively simple, basic suites catering to the lowest denominator. it's a far easier market and makes more sense for apple.