Gpruitt54: Totally stupid to assign ownership of the image to the ape. Of course, the photographer owns the image. Who’s gear was used to capture the image? Who set up the camera? Who made it possible to capture this image? Answer; the photographer.
Gpruitt54 - Nobody assigns the ownership of the image to the ape - except that you are making up this stupid idea in order to jump to a statement that the photographer whose gear was used owns the image. Your simplistic statements do not reflect reality, while the legal situation appears clear - the images are in the public domain, because the ape who took the photos is not human.
tko: Seems like Panasonic wins in almost every area. In RAW, image quality is better or equal, longer zoom, same weight. Well done Panasonic, nice to see you back.
Maybe Sony should have tried a little harder.
For me the FZ1000's longer zoom is a real advantage, which basically any owner will use in real life, while 4k Video is clearly better than full HD, but very few people own 4k TVs or edit 4k video. Essentially all other aspects are very close or close, e.g. for video the RX10 offers an ND filter which is actually useful, while the FZ1000 is overall somewhat faster, or RX10 offers better built quality while the FZ1000 is less expensive ... I am an owner of the RX10 since it came out, however today I would be hard pressed to decide.
erotavlas: 4k? why don't they skip 4k and just go directly to 6k
6k is unlikely to be introduced at all, as the increase in resolution is only 22% (measured linearly - sqrt(6) / sqrt(4) = 1.22), which is just above the threshold for visibility of 20%, while the increase in required bandwidth, storage space and computing power is roughly 50% (6/4 = 1.5). The change from FullHD (2k) to 4k gives a resolution increase of 41% (measured linearly - sqrt(4) / sqrt(2) = 1.41) and therefore is highly visible.
Colour resolution at full 1920 x 1080 can be provided by a 3 CMOS system using a prism assembly to split the 3 colours red, green and blue onto 3 CMOS sensors. This is today employed by many professional video cameras, albeit using relatively small 1/3", 1/2" or 2/3" sensors.
Note that splitting the incoming light using a prism assembly utilises ALL incoming light (except for minor reflection losses), while any colour filter in front of a pixel loses a major portion the incoming light by filtering out other colours, e.g. for red one has to filter out green and blue, for green one has to filter out red and blue, etc - in principle this loses 2/3 of the incoming light, however note that in a standard Bayer pattern the filters are setup a bit different.
Additionally, at each pixel full colour information is available through the 3 sensors, while for a single sensor using Bayer pattern filters, colours are always interpolated, as each pixel has either a filter for red, green or blue.
Donnie G: Just left the Canon Learning Center website, and I must say that their new C 100 is an exciting bit of cinematography kit that is destined to wind up in many a run and gun event/wedding/spot news multi-tasking image maker's camera bag. This new compact and light weight one chip design is sure to replace all of Canon's lineup of 3 chip camcorders. I can hardly wait to hear what real end users have to say about this video camera vs. the Red Scarlett, Blackmagic cinema camera, and the rest of its competition. I'm excited, and I don't even do video, YET. :)
Dear Francis,Apparently you do not understand the point about 3-chip cameras - as stated before by Shogi and Donnie, in Canon Professional's current portfolio 4 out of total 7 cameras do have 3 sensors (either CMOS or CCD) and indeed with a prism. This is similar for Sony Professional, e.g. current XDCAM series - of total 11 cameras all have 3 sensors (PDW700, PDWF800, PMW200, PMW320, PMW350, PMW500, PMWEX1R, PMWEX3, PMWTD300) except 2 cameras with 1 sensor (PMW100, PMWF3). And similar for Panasonic Professional (here actually several consumer cameras have 3 sensors), etc ...Hope this clarifies things.
mick232: You people seem to ignore a couple of things:
1. there is more than one workaround available (don't open TIF files from untrusted sources, scan TIF file with virus scanner)
2. fixing a bug in old software is more expensive by orders of magnitude than in upcoming or current software; even if the fix is a one-liner, the software has to be re-built, re-tested, re-released. Don't underestimate the effort needed for all these steps. These processes have to be re-run for the fix whereas with software currently being developed they run anyway.
That is why any software company will assess the severity of a bug. No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.
I have read your last paragraph initially correct and just to confirm, read it again - you now have changed your original wording: 'No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.'
Additionally, please note that CS6 is not yet available in some countries through most retailers, e.g., in my country Switzerland, therefore CS5.5 still is effectively the current version and not 'old software'.
PicOne: "If you ever think 'for $1,500 I demand perfection,' this is not the article for you, it will just get you upset. The laws of physics are not suspended, nor are techniques of manufacturing altered, just because you demand it be so."
Perhaps not... but for the more money spent, the more I would at least presume the QC procedures prevent crappola from actually hitting the retailer shelves. Your term "allowable tolerance" I would also presume is a floating definition. Again I would presume that more expensive lens productions lines have more stringent definitions of 'allowable' applied.
Indeed you seem to argue the opposite, in that the potential tolerances are much greater with lenses with more elements/groupings (ie. more expensive lenses) than lenses of simpler construction, and that therefore buyers should expect more expensive lenses to perform worse than cheaper lenses.
Lenses with more elements/groupings do not necessarily perform worse than simpler lenses, even for the same allowable tolerance, as not every element/grouping exhibits the same sensitivity, i.e. a certain variation may cause different levels of image quality degradation depending on where in the construction it occurs.
In a good lens design the allowable tolerances are specifically defined for each construction element depending on the impact of variation on image quality.
Consequently, a well-designed lens on average performs better than a lesser lens, independent of the amount of lens elements/groupings.
IEBA1: Two things of note here is that Adobe both accelerated the release schedule (more versions more often) and decreased the number of previous versions eligible for upgrade pricing. So, in essence, instead of upgrading 2, 3 maybe even more years apart, Adobe now wants to see new cash every year or so.
To their credit- they are making dramatic improvements in their software. So the ROI is still there IMHO.
Whether any improvements in their software are 'dramatic' highly depends on each customer's need, while it is a fact that many users do not update to every new version.
I currently use CS4 and planned to upgrade to CS6, however Adobe puts me under pressure to pay for CS5 by end Dec 2011 on very short and even strangely indirect notice via a blog post - just to be able to use CS5 for the short period until CS6 is out, when I could have enjoyed CS5 for a much longer time, if I knew this earlier.
Therefore to me Adobe's way of communicating is unprofessional and to do it on such short notice is unfair business.