MERLEWINE: As an advanced close-up photographer, I understand your point, but don’t like the slow drift of your post that most photographers won’t notice it. There are those of us who do notice and need a lossless raw format and not have it processed or semi-processed for us. I bought the Sony A7r and the A7s and returned both for reasons there is not enough room here to detail.
I will consider the A7rII when they offer a lossless raw option, and while they are at it, give us some batteries that last longer, and make sure that all levels of EVF focusing are sharp. Meanwhile, my Nikon D810 is doing the job.
"Dude, this is 3.200 USD camera that is crippled by the problem Sony cameras had for years. Sony did nothing to fix it."
Crippled? That seems a bit harsh for a camera that is capable of such superb IQ and only shows visible artifacts very infrequently under certain circumstances. But if that is still unacceptable to you, then by all means, do not buy the A7RII.
Robgo2: Since upgrading from DxO 9 Elite to DxO 10 Elite costs only $69, I felt that I didn't have much to lose and went for it. Right off the bat, I can see that tonal adjustments are improved with white and black points being more stable, i.e. they are less likely to shift with other tone adjustments. Highlight recovery seems better as well. Overall, I like the new version and think that it should serve most users well.
However, in head to head tests with Photo Ninja, PN is the clear winner, and that even includes Noise Ninja vs. Prime NR in super high ISO shots. Prime is hugely overrated (and overhyped), IMO. It may remove noise, but it does so at the cost of smearing detail and producing blotchiness. Neither program offers local adjustments. For that I use Perfect Photo Suite and get better results than are possible with raw convertors such as LR and C1. Sure, it means working on a converted file, but that's hardly a tragedy.
Three weeks after my last posting, and you are still inflamed. As I said previously, you need to take a pill and relax. You also need to re-read my earlier post in which I clearly indicated that DxO is one of my top choices in raw convertors, though it still trails Photo Ninja. I have done countless head to head comparisons that lead me to this conclusion, something that I am fairly certain you have not done. But if you disagree, that is fine, just don't falsely accuse me of always "putting down" DxO.
Man, you are testy. I don't look for DxO threads. I posted in this one, because I purchased DxO 10. I believe that entitles me to express an opinion on it. If anything, you seem awfully defensive about DxO. Definitely take a pill and relax.
I do occasionally search for PN posts, some of which also mention DxO. That is how you and I bumped into one another in the past, and as I recall, you PM'd me for information on how to use Photo Ninja. If you choose not to use it, that is fine with me. Just don't tell me or anyone else what we should or should not post on this forum. I will write what I please, and I could not care less if you disapprove.
Gee, and I thought that my review of DxO 10 was quite positive, or did you miss that part? My only criticism had to do with Prime NR, which I think is fully justified. But it's true, I am eager to share my enthusiasm for Photo Ninja, because it is a new product from a small company that can use favorable publicity in order to get people to try it. Still, there are many threads about PN in which I do not participate. And in case you're wondering, I have no association with Picture Code.
Now maybe you should chill out.
Topaz DeNoise works very well, but it is not an easy program to master, by which I mean to use it optimally and not simply choose one of the defaults. And you have not responded to my contention that Prime NR produces smearing and blotchiness. I know for a fact that I am not alone in this belief. Do you disagree based upon your own experience?
Right. As with all software, results depend on one's skill in using it. As I said in my brief review, I like v10 of DxO, but it did not take me long in head to head testing to conclude that Photo Ninja produces better detail and tonality, at least to my eyes. Also, I tested both programs with hugely noisy shots taken at ISO 12,800 with a Pentax K-5II, and PN was easily superior. I have found that in such circumstances, Photo Ninja/Noise Ninja produces a very fine, but pleasing, film-like grain pattern with minimal smearing and blotchiness, which is far preferable to the grain-free, but blotchy results that I get from DxO/Prime. Moreover, Prime is much more difficult to control. What you see in the tiny preview box is quite limited and does not always represent how the overall image will look after conversion.
That's my take on the subject. DxO 10 is currently my second choice amongst raw convertors, and I much prefer it to ACR/LR, but Photo Ninja remains choice number one.
Since upgrading from DxO 9 Elite to DxO 10 Elite costs only $69, I felt that I didn't have much to lose and went for it. Right off the bat, I can see that tonal adjustments are improved with white and black points being more stable, i.e. they are less likely to shift with other tone adjustments. Highlight recovery seems better as well. Overall, I like the new version and think that it should serve most users well.
Robgo2: The covers of "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper" are almost certainly the most famous in the history of recorded music and are fitting icons for some of the greatest pop music ever.
@JDThomas: Perhaps I'm not as hip as you, but it seems to me that Elvis's following these days is rather limited. My son, who is in his mid-thirties and is very much connected to the punk and indie music scenes, would not agree with your assessment of Elvis's popularity with younger generations. It's not non-existent, but neither is it very significant.
FWIW, I am of the generation that grew up on Elvis's music. I remember distinctly just how quaint it became after the Beatles arrived on the scene. We liked Elvis as kids and teens but lost interest when something fresher and more creative came along. And as the Beatles matured musically, they essentially redefined popular music. Even musicians who follow in their wake and seek to return to the "authentic" roots of rock are deeply in their debt.
@JDThomas: No doubt Elvis was highly influential, mainly through popularizing black music with white youth, including the British lads who became the Beatles. But my point was that Elvis's own recordings have not been embraced by succeeding generations. Granted, there are still some Elvis impersonators knocking around, but who goes to see them other than people above a certain age?
You are right about Elvis. The people who listen to him today are mostly the same ones who listened back in the day. That's because his music, with a few notable exceptions, has not stood the test of time. The same can be said of almost all pop musicians of the past 75 years, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be true of today's teen idols. Their appeal is in the glitz and the spectacle that surrounds them, not in their music. Once the glitz fades, people will lose interest. Does anyone know where Britney Spears is today? Does anyone care?
"Dark Side of the Moon" was certainly one of the best selling albums of all time, but the cover art is pretty pedestrian and never reached the universally recognizable status of "Abbey Road" or "Sgt. Pepper." There is hardly a person on the planet who does not know most of the songs on the two Beatles albums, but there are plenty who know only a few on Pink Floyd's. Also, the Beatles albums still sell very well to younger generations more than 40 years after the group disbanded. Can the same be said of PF? All of which suggests that the covers on AR and SP are the most famous in history and by a fairly wide margin. One might argue that there are albums with "better" art, but not that they are as well-known.
The covers of "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper" are almost certainly the most famous in the history of recorded music and are fitting icons for some of the greatest pop music ever.
The Leica T will likely sell well to its target market, i.e. those who are seeking status and/or great lenses. However, M lenses can be used on far more capable cameras than the T. T lenses are, on the other hand, only usable on the T. Anyone who chooses a Leica T over a Sony A7 is in need of therapy IMO.
Michael Piziak: If Ansel Adams were alive today I think he would use this camera.
"He would be 112. I doubt he could lift it."
Yeah, but the new Pentax is a whole lot lighter than the massive view camera that he used back in the day.
TechManager: This review states that the Pentax 645z uses the same Sony CMOS sensor as the Hasselblad and PhaseOne. This is incorrect as the Hasselblad and PhaseOne are CCD.
I am very skeptical; this camera seems more like a glorified DSLR then a move into a higher quality MF system.
What about tethered shooting? Is this an option with the Pentax?
Can you imagine what a Leica S3 will cost?
Calvin Chann: Full review please.
DPR is typically very slow to review Pentax products, so it will probably be quite some time before we see a full review or, just as likely, we will never see one. The 645Z is a dazzling specialty camera with a limited potential market, which means that many people may lust for it, but few will buy it. DPR is most interested in reviewing cameras with strong sales potential.
SDPharm: I wish Pentax had made an EVF and made it tiltable like the Panasonic GX7. It just does not seem comfortable to hold such a big camera at eye level.
I think the 645Z is best suited for tripod shooting, in which case one can use the rear LCD for LiveView, which I presume it has. It then almost becomes a miniature view camera, only the image is not inverted.
JonB1975: Want, want, want....... My first dream camera since the 1Ds MkII! As for those people saying Ansel Adams would never touch something like this - How the hell would you know???
I am sick of hearing people opine as to what Ansel Adams might use if we were alive today. All we know is that he was fanatical about image quality and used the best technology available in his time to achieve it. How anyone can think that he would reject digital technology out of hand is beyond me. He was not the purist that some imagine but was an artist and craftsman who chose the right tools to accomplish his goals. He would do the same today.
Zvonimir Tosic: 800g with a battery. DLi90 is about 50g. So without it, it's some .. 750g ..?
K5 was light-er, yes. But this camera is light-years ahead of K5. I wouldn't be surprised it hasn't been made slightly bigger and heavier to sport an FF sensor in some future model, that will share same tech, including same battery grip too.
Guys at CR Kennedy have already seen a K-5-bodied camera sporting an FF sensor, a year ago.
"What's your source for that? FF sensor in a K5 body?"
Well, Sony put a FF sensor in a much smaller RX1 body, proving that it can be done.
Gesture: Welcome, welcome upgrade and features to K-5 and a great competitor to Nikon D7100. But what is it with companies and naming. The next camera will be the K-1 and, then, there is no where to go. Others have boxed themselves in with naming everything the X Z and/or 1.
"Should have been called the K5IIs-2"
Are you serious? The K-3 is almost completely new, including the 24MP sensor, and you regard it as a minor upgrade from then K-5II? You must be living in a 5th dimension of reality.