Roch974: Apple must have shares in DXO; What a pity for not opening DXO one for all smartphones. A device that will go in the garbage quickly!
It was built specifically around Apple's Lightning high speed connector. Get back to us as soon as your Android phones have this feature - or anything even remotely comparable - available in a shipping product with a version of the OS that supports it installed on a percentage of phones measured in two digits... We'll wait...
Langusta: Who really needs this thing?Rather mediocre invention:1. 600$ is almost as much as one would pay for Rx1002. Size is not a real advantage if you consider the fact that whole thing needs bulky phone to make it work.3. Connector looks flimsy; I believe it won't last more than few weeks/months.4. Compatibility - no Android / Windows?5. Sony Qx is already here6. Clip-on cameras such as SonyEricsson MCA-25 were developed ages ago...
> 4. Compatibility - no Android / Windows?
Well, first, it's built around the Lightning connector and its high speed protocol - which is exclusive to Apple and its iOS devices. Second, Android users are recognized as downmarket users - they won't spend money on accessories or even apps, so DxO would be targeting a market that basically doesn't exist. Apple has cultivated an ecosystem that supports a peripheral like this; Android manufacturers are only concerned with increasing the number of units shipped from Asia.
appleRX100: Nice picture, but I like the SnapSeed mobile app for iPhone to do work like this. I believe the results are similar but without all the fuss and time.
If SnapSeed works for you, great - but since SnapSeed would not have been able to even open the RAW file the author shot, this comment isn't very useful. It also has nowhere near the level of control over selected regions of the photo recreate these effects, but again, if you're happy with the pictures you get out of SnapSeed, then it's the perfect level tool for you.
Erez, thanks a lot for sharing your process. As a relative newbie to the "digital darkroom" that has long experience with the Old School techniques, I appreciate the detail. (I could quibble with you over the final result but that's just personal aesthetics.)
One thing that struck me early on in your test was the statement, "...since I wanted to keep the shot, I needed to make the most of it in post processing, and this meant major retouching work which might upset some." Photographers have been using dark room tools - chemical and digital - to enhance captured images before printing for over 150 years... Upset whom, and how, and why?
Papi61: Why would GoPro be afraid of a cheap knockoff? Call me when Xiaomi releases something capable of taking 4K video and/or 240 fps @ FHD.
Oh, and BTW, stop with the thinly-veiled anti-Chinese racism: every tech company steals ideas from others. You don't think Apple invented the phablet, now did they?
Member for less than four months and spewing outrageously outrageous outrage, complete with pathological obsession with racism that isn't there, dim-witted view of how product development works - with bonus Apple-bashing throw in, just to make it interesting...?! Yeah. TROLL. Does your mommy know you're logging into her DPR account again, kid?
Perhaps there's some confusion (at least, I know *I* am confused...). I've looked at several different courses I'd be interested in, and I do not see any "video" links; I see instead what another poster is being chastised for seeing: a set of course materials with no supporting media content as explanation...
In the article above, click the link for "Photography and Trust". The MIT OCW site opens. There is no video included. There is no video in the "download" package. This is the same situation I found for three other courses I checked.
If someone else can explain in more detail how to arrive at media representing the lectures, I'd be very grateful. These courses sound interesting, but I am not an instructor and simply having access to the syllabus, reading list, and student work projects is not very useful.
Pedro Robbie: I just don't understand the comments about the "color" qualities of images produced by different manufacturers' cameras. I would assume almost any color "style" or adjustments can be produced with standard post-processing techniques, especially with Raw files. Would anyone seriously considering this camera not be post-processing?
I'm an old and old-school kinda guy. I just don't understand the insistence on judging what comes "directly from the camera" - to me, that's just capturing shots and then letting someone else make the photo for you (in a manner of speaking...). I guess I just wasn't taught to create that way. I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in this sentiment, though!
I'm suitably impressed. I bought an X100s precisely to get this kind of two-manual-dial interface for the factors I find most important to take photos. I only wish Fuji had pushed as far with the rest of the UX as Leica appears to have done here. Only the most Luddite among us would say that cameras are not a hodgepodge of pointless complex little buttons, icons and inscrutable labels, but an entire generation of photographers is growing up thinking a camera should be like a smartphone - an ever changeable surface that reveals the features you need, when you need them, and responds to your simple touch. I only wish there were more pictures available of what's seen on the screen itself...
Diopter: The Sony NEX 5 line has been discontinued and it is selling below $400 here and there. Why I should buy a Leica's poor copycat without a flip-flop screen?!(-)
I think if you have to ask that question, you should probably just buy the Sony.
I'm a software product manager, and I've long wondered why more camera companies don't take this tack. I know, I know, they want you to upgrade, but continual improvement builds brand loyalty - and neglect does the opposite (I'm getting ready to sell off my Micro Four Thirds investment; one big reason is Olympus' "Feh, we already got your money, who needs ya?!" attitude...)
Ricoh and, in particular, Fuji seem to continue enhancing and evolving their products, even as the hardware is already in customers' hands. I like that commitment on the company's part and it makes me more confident in making another purchase from them when I decide I'm ready to move up to a better body.
"Flickr's privacy setting faux pas has us wondering: Are images shared via the web ever really private?"
If you are really wondering that, I'm on the wrong site. This is supposed to be DPReview, albeit a mobile-focused subset; it's not some Facebook/Instagram page. Anyone who thinks about it for more than about three minutes knows that your online photos are not and can not ever be entirely secure. You should never - EVER - post something to the Internet that would get you fired or cause your mother to be embarrassed when her bridge club finds it. The fact that some people don't know this is all well and good, but an author for DPReview? That's embarrassing.
I hate to pile on but... add me to the negative voices vis a vis blue titles on black backgrounds. The title is just too important an information block to "hide," even a little.
On the other hand, I'm solidly behind the "Question" concept - 80/20, it's what I use the forums for, so it will both direct my reading and simplify my searching.
Likes/dislikes? Don't really care much. I use a system whose related forum is a hotbed of cliquishness, so I easily imagine this going awry very quickly. Presumably it will be easy to look past so I suppose that's what I'll do.
On a related note, I don't see mention of what we old school types call a "killfile," a list of users' names whose post are simply not rendered. The infighting in "my" forum is perpetrated by no more than a dozen people who, in my experience, don't add anything else of value. I'd be very happy if I could just keep their posts hidden.
Overall: great job, solid move forward.
increments: Be nice to see some images of shots with and without the converter to see how the image quality is affected. (Obviously the FoV would be different, but it'd still be interesting... At least for me.)
I'll second that request. It needn't be an extensive set, just a couple comparison shots, with and without, to help visualize what you're talking about.
Thanks for this, Mr. Krieger. I appreciate the insights into a pro's thought processes.
larrytusaz: Thank you Kate Bevan. Are you available? (Ha ha.)
I would go further & say "iPhone Photography" etc is most definitely debasing photography. I'm sorry, but if you have access to a Nikon D5100 or D3s etc, what in the WORLD are you doing practicing "photography" with a stinking camera phone? You expect me to take you seriously as a photographer when you're lazy enough to use a camera phone rather than a REAL camera? At least use something like a m4/3rds, something like an Olympus E-PM1 is VERY small but absolutely embarrasses any camera phone photo, & it's hardly the most up-to-date model (like a Sony NEX-C3 etc--imagine what THEY will do).
If you're just taking "fun snaps" of everyday goofy stuff without the pressure to get something "artistic" (heck we all do that), sure, by all means. But using a camera phone ON PURPOSE as a "photography" tool? Puh-leaze. If I were a chef, I sure as heck wouldn't claim Chef-Boy-Ardee was "real food." It's mediocrity in a can.
Basing your perception of a photo's "value" on the means used to create it is inherently stupid. To play out the cooking metaphor, you are the equivalent of those morons who go to Williams-Sonoma, spend $1,000 on a box set of All-Clad pans and another $1,000 on a dozen Global stainless knives - the purpose of which you do not understand. That doesn't make you a "chef," anymore than buying a Canon 5DIII makes you a "photographer." A real chef could, in fact, create a dish using a can of Chef Boyardee and a microwave. It's obvious from your comments you couldn't take a real photograph if Ansel Adams held the camera for you.
Nmphoto: Come on people. Do you really think these photos would be released looking like this if it wasn't some sort of publicity stunt? If if he did come unprepared, surely photoshop could have been called upon before the photos were released? Maybe someone don't want Klamar working for them anymore, and are using this as an excuse to move him on?
Something smells fishy here.
I felt that too when this ridiculousness burst forth on Reddit - which is owned by Conde Nast and therefore perfectly positioned to launch this sort of faux-outrage-campaign. The guy's a well-respected professional and i believe if the shots turned out this way it must have been intentional. It doesn't take much to read these as a direct rebuke to the American culture of glorification via image manipulation, which speaks directly to the lowbrow vitriol being served up icy cold by "experts" both here and elsewhere across the net. At the end of the day, though, you'd have to reach pretty damned far to find a place where this actually MATTERS - a little perspective on the lasting importance of this set of pictures really should be in order...
joe6pack: When you have something that is feature rich, refined, yet free. I have to be skeptical that those development cost has to come from somewhere. Maybe this will eventually become a paid app. But more worrying is the privacy. Will this app use the photo we took and some how turn them into revenue, and I am not talking about copyright. Just like facebook, our app requests permission to read your SMS but we don't really do it, for now.
Well the app is free to download, and you do get 9 each of the filters, frames, etc., but the other 250+ effects are purchased, in packs of 9 for US$1 a pack. Presumably thats where the revenue will come from.I suck at math, but the whole enchilada is going to set you back, what? Over twenty bucks? Of course, this is like the Photoshop desktop plug-in market - you get enough to get you started, and you add on others as you need/want them...
RMillward: Would someone mind taking a moment to explain how the large black control wheel on the right-top panel works/is for...? I'm coming from an E-PL1 and all I really want is the built in viewfinder - I trashed one EVF-2 and I'm for sure not buying another one! - but the functionality of that dial is not immediately apparent to me. I'm in lust with the manual aperture/shutter controls on the Fuji X-Pro1 (but not at twice the price...), so I'd be very happy to hear the EM-5's unlabeled dial is somehow related...
Thanks to all you guys for the clear descriptions. I hadn't been photographing in decades when I bought an E-PL1, and it took quite some time (and frustration) to finally "get" the digital interface (which, as a software designer, I have to say is particularly clumsy and non-intuitive...). What I REALLY can't live with is shooting using the LCD, hence the wasted $200 on the add-on viewfinder that snapped off and my insistence on one built-in; getting true analog controls just seals the deal. Again, thanks so much.
Ah - so actually I pretty much CAN mimic the Fuji X's... I can set up Manual Mode so the large dial sets the F number for the aperture, and the smaller one around the shutter button controls shutter speed...?
Would someone mind taking a moment to explain how the large black control wheel on the right-top panel works/is for...? I'm coming from an E-PL1 and all I really want is the built in viewfinder - I trashed one EVF-2 and I'm for sure not buying another one! - but the functionality of that dial is not immediately apparent to me. I'm in lust with the manual aperture/shutter controls on the Fuji X-Pro1 (but not at twice the price...), so I'd be very happy to hear the EM-5's unlabeled dial is somehow related...