Seems clear to me the HTC has better DR - no clipped highlights clouds, less noise in shadows under bridge, even though higher ISO was used. Seems to work as expected.
acidic: It should be noted that just because the LR Catalog file is backed up does not mean the image files are backed up. Someone will undoubtedly confuse the two and will lose their image files as a result.
My biggest gripe with LR is that it lacks metadata import/export functionality. It would be nice to be able to export IPTC/EXIF data form a catalog (or subset of the catalog) as a .csv file, as well as import that data back in. Many image databases allow this, so I'm sure Adobe is more than capable of adding such a feature.
@DanW. But.. Thatsjust the point -you DO have both when usin LR!
segarci1: I've gotten comfortable at managing my Lightroom catalog and image files on one computer. I'm still at a loss on how to efficiently work on images on multiple machines; e.g., do rough edits on a notebook computer in the field, then fine tune on a different machine back in the studio. How do you port all the edits over without having to go the XMP sidecar route?
Just use an external usb drive for catalogue and image files, and plug it into whatever machine you are using
Brian_Downunda: I agree with the stated reasons why a database approach is strongly desirable. That's why I use one (Imatch - Windows only). My complaint about LR is that it forces you to use its catalogues, which is unnecessary duplication if you choose to use other DAM software. Aftershot Pro / Bibble 5 (now sadly moribund since the Corel purchase) gave you the choice of using catalogues or file system mode, which at least was a better fit for users of other DB software.
Question: Does LR have the ability to let you "relocate" files and folders if you have moved them to another location? If not, then it becomes very hard to use LR with other, more powerful DAM software, and so the compulsion attached LR catalogues becomes an obstacle.
You can easily move directory trees of images anywhere you like. You then tellLR (by browsing to it) where 1 file is and it works out where all the rest are (presumably using relative paths). Besides that LR has a folder view i keep organised by import date. This is allyou need if you dont want anythg more complex. This is just a view of the folder structure on disk which is of course the same in any other software.I find it simple, powerful and convenient.
BaldCol: I wish there was a way I could use Lightroom across my home network rather than having it fixed to one PC. I can't see that the problems are insurmountable, I use many network based databases at work.
I keep my photos and catalgue on an external 1T USB3 drive - it is fast & works on all the computers i have LR installed on. I back up the drive to my NAS regularly. Works a treat.
manmachine242: ISO3200:NEX5n: 1/800, f87D: 1/640, f9E-M5: 1/800 f6.3
ISO200:NEX5n: 1/50 f87D: 1/40 f9E-M5: 1/50 f6.3G3: 1/80 f6.3
The difference is consistently 2/3 EV.
real sensitivity of E-M5 at ISO200 = ISO125 on 7D, NEX5n, G3real sensitivity of E-M5 at ISO3200 = ISO2000 on 7D, NEX5n
That Zone System Wikipedia entry states:
"The Zone System can be used in digital photography just as in film photography; Adams (1981, xiii) himself anticipated the digital image. As with color reversal film, the normal procedure is to expose for the highlights and process for the shadows.
NOT expose for the shadows..
morepix: My interest is whether it'll do $1,000-worth better at high ISO levels than my GH2. The answer seems to be, yes, it's better from 1600 on up (in raw), a lot better in JPG. But is it $1,000 better? Remains to be seen.
The JPGs sure do look nice, but who wants to shoot JPG and sacrifice the other advantages of raw?
Indeed, at least her in Oz its actually cheaper than the GH2