 |
mandophoto
Lives in
Tucson, AZ, United States
Joined on
Feb 23, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
DPREVIEW, the D5200 raw zip file download does not seem to contain the test image.
Well, this is very annoying. I promised myself after last year's camera acquisitions that those would be the last for at least 10 years. Now this?! Well this is just great, just great.
I hadn't read this preview when it was first published but having read it now, it confirms my suspicion of a very light AA filter in front of the sensor. While I use the raw format exclusively, I have noticed a certain crispness to the images after my default sharpening procedure in LR 4. While my D800 is superior (well, yeah) the D800 actually requires more sharpening than my NEX-6 to reach what I consider adequate sharpness. It appears very light AA filters or none at all will be the norm in the future.
Wow, great story. Thank you, DPR, for posting this.
Mark Roberts: Has anyone been ASKING for a middle ground, or is this just a push for another proprietary standard that Adobe can license?
The TIFF format was invented by Aldus before Adobe acquired them, but Adobe does now control it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format
My attempts at downloading the D600 raw studio test files result in empty Zip files. Anyone having success?
thorkilry: Olympus denies
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/tes/
It's not a denial, but a statement suggesting the Reuters report is not from an official Olympus source. Olympus will make an official statement soon, denying or confirming the report.
This is as much for Sony as it is for Olympus. According to the Reuters report, Sony apparently needs more secure ventures, such as there may be in the medical industry. But if geek heads insist on hyperventilating, well, you go right ahead, then.
Yes, bling (Dean Martin comes to mind,) but at least it's an effort away from the black plastic blob "design" most gear heads are infatuated with. As for Hasselblad, I wish them well. We need more than two or three giant corporations stamping out cheap, black plastic blob cameras for the masses to endlessly bicker over which blob of camera is better.
mandophoto: Yes, an affordable TS lens would be nice, but not only does it need to be optically sound, it also needs to be mechanically well made. I hope enough copies are reviewed so that any mechanical QC issues are revealed.
It may or may not be for me, but I'm actually hoping Samyang has done their homework here, though it will be above $1000.00, so perhaps not for you, I'm guessing.
Yes, an affordable TS lens would be nice, but not only does it need to be optically sound, it also needs to be mechanically well made. I hope enough copies are reviewed so that any mechanical QC issues are revealed.
Scott Eaton: I hate to buzz-kill, but what exactly is so amazing about these images other than being insipid and dull? Instagram effects are frequently regarded with a lot of disdain, but if the same effect is produced with 8x10 Polaroid (or similiar) process the thought-police declare it 'high fine art'. Puhleeeeeze.....
Large format film is a unique medium, and LF contact printing is a stunningly beautiful medium that we need to see more of. However, this is stuff is just more of the same old NY based counter-culture art critics declaring that 'worse is better'. No one was really interested in it 20years ago when film was at it's peak, and there's a reason.
Scott Eaton, you're a funny guy. Your comment epitomizes the jack-booted, though-police mentality so popular bricks.
Francis Carver: Shadows are all over the place in all directions, and the USA flag is waving proudly in the Moon's no atmosphere surface. And a few other dead giveaways to show the these "historic" pictures are rather poorly doctored.
Also, it is rather hard to fathom how NASA could have placed men on the surface of the moon back in the late 1960s -- when 42 years later, they cannot even send a single human into near-Earth orbit, let alone on to another celestial body -- and back.
Somebody had to win the USSR-USA space race, no matter what the means and evidence.
To zeidgeist; balios; boogieboogie: My comments/replies to the OP were attempts at humor. I really, really didn't think anyone would take me seriously. Lighten up, dudes.
Francis Carver: Shadows are all over the place in all directions, and the USA flag is waving proudly in the Moon's no atmosphere surface. And a few other dead giveaways to show the these "historic" pictures are rather poorly doctored.
Also, it is rather hard to fathom how NASA could have placed men on the surface of the moon back in the late 1960s -- when 42 years later, they cannot even send a single human into near-Earth orbit, let alone on to another celestial body -- and back.
Somebody had to win the USSR-USA space race, no matter what the means and evidence.
Heh, it's a joke. How 'bout this: the reason no stars appear in the photograph is for the same reason we don't see stars during the day. The moon's atmosphere is just dense enough such that the sun's light is diffracted, again, just enough to camouflage all the stars light.
What else can we do with these conspiracy theories?
Francis Carver: Shadows are all over the place in all directions, and the USA flag is waving proudly in the Moon's no atmosphere surface. And a few other dead giveaways to show the these "historic" pictures are rather poorly doctored.
Also, it is rather hard to fathom how NASA could have placed men on the surface of the moon back in the late 1960s -- when 42 years later, they cannot even send a single human into near-Earth orbit, let alone on to another celestial body -- and back.
Somebody had to win the USSR-USA space race, no matter what the means and evidence.
Francis, you are incorrect. One of the discoveries from the expedition was that there is indeed enough atmosphere on the moon to make a flag flutter, albeit slowly. The photograph was the proof. Funny, I thought it was common knowledge.
After 25+ years of taking pictures, I still find it refreshing to be reminded of the craft of making pictures.
Thanks.
Barney Britton: To everyone who thinks its appropriate to mindlessly troll, have some respect. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. It's appalling how rude some of the comments are on this page.
My hat's off to the folks at DPreview. They have the patience and equanimity of saints. Really.
mandophoto: It is clear from this comments thread that there is a tremendous amount of Leica envy. The real issue is not Leica's prices, but the lack of imagination on the part of Canon and Nikon. Though Fuji and Sony are stumbling a bit (where are the wides for the NEX system,) they, with Olympus, Panasonic and other brands are where the future of photography is. Leica is a tiny company compared to the others, and can afford to be imperious. In fact, I would guess Leica needs to be exclusive in order to survive, and we all want them to continue, right?
Why is Leica so desirable? OK, we know the answer. However, is Leica really the only company capable of designing awe inspiring lenses? No, but they may be the only company willing to make the effort. There's no doubt the Leica legend is part of the draw, but were another brand to equal Leica's quality, there might be less "frustration."
It is clear from this comments thread that there is a tremendous amount of Leica envy. The real issue is not Leica's prices, but the lack of imagination on the part of Canon and Nikon. Though Fuji and Sony are stumbling a bit (where are the wides for the NEX system,) they, with Olympus, Panasonic and other brands are where the future of photography is. Leica is a tiny company compared to the others, and can afford to be imperious. In fact, I would guess Leica needs to be exclusive in order to survive, and we all want them to continue, right?
Impressive. At %100 I can count the slats on the park bench back in the middle of #9992. With a bit of added sharpening in PS, the detail gets even clearer. Cool.