fatdeeman: Now, can any of the commentators from the previous article explain to me how one could achieve the results in the "after" image by "getting the exposure right in the first place"?
Ran - making assumptions will never bother me, bud. It just shows your ignorance, of which there is no question. Case in point: you act as though having more DR Is better than having less is something groundbreaking. To that I say, no kidding?
Please, enlighten us with some more obvious statements. Are you that dude in the hotel commercials: Captain Obvious? Or perhaps being passive up there in Canada for all these years has resulted in some underlying anger issues. Whatever the issue, just know therapy is always an option for you. Good luck with your recovery.
More assumptions, Ran?
Answer me this: have you seen any of my photographs? Do you know my political stand? Do you even know where I live to determine if Trump COULD even get my vote or if I could attend one of his rallies?
Maybe I don't even have a camera or vote, and simply visit this site to call out stupid when I read it. Consider yourself called out.....champ.
Ran - Try and stay focused cupcake. Do you have any comments on the original post, or do you just come on here in an attempt to ascertain the photographic skills of people (read assume) just so you can bash them and feel good about yourself?
Rishi - While the sky may not be completely blown out, the 2.5-stop push has certainly hurt the end result. All blue has been lost and the clouds basically blend in. Your solution would have certainly helped. However, the OP asked us to comment on THIS after photo, and this version loses the detail in the sky as presented.
All the arguments for under-exposing and pushing in post were to retain highlights. Sure looks like that 2.5-stop push blew out most of the sky anyway. So in the end, what was the benefit?
Oh yeah, now I remember; less noise in the pushed shadows. Which brings us back to your question, meter the foreground and end up with a blown out sky without all that processing. Six of one half dozen of another, or at least damn close.
fmian: I guess this puts to rest concerns from the minority of Canon users who plan to shoot and process with a +5EV exposure push in mind.
For everyone else, if you often find yourself making a -5EV metering error, keep in mind that the Auto mode should prevent it from happening again.
Good point! The next time I lock my ISO at 100 and underexpose just for fun, I can feel safe in knowing I can finally recover the picture I completely screwed up.
I also love that I have countless Sony/Nikon/Fuji users to have online chats with while I process the aforementioned screwed up photos for hours on end. This is awesome!
Segaman: they should include battered fish to dip in the oily sensor.....if hungry!
How does this article have anything to do with Canon versus Nikon?
It is clearly about Nikon's continued below average manufacturing techniques and lack of quality control, and their subsequent fixes after the fact. Even the best camera in the world is of no use when broken.
And madeinlisboa, please have Nikon, or any other manufacturer for that matter, send me a camera that shows no noise at ISO 6400. As far as I know, no publication in existence, printed or electronic, has written or reviewed such a device. But I know it exists since you wrote it, so I must have one! Thanks!
I just don't understand all the people who post simply to bash this brand or that brand. If you're truly happy with your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc., what do you care what Canon does or does not do to make you happy? You are obviously not their intended audience or buyer. I can only assume people bash for one of these reasons: 1. You're looking for an audience to join you in your crazy behavior (misery loves company); 2. You're looking for a reason to jump ship and leave your brand because of some unhappiness; or 3. You're jealous of the loyalty of Canon users and just can't fathom why they won't leave Canon and buy one of the "obviously superior" cameras made by their competitors.
Meanwhile, you have no basis for ripping any of these new cameras, as none have been tested. I suggest devoting that time you use now for irrational behavior and nonsensical posts to work on your photography skills. We would all be better off! Personally, I think complaining for the sake of complaining is better left to 8 year olds.
Good luck in life haters. Remember, nobody likes a whiner.
In my opinion, this is just another poor attempt at a mirror-less design. The only companies to have got it right are Sony and Samsung due to their use of APS-C sized sensors. To use anything smaller, with 4/3 being a slight exception, is a waste. The cameras with smaller sensors are just glorified point and shoots with interchangeable lenses.
Why pay $1,000 for a camera and basic zoon lens when a G12, S100 or P7100 can give you equal quality shots and a larger zoom range for half as much money?
"There's a sucker born every minute." ~ P.T. Barnum
Also, what is the biggest problem with a P & S? I would say indoor shots under poor light with those built-in flashes, and not tracking of high speed objects. This is one clear reason why a larger sensor with better high ISO capabilities is a must in this type of design.
I can't believe it took Nikon 4 years to design this. Poor R & D for sure.
PhotoPhoolish: If the camera lives up to its specs, it will be the perfect camera for almost every type of shooter; with the exception of studio shooters whose clients require billboard sized shots.
All you people disappointed by the "lack" of sufficient pixels, perhaps medium format is the way to go. If you search the web and seek out famous studio shooters with high end clients, you will find that an overwhelming majority use medium format cameras and not full fame DSLR's.
This camera can be used by sports photographers, who then get bored and switch to sports journalism, then make a switch to the paparazzi, then make friends with a famous musician and take shots in poorly lit concert venues and finally get sick of people and make the switch to landscapes.
The D3S is the closest competitor, but it comes up short in pixel count.
As I stated in the beginning, if it lives up to its reported specs, this will be the most versatile camera on the planet until Nikon counters with something similar.
I agree with you about the cost of MF and how a less expensive high MP camera would appeal to those that require high res. files for whatever reason. However, if I may attempt to get inside the mind of Canon, I would imagine - based on the cameras specs - that they were more interested in appealing to a broad audience and buyer.
If they went the high MP way, they would lose the ability to shoot at anything resembling high ISO's and fps. You can see this clearly in Nikon's D3X which to date is the top-of-the-line full frame camera out there, but only able to produce really clean files up to ISO 1600 topping out at 6400. While great for studio and landscape photographers, it loses people looking for high ISO and fps capability.
Since the technology doesn't exist for a 30mp, ISO 100,000+, 10 fps beast, I feel Canon has attempted to produce the next best thing with this camera....if the specs are accurate.
Question: Since when did 18 MP become not enough??? :)
If the camera lives up to its specs, it will be the perfect camera for almost every type of shooter; with the exception of studio shooters whose clients require billboard sized shots.