forpetessake: Don't fret the moire: most lenses just don't have sufficient resolution, most scenes don't have regular high special frequency patterns, in many cases focusing is off just enough to eliminate them, and finally the noise reduction takes resolution down quite a bit to eliminate any traces of the high frequencies. On the other hand, if you notice moire in your pictures, you can be proud of the quality of your lenses and your camera :-)
I agree that in most cases you don't have to fret the moire, but most of my lenses yield noticeably better resolution on the K-5 IIs compared to any other Pentax body.
halai: As an owner of the K-5, I would like to see the AFC comparison of the two cameras. I have kids so would love to see if Pentax improved on this segment.
I find AF-C is improved when the expanded AF area mode is off as well.
DarylK: Not a big deal, but as the owner of a K-5, I'd be interested to see if the image quality is much different/improved between an old K-5 and the new K-5II.
@jaad75 - on what evidence do you base this remark? My real-world results show otherwise.
Additionally, it doesn't seem to have much to do with additional effective EV, but rather defines the absolute minimum usable shutter speed, regardless of conditions.
AFAIK the reduced mass being the reason for the improvement is just speculative - I'd love to see DPR do some comparisons among the K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs to see if both the II and IIs show improvements in SR. Interestingly, the focal length doesn't seem to be a big factor in SR performance (at least within the normal range of around 16-100mm). Rather, it's a simple matter of how slow the shutter speed can go (e.g. 1/6s vs. 1/13s).
wkay: I realize in the US that all photgraphs are automatically protected by copyright, but your right to claim damages is quite limited if you never formally file for copyright. DPReview should be nervous now that they have published the image, as their pockets are probably much deeper.
The rules are completely different when the photo is used in a news story, as DPR has here. They have nothing to worry about.
I don't know what Nikon's thinking with the slow lens speeds on these new premium Coolpix models. In the final analysis this may be their only major downside, but it's a big one.
Wutwut: Nikon has gotta be kidding. @ $1100 here is what the specs sheet SHOULD look like:DX sensor28mm f1.4 lens with filter threads2.3M dot EVF built-inbuilt in ND filter
$450 for an add-on OVF and $130 for a filter adapter?! pfhahahahaha I'd drop a few more coins for a RX100.
and lastly....Coolpix? Really?
You must be kidding, asking for a DX 19mm f/1.4 lens at this price! But 24mm f/2 might work. They certainly could have done better than this.
vodanh1982: "The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices" No Android or PC?
iOS devices are an overwhelming favorite within their target clientele. They also have a much smaller number of models with well-know hardware differences, and all iPads have relatively good quality screens. So the product can be much better optimized to iOS devices.
In any case, if you need the capability you just go buy an iPad. If you still prefer Android for your everyday/home use, then fine.
It's pretty simple - there might be some minor detail here or there that looks nicer on ACR 7.4, but with C1 they look more like real 3D objects, both indoors and out.
It's still good to see that Adobe has made some much-needed improvements.
Jeff Greenberg: "Artist Susanna Kraus, daughter of original IMAGO1:1 co-inventor Werner Kraus is seeking £95,000 (~$150,000, €112,000)..."
Why doesn't she bloody work for it like the rest of us?
Sounds like she's doing all the work - I guess someone else can do the complaining.
According to the kickstarter link she's already put all her money into it, and along with her friends and family they've already financed half the cost.
skytripper: "...once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch.'"
Could not disagree more.
This statement is not technically sound at all - it's just a way of discounting every single competitor Canon has in one fell swoop.
He should just say 'm4/3 is no good, 1" is junk, 1/1.7" is a waste - no, Canon hasn't missed the boat, every other major manufacturer and all their customers are just dumb!'
Adrian Van: Nice to know that DXO did very well in this review from DPreview especially next to Lightroom. Most wedding photographers I talk to, use Adobe Lightroom and I have been using DXO for 4 years.For image quality DXO Pro 8 according to this review had the winners in certain image quality categories or tied.1. TWO-WAY TIE: Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8 consistently provide natural, pleasing skin tones (from Portrait tests, may depend on camera though)2. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings.3. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 offers crisp default settings and superior results in the image corners. (default sharpening test, with lens / camera modules)4.WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8, with some manual adjustments produces very good high ISO detail while retaining more color data than the competition. (noise reduction test)Lightroom certainly did better in some tests as did Capture One, but I really like my DXO and its smart interface.
I was just having fun with it. I guess I was posting a bit too late at night - didn't realize I'd strike some nerves (sorry about that).
I knew my comments wouldn't apply to anyone who'd actually read this article on DPR.
My point was simply that some (I shouldn't have said "many") people act like it's a simple formula, rather than a serious craft. I find it annoying that a few seem to act as if all that's needed is a couple of Canons or Nikons, 2 zoom lenses, LR and a few plug-ins. No research or thought required. There are many options, and I'd like to know that the photographer at least considered them.
I think those who responded mostly agree with me. I was simply posting based on my observation that some wedding photographers keep passing the word on to one another to simply "use LR," with many never questioning the advice.
Many wedding photographers act like nothing else even exits - I bet quite a few of them literally believe that LR (or maybe LR and Aperture) is the only option out there! Heck, some of them don't even know there's such a thing as MF cameras, since Nikon and Canon don't make one!
EDIT: My mistake regarding MF cameras, I forgot - everyone who bought a Nikon D800 believes they already have one!
DStudio: The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?
Of course each product has value and has its own strong points. But it doesn't take much effort to see that Capture 1 is pulling out amazing results that the others can't achieve. DXO is second, and LR is far behind. C1 is taking the exact same image and giving it better color, impact, and detail! This isn't surprising, as it aligns with other comparison reviews on the web.
LR has clear advantages in 3rd party support and list price, but let's not pretend its fundamental image processing abilities are equivalent!
@Revenant - interesting review. How ironic that he chose a sports photo, a category where the choice is often between doing minimal processing and none (because JPEGs need to be sent in on a strict timeframe).
Nevertheless, he managed to also produce a washed-out, flat, non-dimensional photo - as if this is the price of using LR.
I amazes me how people can be so undiscriminating, becoming almost giddy as they jump at the chance to do "a lot of work" with their preferred product to produce a mediocre result.
@plasnu - you're kidding, right?
Start at the begining, looking at the Default Color Rendering. LR is too washed out, and DXO is too dark. Then move to the skin tones - same thing. C1 gives you pleasing skin tones and colors without going one way or the other. Different cameras, same result. By rendering colors so well it gives more dimensionality to the images. Then look at the moire test, and tell me which one does a better job of rendering the singer's face, and the colors on his wrist band, and so on. Or the white fence toward the top of the crop from the Nikon D800E shot we've seen before. Only C1 delineates each of the horizontal lines, while maintaining a vivid white color. And if you keep looking you'll find more examples.
The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?
slncezgsi: While this upgrade does make the tripod thinner when collapsed, it would not allow to flip the legs 180 deg. up (around the bullhead) to make the tripod shorter. Because of this feature my Feisol Tournament fits in carry-on luggage.
Also the platform on the top will get smaller (what may or may not be a disadvantage).
Do you mean the ball head? Or the mount it attaches to?
You just unscrew the ball head and take it off. And the mount for it adds less than 1" in height, so either way I think it's of little consequence.
RStyga: Stability improvements.. bug fixes. Apparently the contrast adjustment is secondary, although some users might find it important if shooting in strong daylight.
@LetsDoTheStapler - Don't be too hard on Pentax for what happened during the Hoya years. Ricoh is running the company quite differently. This year we'll find out how well Ricoh is really doing. By next January we should be able to make a more accurate assessment and appropriate comments about how well they're running the business - good or bad. Since product development cycles tend to take 18-24 months we'll just have to wait a bit longer until things have settled in.
Hoya could tear something down in a day, but it takes a long time for Ricoh to build it back up.
bcalkins: Well, I'm glad I downloaded the RAW and took a look. I can't see any problems with the LR 4.2 processing of the Fuji file - compared to the MFT camera I'm familiar with I'd say the files out of the Fuji look great, though the difference is not huge. The samples above really don't do the Fuji or ACR justice... Posting default ACR is an OK starting point for a comparison, but it certainly doesn't come close to showing the capabilities of that combination. I'd get the impression you are better off with jpgs and should avoid ACR from these samples above, which is not close to the reality. Not impressed with this article - using defaults gives you some ground to claim you don't have a bias, but misses the whole point of what cameras can do photographically. Is C1 better just because the defaults suit this camera better than ACR? Hardly...
@Robert Eckerlin - I too believe it's very important that LR and CS6 give good support of the X-Trans sensor. It's just that I have little confidence they will actually put the effort in.
According to the other posts here it appears that both Apple and Adobe have shown a great deal of apathy toward this sensor. It's as if Adobe engineers only wanted to make it good enough for their supervisor to allow them to check it off their checklist.
People who are excited about photography understand how great this sensor is, and they want to get the most out of it.
olypan: Maybe this piece is more about amazon getting too much heat from Canikon. There was a lot of excitement when the X100 launched which is being repeated with Xtrans and the new models. Seems like a desperate attempt to focus attention on an apparent negative.
@Robert Eckerlin - All Phase One employees I've met are very passionate about their work. I think that's how they manage to meet or exceed Adobe's technical performance in so many areas.
Yes, you're correct that the products need to be judged largely on the final result they can produce. But out of the box results count for A LOT. If I have a large number of photos to convert, I want to know that I can get very good results without making any adjustments. Then I can adjust any critical photos if I have time.
C1 doesn't "just happen" to have defaults that better suit this camera. Phase One makes a specific, targeted effort to produce quality camera profiles and good defaults for all the cameras they support. And why not? Their engine (especially the new one in v7) is very impressive, so why not let everyone take advantage of it with their own camera?
Although the LR4/CS6 engine is much improved, Adobe still seems to have the attitude that "we'll let the end-user do all the work."