Why would chroma subsampling be put as a feature? As I understand chroma subsampling means encoding chroma in lower resolution than luma. The only reason for doing this is to save file size, everything else is a disadvantage and results in the famous jpeg artifacts. We don't necessary need to save few kb of file space anymore.
After all that experimenting, Nikon is back on track with what they do best.
mpgxsvcd: I have used ACDSee as my editing program since 1999. I think their software is the simplest software to learn that can still get the job done in a heavy editing environment.
That being said their RAW support is abysmal. There is list of cameras below that are supported by most other editing software programs but ACDSee does not support them despite the fact that they were given samples for some of these cameras months ago.
Adding new features does you no good if your camera’s RAW format is not supported. They will tell you that you can just use DNG Converter to convert all of your files before you bring them in for editing. That is a time consuming process that makes ACDSee unusable.
These cameras are not supported. They typically add support for a camera within 1 year of it being released. That is not acceptable.
Canon 7D MKIIPanasonic LX100Panasonic GH4Canon G7XNikon D750
Thanks for pointing at the Photovivo
mpgxsvcd: If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.
I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.
ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.
Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.
well it is because dcraw doesn't support fuji x due the fuji proprietary algorithms.But the issue is not by paying fee to a free developer (the dcraw is a mess anyway) the issue is to cough enough money to make your own developer. But that require commitment.
SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.
They don't have the bandwidth? This is not two guys in a moms garage company
"Create, reorder, merge and manipulate layers individually"
"Manipulate individual parts of an image without affecting another area for more precise editing"
LightZone has been doing those 2 things since 2006
"Apply filters and effects to layers"
"Apply Pixel Targeting to layers"
And these 2 things since about 2009 (if I understand it correctly).
ACDsee does some things that LightZone doesn't do, of course, but those 4 above jumped out at me. BTW, LightZone has also been free and open source for 3 years now. We share a problem with ACDsee, though: reliance on another source for part of our raw demosaicing (dcraw).
I don't get it. Doesn't every other layer editor does the same? How is "Apply filters and effects to layers" and all the others unique to ACDSee or Lightzone?
Lanidrac: Why can't they just stay with being a good photo viewer instead of this editing nonsense? ACDSee is becoming useless bloatware. Sad.
There is plenty of great free viewers, some are even better in many ways than any ACDSee version. The fact that they are still in business with the same 15 years old business model is astounding. It is obvious to them that they need to add value, or people will simply turn away. I am not sure making a me-too editor is the correct way to do it. It is still fighting the previous war.
Harry Von Zel: To all who believe this sale is factual or any other sale that's been reported as $1,000.000.00 on up; I've got news for you.Recently Andy Warhol paintings were sold for $150,000,000.00 in NY at Christies Auction House.....just as did Andreas Gursky's image of The Rhine....and who still holds the world record for the highest paid (and verified by the ever reputable Christies Auction House).
I am ashamed to say I purchased a Lik image some years ago and to see what he's done with images such as this "Phantom" a clone of his image "Ghost" and then bold face lie by creating nothing less than "propaganda" and claiming (from his own camp) that some anonymous buyer collected the image is just horrible and a very desperate move for publicity.
People wake up!!!This is bad and it's not truthful. Boycott any artist who operates unethically. Look at Thomas Kincaid. Lik is operating horribly and I find this to be a direct insult to those of us as collectors.
Look at an image called "Solace", now look at "Endless SummerLook at "Ghost" now look at Phantom.......this is total BS....buyer beware !!
I like your buyer beware comment. Thanks, I was almost going to spill $10 million on his next picture just to outbid all the others pixel peepers on this forum. Because we all know this is exactly the forum where multimillionaires go discussing their cameras.
marc petzold: To be honest, i don't know *if* that particular picture is worth that amount of money, but into my eyes - it looks way artificial, just like a phenomen from a upcoming prometheus-alien saga movie...into other words...it's way cool...
Why do you think the buyer cares if it is photoshoped or not?
Some people are just geniuses.
iAPX: I've read many comments, and disagree with most, saying that it's just for print.
Last week I bought a retina iMac with it's incredible 5120x2880 physical resolution, planning 3 weeks of photo sorting, editing, tagging during the hollidays. I could say that many (if not all) of my APS-C D70/K10D/D2/D300-era pictures are not worth keeping to be displayed on it. Tablets are on the QHD era now, computers will be giving higher resolutions in the following years.
More than 24MP is a loss on a Full-Frame, due to the resolution of the optics themselves, and it shows. You could be fooled by the noise (it's an interesting fact), but if you would to construct your portfolio for the years ahead, you must bethinking about really high resolution, and this gear is perfect for that: landscape, architecture, and naturally studio shoot.
As I am throwing away most if not all of my photos from the last decades, I wonder if I should think forward and go medium-format instead Full-Frame?!?
This is a golden. So almost all your APS-C images are now not worth keeping because you 've got higher resolution display? Wow. Maybe photography is not your thing?
paulbysea: I have ignored this camera until know. These two reviews have given me pause for thought. I currently have a 5D3 and was wondering about getting a 7D2 for my more action orientated shot and keeping with the 5D3 as I develop as a landscape and product photography. Now I wonder if I should sell the 5D3 as well and go for the Pentax. Or maybe I should wait and hope canon bring out a similar camera, albeit one where you can use EF lenses to crop down the body to FF in a similar way that Nikon can with their system. Whatever I do will be after xmas, probably spring time. Need to sell some classic Naim amps and Meridian 104 tuner first to free up some cash first.
This is a camera that needs two things: a reason to use and a preparation time.
Samuel Dilworth: Well, I found both of these reports interesting, and Sam Spencer’s observations had me fairly chuckling.
A lot of the criticism in the comments is overly literal. Of course we all claim to know a nice camera won’t improve our photography, and yet many of us ‘upgrade’ every couple of years despite this supposed knowledge. A humorous and rather well-written piece reminding us of this folly – while pointing out certain areas where this particular dream camera might actually have some useful strengths – should not be so controversial.
And if you’re moved to complain about someone’s self-deprecating report on using a new camera, at least be polite about it. Some of the comments below are inexcusable.
I am sure it was a satire piece, but a bit too long and with too many bad examples that gave it that "I had never used a camera" vibe. A person armed with a cellphone for a day would likely produce few interesting images even if by accident. So this had to be a deliberate put-down piece.
I assume the Sam Spencer review was meant to be a humorous piece where Sam deliberately selected his worst images to sort of contrast it with the high $8k price. Otherwise it would not make any sense. There is no way that in a day of shooting those would be the best examples he could find. No way, so I am taking this as a satire.
It is obvious what they are doing, isn't it? Basically trying to sell customers an inadequate proof of concept with hopes that someone big will buy them off. As we had seen wit foevon, this "catching up" can go on for perpetuity. The underlying tech is interesting, but at the end professionals still use tried and true and amateurs loose patience faster than you can say rip off.
imrich: This looks exciting.
I'd be happy to test this with 'real' firearms (pistols and/or rifles), under controlled conditions on an indoor range with the ability to be blacked out using a Nikon D810 and/or a D200.
TTMatt, feel free to contact me, or check your private messages here for a message from me.
Best of luck with this product!
Just curious, how do you sync it to the gun shot? With an audio trigger?
Does it have 4K video, I can't seems to find out.
Gesture: Smaller sensor. Smaller, less complicated camera than DSLR. $500 would be appropriate.
I assume it will be $500 or lower after 6 months of release.The only thing that work to buy as early adopters is a good lens by good name, they either keep the price or even go higher.
LarryLatchkey: I held it in my hands today. It is NOT ERGONOMIC (plus the viewfinder is really quite small). Why does it seem to be so difficult to design an ergonomic grip on a compact M4/3 camera that also looks good?! It is quite astonishing that having used a Ricoh GRd (I) with it's really bad IQ for years means being totally spoilt by it's perfect ergonomics. I really want to be able to use a camera one-handedly in certain situations (including the change of setting by reaching for a wheel with my right thumb or index finger).
I think it is called LX100 ?
Vitalisam: I'm an owner of quite out-dated Canon 50D. Suddenly I started to feel a 'new camera fever'. And not an SLR anymore, but rather something suitable for comfortable traveling.Right now I'm hesitating between Lumix GM5 and Fujifilm X100T. Personally I like Fuji one but lack of zoom is just killing me. Could someone professionally convince me that I don't need an optical zoom during traveling? :)
You need zoom mostly if you are birdie because you can't really get close to birds or wild animals with x100.But everything else, any social situation or travel, the x100 is the perfect lens, not too wide, not too long and you just frame by making a step forward or backward - simple like that.Just look at your pictures if your zoom images are worth having the zoom.