Lenses can be built smaller/cheaper because some distortions can be taken care by the image processor. In a DSLR the distortion would be unacceptable while looking through the lens.
The page I'm on is http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/download/fts/index2.html.
Is there a better page to start from?
http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/download/fts/dl/g7_g70.html has it
Responding to self:
Found this page which shows older updates, so maybe just not out there yet.
You can able to edit the link to find updates for at least some other cameras.
Appears you have to select the focus before you take the next picture. And the other frames are deleted?
Guess we'll wait a few days to find out the details.
RedDog Steve: Wonderful announcement for Friday The 13TH !
"Q2 results for the financial year ending March 2016." Did anyone look at a calendar? 2016.
Friday, the 13th isn't April 1 either.
Fantastic. And self taught. Very good eye.
And to dpreviewers' credit, not a single negative comment.
One might argue with the precise count, but only one of these relates to a hard news item, the last and it was well after the event.
How identify data files?
I uploaded some old unsupported RAW files and now have run out of room. Involves hundreds or thousands of files, so want to identify which ones to delete. Are there bulk methods?
"If you have a 'Prime' subscription, you get unlimited photo storage.Files not recognised as photos are treated as 'Cloud Drive' data (for which the first 5GB are free)."
"File types that aren't supported can be stored using Cloud Drive, but won't be included in the unlimited photo storage and will instead count against the limits on a user's Cloud Drive account."
Are unsupported RAW files counted against the 5GB 'Cloud Drive' data? This should be clear by now, but the statements and answered are scattered about in the article and answers. One ambiguity is that "File types" might mean non-photo file types. Another is that unsupported could mean more than not viewing the photos on the web. Are RAW files "Files not recognised as photos"?
skytripper: It is very unfortunate that the GX7's grip is so chunky and just plain ugly. Looks like a very nice camera otherwise.
It works fine for me. I don't think my photos care what the grip looks like.
I can see getting the LX100 although after using the GX7 for a while, I think I'll have to wait for the touch screen version. Today I used the touch screen to locate the focus point numerous times. But I'd love to have the f/2.8 lens.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: 1,23m tall with central column down, basic construction despite the carbon fibre, suspicious head quality. There are better, cheaper options out there.
Maximum Height 142 cm (56 in.) which isn't very tall.
AbrasiveReducer: Get a Gitzo, a good ball head and an Arca or RRS release. Costs a lot, but they last a lifetime and unlike cameras, don't become obsolete after a couple years.
Titanium technology is maybe 30 to 50 years old except for hot isostatic pressing which wouldn't be of much use for tubes. The military doesn't own the technology. Ti bicycles have been around for decades, but carbon fiber bikes rule now. Carbon fiber (really carbon fiber/plastic (or epoxy) composite) is lighter and stiffer than Ti. No doubt carbon fiber/plastic technology will continue to improve.
Great fun. How do they not interrupt traffic?
I'm not sure which NASA site is no longer available, but NASA's Image of the Day site is up, thank you. The photos are often artistic, but most are informative. (The link for NASA was pretty weak publishing, dpreview should not just republish, but do a bit of fact checking.)
And is there a link to the ESA stills site?
Maybe nothing new in these photos as someone said, but many of us love seeing them and glad dpreview showed us these.
Marty4650: These high capacity cards probably only exist for video needs.
Who the heck would put 10,000 photos on a card?
It would take me a year to shoot that many photos, and even a few months for most heavy users. That's an awful lot of post processing work for one night!
Take a three-month long trip shooting RAW even without video and you'll use more than 64GB. But one or two cards is less hassle than many small cards. Backups required though. The chance of misplacing a card when you change it in the field on a trip in a foreign country may be as likely as a corrupt card—no way to know and depends on your habits and luck.
I've taken 7000 pictures (digital) on a single trip. I've lost two rolls of film in the past (before digital).
The post processing is simpler with fewer cards to juggle. And I've juggled maybe ten of them on my last big trip three years ago. I welcome the larger cards. My camera uses SD, but I doubt it will be long before micro SD is common in mid-size and smaller cameras.
My wife welcomes the large micro SD for her GoPro.
I remember being surprised when I started working in a factory about 40 years ago going to the electronics repair shop. The first thing they did when getting in a device from the shop floor was give it a bath (probably hot but I don't remember). The technicians said they after that they usually needed to replace some of the capacitors, but otherwise no damage. You can image how dirty an oscilloscope or similar was after a few years of use on the shop floor.
Bottom line, nothing new.
ArmandN: I recently reviewed the same 3 programs (http://www.twin-pixels.com/best-photo-raw-converters/) and I came to pretty much the same conclusions.
And I didn't review Aperture either because it wasn't updated; it wouldn't be fair to compare the current gen Lightroom with old-gen Aperture.
Aperture is updated regularly. Just because the updates are free and they haven't gone to v4 to charge more money doesn't mean it's not updated. What's old gen about the current Aperture?
Roadtripper: I realize that Apple's Aperture is Macintosh only, but it should be included in this "shoot-out" because it is a viable contender for those who use Macs, both on an amateur as well as professional level. It may not be a "leading contender" but it does draw Mac users away from the so-called leaders. I chose Aperture over Lightroom after trying both of their free trials. I not only preferred Aperture for it's ease of use, but also it's cost - $79 vs Lightroom's $149. There are professional photographers who use Aperture for their entire workflow... please don't slight them (as well as us amateurs) in your reviews.Thank you for listening....
Agreed. In October 2012 Derrick Story, a professional photographer, did a podcast comparing Lr and Ap. Ap is his day to day app because of its organizational capabilities and he uses Lr occasionally for its image tools. You can listen via iTunes or probably on his site, http://thedigitalstory.com. He compares many other features too, some of the ones covered in this article as well as other considerations.
He also points out that at least for Lr and Ap the price shouldn't be a driver. You're spending $50 to $100 or less per year which is not much relative to the other costs of photography.
57even: Sigma's updateable firmware dock is extremely cool. I am very impressed with Sigma at the moment, the 35 was excellent and they seem to have a new lease of life.
How is this different than what you can do with µ4/3 lenses now? At least the camera can be updated to deal with the lens; not sure what exactly is being updated.