I want to pay just once for every PS update, like I have done so far. I will never pay any fee every month to use any software. Otherwise, competitors will have a new customer :(
Direct link |
Posted on May 9, 2013 at 11:32:50 UTC
as 506th comment
Louis_Dobson: Well, I have no dog in the fight - I got rid of the D3 for an OM-D.
But I'm baffled by the review. Look at page 23 - feeble sensor DR (as picked up by DxOMark). So this camera is a one trick pony - low noise at high ISO. Who wants to carry around a brick to get that? Wedding shooters. And a very high proportion of wedding shooters want their shots out and paid for with minimal PP, which means JPG. The camera's other weakness? The JPG engine.
So it's not really terribly good, is it? It's only good at one thing, and in the end it isn't very good at THAT either.
Nonetheless it will sell well, because people are foolishly obsessed with using "what the pros use". If they bought their cars the same way they'd have delivery vans and taxis.
Me, I'd like a D800, but the OM-D is too good to justify having both. This, I'd not touch thanks, unless I decided I wanted to shoot weddings and couldn't afford a D4.
Many of the best wedding photographers shoot JPG. In fact shooting RAW in a wedding has little sense, unless your technique is not that solid...
Direct link |
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 11:33:55 UTC
Opened D800 files on NX2 and IQ is really fantastic, a 1600 ISO file is widely usable for me for high quality purposes. Seems to be a fantastic camera that will change our working mind.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 16:54:28 UTC
as 68th comment
Spain
I want to pay just once for every PS update, like I have done so far. I will never pay any fee every month to use any software. Otherwise, competitors will have a new customer :(
Waiting for the D300 successor...here you are! ;)
Louis_Dobson: Well, I have no dog in the fight - I got rid of the D3 for an OM-D.
But I'm baffled by the review. Look at page 23 - feeble sensor DR (as picked up by DxOMark). So this camera is a one trick pony - low noise at high ISO. Who wants to carry around a brick to get that? Wedding shooters. And a very high proportion of wedding shooters want their shots out and paid for with minimal PP, which means JPG. The camera's other weakness? The JPG engine.
So it's not really terribly good, is it? It's only good at one thing, and in the end it isn't very good at THAT either.
Nonetheless it will sell well, because people are foolishly obsessed with using "what the pros use". If they bought their cars the same way they'd have delivery vans and taxis.
Me, I'd like a D800, but the OM-D is too good to justify having both. This, I'd not touch thanks, unless I decided I wanted to shoot weddings and couldn't afford a D4.
Many of the best wedding photographers shoot JPG. In fact shooting RAW in a wedding has little sense, unless your technique is not that solid...
Shame on Canon trolls that don't accept Nikon has released a great camera. Accusing Dpreview has been bought by Nikon is even more ridiculous.
Great job, DPreview. Congrats!
Opened D800 files on NX2 and IQ is really fantastic, a 1600 ISO file is widely usable for me for high quality purposes. Seems to be a fantastic camera that will change our working mind.