bluevaping: This guy doesn't understand that marketing, adding a feature, removing a feature doesn't drive sales in different markets the same. The reason the Rebel SL1 is not selling more in the US. They wanted to market the smallest DSLR. People in US complained it's to small, but they likely meant that there not comfortable grip for shooting. So marketing got them marginal smaller DSLR that's uncomfortable to many models. And with same lens sizes. WIN/Lose. The competition is giving them marginal better image quality and better handling. Win/WinIt's like they need to do SWAT analysis on future products. Smartphones are threat. They have high resolution screens. A few have bigger sensors than most compact cameras. Most smartphones have faster glass and some have image stabilization. Like shooting with a prime lens compact camera that you like have with you. I have a canon point and shoot for ergonomics and shooting lots for work. Threat of substitution is real.
As someone who bought an SL1 last week to use as a travel camera, I love it. I bought it specifically for it's small size and light weight (much lighter/smaller than my 7D, yet with comparable image quality). Yes, the ergonomics are not ideal, but they're not bad and I'm adapting. I hope that they don't abandon the small body market in the US.
Daniel Lauring: IMHO, this is stretching the envelope of usefulness of tablets. It is "trying too hard" to fit a 10lb brick in a 5lb basket. For RAW editing anyone would be way better off with an Ultralight laptop (like Macbook Air) or Windows tablet (like Microsoft Surface.) Heck, you can buy last year's Surface Pro for $600 with an i5 processor and 128Gb SSD. Better still the Surface has true Wacom digitizer support.
It all depends on what you're trying to do. I don't see this as replacing a "real" computer with a full RAW processor/editor. I see this as a tool to have a look at your chosen images in the field and then adjust them to see if you have what you need. Maybe you You've taken 200 shots and you scan through them and pick your best ten to work on with this App on your tablet. Then, when you get back, you copy over the sidecar files from those images and the RAW files and do final tweaking on your desktop/laptop with Lightroom. But this is speculation on my part, as I haven't tried it yet.
Jeff Peterman: First, as others have said, don't forget OTG. I've been using an OTG adapter cable to connect a card reader (CF or SD) to Android devices or years and then copying over RAW files and using "CR2Thumbnailer" to view the RAW images and export JPGs. But that App doesn't give options for improving the image, so the extra features of this new APP look good. However, one key question: does it generate Lightroom-compatible sidecar files with the edit information so that I can transfer the RAW file and its sidecar file to my PC and view/improve the changes there?
OK, if at least some will transfer, including ratings, that could be useful. This would allow for quick basic processing on the tablet (enough to get a good idea of the image), plus adding tags for the location, etc., and then the detailed work could be done in Lightroom once the files are copied to a PC.
First, as others have said, don't forget OTG. I've been using an OTG adapter cable to connect a card reader (CF or SD) to Android devices or years and then copying over RAW files and using "CR2Thumbnailer" to view the RAW images and export JPGs. But that App doesn't give options for improving the image, so the extra features of this new APP look good. However, one key question: does it generate Lightroom-compatible sidecar files with the edit information so that I can transfer the RAW file and its sidecar file to my PC and view/improve the changes there?
It could be that they just threw a cloth over an SL1 to take the shot as an illustration and it has nothing to do with the actual camera that will be announced. I would not put much importance on this image.
If I was going to do this, I'd attach some handle to the top so that there was less risk of dropping it in, I'd attach a rink of Styrofoam around the top edge on the outside so that it would be certain to float fairly high if I did drop it, and I'd cover the top with plastic to protect from splashes. Then I'd not use it anyway as it wouldn't be worth the risk, except with an old body/lens.
Why isn't there an easy to click on link that takes us to the original site? (Or if there is, where is it?)
As for the lake being a "lake of blood" - if so, what about the green lake? I'm pretty certain that the water color is simply from minerals in the water, not "animal products".
Joe Talks Photo Gear: great cameras in their time! Even a 1" sensor would make these both SO MUCH BETTER!
I chose the S110 over the Sony equivalent NOT just because of price: the large sensor in the Sony made it bigger AND meant that the lens couldn't go as wide.
The change to a manual flash mechanism is a big improvement on the S camera. With my S110, there have been too many times that I've turned the camera on with my finger near the top of the flash, and this caused an error as the flash tried to pop up at startup.
RPJG: Why do I continue to read the comments on DPR, when I know it'll be full of nonsense from no-hoper negative-nancies?
Photography was more full of negatives in the film days ...;-)
MarcusGR: Stunning job, the "Migrant mother" especially. Technical question (for DP or anyone else): is there a way, with today's technical tools, to derive the "real" original colours of a scene from their "interpretation" by a B&W film? Or is it just a guess-work (though based on documents and historical studies) ? I suppose that if the "real" colours (in natural average daylight) of a couple objects appearing in a scene were known, all the rest might be 'derived' rather than 'guessed' ...? Of course, light and colours are one and the same thing, so nothing 'absolute' about colours can be said when light is not in the equation. Nonetheless, in natural light I think some very realistic assumptions might be done ...
The only way to get color from a B&W image is if the photographer shot the same scene with red, green, and blue filters in place (plus one with none) then the four images could be used to get a fairly good estimate of the color. Without that, most of the color information is gone. (If you know the spectral sensitivity of the film and have the negative, you'll get some based on unnaturally light/dark areas.)
Ed Gaillard: Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.
She clearly has a lot of talent/technical skill. The fact that you don't like the way it was applied is entirely a different matter.
From the technical perspective these are extremely well done. They don't look colorized, but appear to be color originals. I don't think they take anything away from the original iconic images but stand on their own as great images.
And the artist's name seems very appropriate (dull-away).
This doesn't make any sense. With hard drive mirroring, you have a backup in case one hard drive fails. But this is a single card with a single interface, so what's the chance that one copy of the file will be good if the other is bad? Pretty slim. The most likely failure will be at the interface.
I'm still looking for a good travel bag designed for frequent flyers who also want to carry camera gear. That means it should have easy-access compartments for all the normal essentials (books, tablet, water bottle), plus exterior pockets for travel documents, a place for emergency clothes (underwear, socks, etc., for when your checked luggage gets delayed) AND padded compartments for a DSLR and a couple of lenses. These days, I make do with a general purpose travel bag and add my camera gear with the body in a neoprene pouch and each lens in it's own pouch, but that's far from ideal.
Reilly Diefenbach: Or you could do the D800e and the 80-400VR and be a lot sharper for half the price :^)
That is an f4.5-f5.6 lens. So, even assuming it is as sharp (doubtful due to the longer zoom range and has optics that handle flare and distortion as well over the 200-400 range (doubtful based on comparing specifications), it is a whole stop slower at the 200-400 range. The latter is a big reason for the increase in price - shaving a stop from such a big lens is VERY expensive.
photoramone: Do you suppose that it's LEGAL, or Friendly, even?? I once took a picture of four ladies in a shopping mall, all were dressed in middle-eastern garb (Burkas) and you could see nothing more than their EYES. I was incredulous that they were very angry that I had taken this picture of them, out in public... My response to their complaint was, I'm very sorry, I won't do it again... But later, it occured to me that , How could they Prove, in a court of law, that it was the four of THEM??? BUT, I believe that, with-out getting their PERMISSION, I shouldn't have "done that Drive-bye" thing.. I'm just sayin!!!
A shopping mall is not a public place - it has owners who can set rules about photography. Many malls have signs saying "photography not permitted without prior approval."
The should have chose a less hazy day. OK, not so easy in London, but they do happen.
Jeff Peterman: I hope the new monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio of their existing 24" photo monitor and not the more common 16:9 aspect ratio. The squarer format is much better for photo work.
If the monitor is big enough, then vertical resolution can compensate for the 16:9 aspect ratio.
I hope the new monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio of their existing 24" photo monitor and not the more common 16:9 aspect ratio. The squarer format is much better for photo work.