RRJackson: I wonder how much DxO got paid to ignore the multi-sample noise reduction of the RED sensor? Or are they going to start testing everyone's camera based on multiple exposure HDR imagery?
They surely do mention it. But they don't comment on the impact of this on motion blur in action shots (not freezing motion). While this may even be beneficial for video, comparing such results with still cameras may not be fair.
lenseye: 'our reason to exist is to push the envelope'
If there ever was a bull$hit cliche this is it...
> Oly used to have f/2.0 zooms for 4/3" SLRs. now they are doing f/2.8 versions.
As long as they are bigger&heavier than their canikon FF F/2.8 counterparts, there is not so much point doing them
fberns: When I took a look at the NEX-6 in a shop when it was new, mostly it was the viewfinder that I found less good than a DSLR's one. So I thought I might go mirrorless possibly even with the very next model because of a step-up in terms of viewfinder resolution and -speed (lag). But gosh - now it's a step down instead of an improvement. Seems I'll still have to stay for some time with my chunky DSLR...Thank you Sony, this way I won't spend any money on a mirrorless. Not yet.
> do you read other reviews, all reviews I saw so far stated the evf had less lag, better optics, better image.
I realize resolution isn't all there is to EVF. But I think at this point resolution is still an obvious issue.
tommy leong: would LOVE to read about it's EVF behaviour in dimly lit situations.Most EVF in the past doesn't do well .
> same refresh rate in low light as good light.
But does it become noisy soon, or is there dynamic lag? The reduced frame rate is some EVFs is in order to gather more photons in more time to overcome the noise problem. Technically the frame rate does not need to be reduced as this could be done smoothly, by averaging a time-window of last few images (still showing a dynamic lag). The noise issue is partly due to sub-sampling of the full-res image (video sensors with less & bigger pixels have an advantage here).
So what is the free working distance at 1:1? MFD 150mm - length 91mm - flange distance 18mm = 41mm, I guess (I assume it does not extend)
itsastickup: For portraits it's not long enough and the aperture isn't big enough.
And it's not long enough for macro either, other than document copying.
I really don't get this lens.
What don't you get about a common "short macro" lens? There is one such in most lens lineups. Indeed they usually have short working distances @1:1 (5cm to 10cm) and do not produce as much relative background blur as longer macros. Notice the total lack of really wide-angle macros around 28mm(FF)/18mm(APS/C) or wider, that would produce quality images with the perspective of P&S macro modes - I assume 1:1 is infeasible at such wide angles.
ThePhilips: Can this lens AF fast? Or it is a dedicated macro?
It doesn't have an AF limit switch does it?
Nukunukoo: Oh why didn't you guys even go at least F2.0?
Tamron does make an APS-C 60mm/F2 1:1 macro-portrait lens, and with 10cm working distance @1:1We shall see if this one produces better quality perhaps.
mpgxsvcd: Basically, if you complain enough they will fix the problem. If you don't, then they won't.
It likely takes a few shipments to the service centre, a couple of weeks each. You might acquire a mirrorless to avoid "downtime" and lose interest in Nikon wares...
pca7070: Feveon X3 or ailke is the way to go.
Or maybe a monochrome sensor with DLP ;)From 1900: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/10/21/color-photography-from-russian-in-the-early-1900s/544/
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.
Considering that camera processors can turn raw into jpg, it shouldn't be a surprise that a tablet processor can do it, indeed it should be able to provide some extras. The small screens aren't the best editing environment.And I think storage space is currently the main issue with tablets. Even with USB OTG or Eye-fi, you're still stuck with tablet flash card, plus one microSD, optionally. Not remotely suitable as the regular raw converting device, and for storing batches of images. I can imagine it as a viewing device for jpgs (shooting raw+jpg), and occasionally checking if a harsh-lit scene is recoverable using such a raw converter. A tablet could be used to make backups on the go, for instance from USB OTG to spare microSDs. But once I did try a similar operation, and it wasn't as convenient as it may sound at first glance.
As for ultraportables, they're not so much better, the main difference is that they contain a SSD disk rather than cards. I prefer a regular laptop.
Study flares with a LED flashlight in a dark room, move the camera to different angles. Observe in live-view (DSLR), as the OVF doesn't show a good picture of them.
Marianne Oelund: How about . . .
28:1 with a single (Nikkor) lens and no TC?
(Direct imaging of diffraction rings.)
I think the setup wouldn't be geeky enough, and you didn't shoot an iPad ;) A proper microscope objective would've been outright boring.
You could probably sharpen & remove diffraction rings by deconvolution?
karinangelika: I have used DxO and loved its results since version 6 and updated without hesitation. Now I must consider saying goodbye to DxO just as I have already said goodbye to the world of Canon and Nikon DSLRs. The only camera I have now that DxO works with is my Fujifilm X100. That is simply not good enough.
If DxO publicly commits to pulling its finger out for X-Trans support then I will definitely upgrade to version 9. If not, then I can no longer justify the cost just for one camera.
Notice that DxO suffers from the combinatorial explosion problem of cameras and lenses...
Michel J: @ Grumpyrocker: I think you missed a lot. I open a new thread here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52386016
Well, if I recall correctly, highlights recovery was introduced in v8 but was not as good as that in LR4 or RT4. And the noise removal thing... I only checked v5 and found the "lens softness" module to be lens-profile-based selective sharpening which was pretty heavy-handed at 100% with my travel zoom, and was obviously trying to sharpen out-of-focus parts of images. I think there will probably be room for improvement of NR&sharpening beyond this update. And it is going to be increasingly more difficult to see improvements, in particular because there will only PR bull* from DxO. But of course they need to brag with something when they roll out the new version asking for your money.
"a compact device" hehe
Rockaw: We would all be better off not using Facebook and not using any google products (including android, search, gmail, etc). The old response of "I'm not worried about them indexing my content because I've got nothing to hide" is just a bit naive these days.
They're admitting that they don't just track you in Facebook, they track you EVERYWHERE online and even steal your phone number when you've tried to keep it private. All so they can profit from your personal information.
Not for me, thanks.
I was upset by facebook sending me a change of policy eventhough I've never made a FB account. But it looks like they spy on me anyway.
Pioneers of underwater photography used similar devices (though rather a metal housing with a window) turned upside down, a la diving bell
beavertown: Get the V1.
G16 is pointless and expensive.
I was considering a V1 as a P&S replacement. But it is too big (with lens) and has no built-in flash. Erhm, what was the starting price of the V1?
Murphster: Good to see that they finally have handheld HDR.
The G15 does have HDR. Not much use though, all auto.