aut0maticdan: I like the simplicity of the file management. I hope it performs well.
Man, did they knock off lightroom's layout, though. They should have knocked off Aperture, instead.
I much prefer Lightroom's layout to Aperture's. I never got along well with Aperture's interface.
ZeneticX: I'm really tempted by this so I went and check out its feature thoroughly... then I hit a bummer, there's no histogram display, at all!
@AlienSkinTechSupport I hope Exposure X will have super speedy keyboard shortcuts for things like exposure, contrast, shadows, highlights, etc. The only thing that makes Lightroom workable for me is the speedy VSCO Keys shortcuts plugin, and that has been discontinued by the VSCO (still available, but no more updates). For some strange reason, Adobe has never created a proper set of keyboard shortcuts for LR. As you know, basic edits are much speedier with the keyboard than with having to mouse around the screen.
GRUBERND: sigh. sidecar files in subfolders. extra scripting imminent. while better than a catalog blob, this makes a lot automatable tasks harder than neccessary.
Yep, me too! Much, much better to have sidecar files. I've lost all of my edits to Lightroom database corruption. Don't want that to happen again.
falconeyes: Another Lightroom without the raw conversion. Why do we need this?Why couldn't Alien Skin improve on their core competence which is Special Effects?
Exposure 7 is already pretty great and does a lot of things that LR doesn't. So they are making Exposure even better. And it *does* do Raw conversion. So many comments here are just plain incorrect.
Benarm: Ouch, those "Alien Skin" subfolders would be quite a mess all over your photo library.
Why "Ouch"? -- they all go into a tidy subfolder, unlike Adobe sidecar files which exist right next to the original photo file, thus doubling the number of files you see. Yes, you can run LR without sidecar files, but then you risk losing all of your edits to database corruption (has happened to me).
wakaba: Massively overpriced Panasonic rebranded crap. Underperforming and ugly. IQ is below average. Most expensive doorstop ever?
@Mike99999 "well documented" ... where exactly????
Some parts made by other manufacturer, but it's a Leica design.
3dit0r: I have a deep love of Leica (film) rangefinder bodies, but I have to say, on so many levels, I have no idea what Leica were thinking here.
The only plus points I can see are AF Leica lenses (eventually more than one, and primes?!), and what appears to be the world's best EVF by a long way. Those do count for something, but probably not a $4K premium over likely competitors, IMO.
The list of negatives is really too long to express. But for me, deal breakers are - real shortage of physical controls, size/weight, average sensor performance at any price by today's standards, no instant focus magnification with M lenses (or even a single button press to activate, or split screen focus like Fuji), and price, price, price.
Good luck to Leica with this one.
The XT-1's EVF stutters as you shoot, even with image preview set to off. So subject motion is viewed as a stutter — annoying. Also the EVF has a surprisingly long shutter blackout time, something like a mirrored camera set to a slowish shutter speed. I haven't tried the SL, but the XT-1 EVF has some serious shortcomings.
Olympuser: Bravo Sigma! Next step are f0.95 lenses. 35mm f0.95, 50mm f0.95, 85mm f0.95 might be the first ones!
Considering how big these 1.4 lenses are, 0.95 lenses for FF DSLRs would be much too big. The Canon 50/1.0 was huge and hugely expensive, and discontinued for good reason.
expressivecanvas: As usual... another new lens and no Sony e-mount. Sigma already said they were interested in the Sony e/fe market and they already manufacture a few APS-C e-mount lenses. It would be really nice to see some full frame Sigma lenses in e-mount so this is another disappointment.
Are there many people who would want to use such huge lenses on Sony A7 series cameras? It seems that compactness is a big selling point of the A7 series cameras. So huge lenses don't seem to be a good match for them, whether with an adapter or without. I see the appeal of this new lens, but I'm not sure I see much appeal for using it on a Sony A7 series camera.
RidgeRunner22: One issue I see is the problem of handheld 42mp shoots. Without any form of IS I think this was meant for the tripod.
Yes, that's what's confusing about it. I think that people get easily confused by this, and they amplify each other's confusion online -- so that you get nearly everyone agreeing that higher mp cameras must be held more steady or always used on a tripod.
If people really thought about it, they would realize that increased resolution doesn't necessitate increased camera steadiness. Camera shake and the resulting blur is completely independent of the resolution of the camera.
If you shake *any* camera, you blur the photo. And the degree of blur is the same whether the camera has 1mp or 100mp. If you enlarge the photo, you enlarge the blur. Once the blur is captured, the final size of the blur depends solely on the final size of the image, not the resolution of the camera.
lumberjack63: Who needs such a camera ? (exactly this ...)Fixed lens35 mm5 fps(plus: extraordinary price)Who / where is the target group ?
@darngooddesign I agree. Smaller size is the advantage. Not cost or certainty.
To state the problem correctly, you would say that magnification magnifies any blur. Resolution doesn't. The reason you might claim more blur for 42mp image is not that it has 42mp (vs. some lesser mp), but that you are printing or viewing it much larger. But then *any* camera of *any* resolution will also appear to show more blur when its images are printed/viewed larger. That's because magnification magnifies any blur. Resolution doesn't.
But that blur will look exactly the same in the photograph. If you are comparing 1 pixel of blur vs. 3 pixels of blur, then you are comparing a smaller image to a larger image, but the degree of blur *within each image* is exactly the same.
And if you are actually seeing 1 pixel of blur, then you must be viewing an infinitesimal portion of the photo under a microscope. A typical print has 90,000 pixels per square inch, so if you can see 1 pixel in that print, you are literally using a microscope.
Or you are viewing house-sized prints. If someone is planning house-sized prints, a tripod would be advisable regardless of the camera resolution. The degree of any blur from camera shake is the same. Resolution doesn't increase blur.
UnitedNations: You would need VERY stable hands to shoot 42mp.No more coffee...& always carry around a tripod...
Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. Camera shake is exactly the same whether you are shooting with 4 megapixels or 40 megapixels or 400 megapixels.
Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. Camera shake is exactly the same whether you are shooting 4 megapixels or 40 megapixels or 400 megapixels.
The RX1RII looks like a sweet camera, but one can invest in the A7 system for much less money. A7II + 55mm + 28mm is still less than the RX1RII with its fixed lens. Besides, every camera has an uncertain future, including the RX1RII.
beppe_it: eos 6d is still better or equal performing (quality wise) at a lower price range (from 3200 iso up).
TroyMacReady: your link compares the 6D to the A7RII, 645Z or D810 -- all of them cost several times what the 6D costs. I'm just pointing out how good the 6D is for $1,150 (current lowest price).
Comazzi: Sony Alpha 7R II tested with a $ 1000 lens and Canon 5DS R tested with a $ 350 lens ? What ?
HowaboutRAW: you may be right about the D4S, but between the 6D and the A7s there is very little difference in the Studio shot comparison up to ISO 51,200. The Studio shot comparison gives no option to see the A7s with the silent mode engaged.