tyurek: Why do manufacturers insist on making the LCD screens only tiltable in the vertical direction?! These are not camcorders, they are still photography tools first! What will you do when you're taking a vertically oriented picture??? Isn't it a 101 of photography to force to prevent yourself from taking "horizontal" pictures all the time? Sony started this with their NEX bodies which was shocking to me. Most everyone seems to follow suit now. Apparently the people designing these are not enthusiastic about photography.
Still photography is the only thing I do with a camera. I own a camera with a display that tilts in all directions but I'd rather have a display like this. First, the camera strap always gets in the way of the display. Second, I tilt vertically much more often than horizontally but I have to move the display out horizontally before I can do that.
stefanosensolini: some body size? you mean you could go out and take photos without the lens? do not know why we continue to consider the size of the camera without lens; so the first nex were considered small, they really were not less portable to a Nikon 5200!
Johnsonj: I've had pretty lousy service whenever I've called Adobe. Almost like Best Buy is working their sales call center. Tech support sounds like India. Got some real menacing people there. And I somehow got stuck with 2 Adobe accounts and can't delete either one. They're no help. Then there was the registration for how many ??? computers for purchased copy, to which I got conflicting answers from different reps. Then there was the kid that said they could not physically ship software package and then another sweet girl (hours later) who gladly shipped me the software. This company is seriously messed up. I'm weening myself away from Lightroom. I hate computer time for PP anyway. I'll be developing a bare-bones workflow around iPhoto and iMovie. To hell with adobe.
"Apple doesn’t require software authorizations"
Apple's authorization is required to get any software onto an iphone at all.
lasvideo: Thinking of signing up for the @adobe Creative Cloud? Some of these horror stories might change your mind. http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud
Remember to change your passwords and check your bank account for the next several month to make sure the hackers that got all that sensitive data from Adobe don't access your accounts.
New Adobe Survey. If you are not happy with CC being the only choice, let them know. http://deploy.ztelligence.com/start/survey/survey_taking.jsp?PIN=16BNF7XXXKLNX
"Remember to change your passwords"
Never use the same password for more than one thing
Joe Mayer: How many black eyes can Adobe endure? This is not a riddle but tragic reality. A loss of customer's data, encrypted or not, causes customers to be rattled. Worrisome too is the newly revealed loss of photoshop source code along with the code of acrobat. I wonder if Adobe still realizes the full extent of the attack or if more is yet to come.
"Worrisome too is the newly revealed loss of photoshop source code along with the code of acrobat"
Augestflex: Not happy that my account was compromised. The letter I received from Adobe mentions that in some cases Adobe's encryption software was used to decrypt information before it left their network. So yeah, now, in addition to changing passwords I need to worry about my credit card and potential fraudulent charges. Honestly, if it isn't already a practice, companies that have breeches of these nature should be fined for their inability to protect important financial and private data of their customers.
"So yeah, now, in addition to changing passwords"
How many passwords do you have to change? You should be using a different password for everything...
l_d_allan: I got an official-looking warning email from mail.adobesystems.com, which seems suspicious. Phishing?
I would have expected that the email would have come from adobe.com
Having to copy and paste a link from a plain text email does not increase a message's authenticity. Adobe could have sent an HTML messages with linked URLs. You can check links just as easily by just reading them out of the browser's address bar or by hovering over them in most email software. In fact, by doing it there you can take advantage of the browser's certificate validation as well.
The "From" header can be set arbitrarily anyway and tells you nothing about a message's true origin.
jagge: It does NOT make sense. It would have made a LOT of sense to make a 15 mm 1.4 lense or even 1.2 then you could get some ff like wideangle feel.
Why go for a 15 mm. 1.7 when there is a 17 1.8 out there. Is it to difficult with a 1.4 version ? I would LOVE that lense
> > Is it to difficult with a 1.4 version ?
> not at all.
> it should be easy to make a budget f/1.0 (say > 400 US)
And you know this because you've designed how many lenses, exactly?
*yawn*. Only equivalent to 900mm f/48 on my uncle sam's satellite mounted cameras.
GradyPhilpott: An organization I belong to that restores former military aircraft has trademarked each one so that no one can take pictures and sell those photographs for a profit or use them in any other way without permission.
I don't know where the manufacturers come in, if in fact any of them are still in business.
You're restoring the aircraft to their original condition?
These comments are actually only equivalent to f/5.6 on a full fr... er... wait...
Mike Ronesia: This one was my favorite. Very nice work.
Glad to hear you liked it so much - thanks!
NZ Scott: Nice.
Marvol: If this AF system really - *REALLY* - works, the obvious question is: why still the 1970s mirrorbox at all?
It's pretty obvious that the DSLR form factor is, by and large, past its sell-by date. Give it five more years tops and the DSLR form factor will be considered old hat. And after another 5 it will be considered 'retro' again :p.
Canon just poured a bunch of R&D into a focus mechanism that doesn't even work with the OVF.
While I hope there will always be cameras with good OVFs available, I think that's a pretty big point on the aforementioned chart.
viking79: Finally a mirrorless camera that is decently large with a huge grip. This looks notably larger than the NX20, and that grip looks very easy to hold. I was afraid my palm would rest on the touch screen, but with how large the grip is I am guessing it would be okay.
One thing not mentioned in the preview is how you can use i-Fn to control the settings without taking your eye from the finder or hand from the lens. This is a button on each lens and rotate focus ring to change aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc, configurable in menu. This feature never got used on my older NX cameras, but would be extremely valuable on this touch screen only version. I assume this is available on this camera?
Overall it looks like an interesting development. I would need to get my hands on one to see if I liked it or not.
Unforunately iFn is a poor replacement for real controls. It has no "click" to it and most of what you'd adjust are discrete settings. Also you have to push the iFn button before using it every time (or multiple times to toggle a setting). Also the 30mm pancake doesn't have iFn at all.
Andrew Maltzoff: I used to work for Tower Records when vinyl was kicked out by CD's, which are now almost a thing of the past. Yet people still listen and apreciate music with more people being able to produce them..Photojournalism is the same. Times are changing, the skill and passion hasn't. If anything it's an open market where anyone, if they're good enough can be part it.The only danger is the overall standard of Photojurnalism could diminish without a level to aspire to become.Interesting times ahead!!!!
Like I said, there's no significant difference between "play a FLAC" and "convert FLAC to WAV" so all of the original data is making it playback unless some of your software is malfunctioning which seems unlikely.
I bet if you did an actual blind test you would not be able to tell any difference. When such tests are done with MP3 they usually come to the conclusion that by 320kbps nobody can tell the difference between the MP3 and the original let alone FLAC and WAV.
Decompressing FLAC files is always an option because FLAC files cannot be natively understood by hardware. Wether you're uncompressing the FLAC file in real time with an audio player program to "play a flac file" or as quickly as possible to "decompress a flac file to a wav file" the result is exactly the same: you get exactly the same data from decompression that you put in to compression.
JPEGs lose data because they are lossy compression. Most RAW file formats do in fact employ lossless compression. Do some math on your raw files. You will probably find that there are fewer bits in the file than would have been output by the sensor.
MP3s and WMAs are examples of lossy compressoin which is why they can be made so much smaller than FLAC.
"See the problem? It's going from compressed back to uncompressed."
No. The decompressed data is 100% identical to the original data. As I already pointed out, this is the definition of lossless compression. Read the wikipedia article.
This web page you are reading right now (and just about every web page) was similarly compressed with a lossless compression algorithm called gzip. Other extremely common examples include zip archive files and PNG images.