A local shop sells the DP Merrill for 399€ (each, not the three of them) Maybe I should get one before the last "true Foveon" cameras are gone?
Had an original DP1 and loved its IQ (in good light).
RichRMA: It's an interesting project, an accomplishment if built, but you can buy old cameras for song today. I've seen working TLRs like the Yashica's going for $25 each so if you goal is photography with film, you can get there faster. What would be interesting would be a high resolution DIY real monochrome camera that doesn't cost $10000 like Leica's M. The first digital camera I owned was a low-rez CCD astrocamera I built with boards and plans designed by the former editor of "Astronomy" magazine.
I must admit having researched the possibility of a DIY monochrome digital camera.
There are plenty of monochrome industrial vision cameras/modules that would be a good starting point, but if you want anything better than a basic webcam resolution, you end up with something costing more than 1000€. And an industrial camera based on Leica 's MM Kodak KAI16000 CCD costs over 10,000$!
I keep looking though ;-)
thx1138: Shouldn't that be minimum shutter speed 1/16000, not maximum shutter speed which is 60s. Actually you have them interchanged in the specs.
Strictly speaking,1/16000 should be minimum exposure time, and 60s maximum exposure time.A speed is normally measured in m/s or km/h (and resolution in dpi), but we all understood what was meant ;-)
I think what Adobe needs to offer is an option for enthusiasts using Lightroom to get Photoshop CC at a decent cost. I am an amateur who has purchased every Lr version since v2, and would not mind subscribing to PS CC if it was cheap enough.
But, with the current offers, only existing CS users can get Lr + Ps CC for 10$/month, which I think is a great deal for pros. Existing Lightroom users need to pay the regular 20$/month to get Ps CC alone... Does not make sense to me.
And yes, a rent-to-buy approach would be ideal. I hope they do not remove the option to buy Lightroom in the future cause I don't want to locked into a rental system to keep access to my images catalog.
domina: That's a good thing for photography and videography, it means now everyone will be able to sell to them on the strength of their current images rather than be employed by them permanently because of personal connections or past reputation. However, it's sad for the photographers as employees. Perhaps the newspaper should offer them free support to set up their freelance businesses.
I think we have far enough of low quality stuff already. I guess the next step is they fire journalists because there is enough content on Twitter.
I thought the whole point of paying for a newspaper or a magazine was to have some quality content analyzed, written and documented in a professional way...
Mister J: Snake-oil suit talk.
I guess we're all now looking for a Photoshop replacement.
Pixelmator is some of the way there, but still crashes and hangs, so development needed. Even so, they must be drooling at the market opportunity.
As for Lightroom, Aperture is the excellent alternative.
FCP is now a pretty good video editor.
InDesign? Quark is improving by the day, and is well priced.
I can't think of an Illustrator alternative, but maybe there's one I don't know about.
There's plenty of alternatives that may suit the hobbyist market, but probably not a professional looking for an integrated workflow. But let's face it, CS was never priced for the hobbyist market - and most of the individuals using it probably used it without a valid license. And Adobe seems to think that consumers will still find a way to do so with CC ;-)
OTOH I can't really understand the bashing about Lightroom. It is not subject to the new pricing and remains a very strong option. Aperture? I think it has its hare of issues (very long update cycles, lack of consistency of Apple in supporting its cloud-based services...).
EssexAsh: now capture 1 pro has added catalogues there is zero reason to stick with lightroom and CS5 is still more than capable if i feel the urge to do more than remove spots. Cheerio Adobe.
Capture One Pro is still more expensive than Lightroom, although the upgrades are about the same or cheaper.
I have C1 Pro but have not updated since v5 as I now almost exclusively use Lightroom. v7 has caught up but why should I switch?
Good news and reasonable price... at last! I must admit I had never been a fan of those expensive plug-in suites that were not always doing a convincingly better job than the host software.
I only bought Color FX a while ago, but as a plug-in to Nikon Capture NX. Not sure if I qualify for the free offer!
Interesting. This looks like an easy and low cost way of improving dynamic range in small sensors.
Hopefully RAMBUS will be more successful than when they provided the proprietary and expensive RDRAM technology for the first Intel Pentium 4 motherboards.
mpgxsvcd: These look like very interesting new cameras. You can't argue with how small the NEX-3N is. That is really small for APS-C. It will sell very well.
It is much smaller than the F3 but hardly smaller or lighter than the 5N/5R.
noegd: Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?
Can anyone confirm the 3N has an accessory port and takes the optional EVF? If the top cover hides the accessory port, where is the pup-up flash hiding?
It indeed looks like this 3N has no accessory port, according to other previews.
Still, an interesting kit with the 16-50, at less than half the price of the NEX-6 kit, if I believe the list price announces in Europe.
Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?
Mike99999: This is all I have to say about NEX: the size advantage is an illusion, you get big lenses with clumsy small bodies.http://camerasize.com/compact/#325.90,393.321,ha,t
The 16-50 collapsible zoom makes this a very compact kit. Many entry-level users would not buy any other lens.
Peiasdf: Got a feeling Sigma's 50 f/1.4 is going to be better than the Zeiss.... hmm. Zeiss aren't that impressive lately.
The Sigma 35 1,4 is impressive and seems better than every other 35mm 1,4 out there, apart maybe from the current Leica M Summilux.
But the Sigma 50 1,4 is a slightly older design. It has its strengths and supporters, but it is not the technological breakthrough the 35mm 1,4 is. In particular, corners are nothing to write home about. See here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/5
One thing the CZ and Sigma 50 1.4 share is a huge filter size for a 50mm prime (72 and 77mm respectively).
marike6: The UWA Nikkor looks quite nice, and is smaller than I expected (as small as lens with a 77mm filter can be). Since I have the 28 1.8G as my only wide, if the new 18-35 is a good performer, I'll consider it.
Regarding the "increasingly rare" inclusion of a lenshood with new lenses, every Sigma lens I've ever purchased has included a hood, and all of the newest generation Nikkors come complete with hoods. But there are some vendors (cough, Canolympus, cough) who feel hoods are optional, for whatever reason.
"Increasingly rare" may refer to the mirrorless market: Panasonic includes hoods for all of its lenses apart from the pancake ones, I think Sony only includes one with the higher-end lenses. Same for Nikon 1 lenses. Olympus does not include hood with any m43 lens afaik.
Impressive results but I'd be interested to see how the adapter works with really wide angles, like 24 or 20mm full frame lenses.
Because, for 35mm equivalence, we have already the nice 24mm Zeiss lens in E mount.
bobbarber: RawTherapee is not the only free option. The "engine" in RawTherapee is dcraw, a free command line converter for raw files written by Dave Coffin. dcraw is also the guts for many, many other free converters. I use UFRaw.
As far as limited functionality in RawTherapee, UFRaw, etc. goes, all you have to do is use those programs (or the command line) to convert your raw files, and complete processing them in other software, like Photoshop or gimp, if the functionality is too little for what you do. For me, it's like one program. When I open a raw file in gimp, gimp automatically presents the file to me in UFRaw. I make whatever tweaks I want, click a button, and the photo is converted and passed to gimp.
Yes many software developer re-use dcraw source code for raw file decoding purpose (incl. Adobe), but develop their own demosaicking algorithms.
I too used to use different software for raw processing, image editing and cataloguing (IMatch back then), but I was tired of the different software UI logic, the need to manage intermediate files and the potential different rendering of the same raw files in different software (IMatch, Capture One, Nikon Capture and Photoshop).
In that respect, an all-in-one solution such as Lightroom has been a life-changing (and time-saving) experience for me.
noegd: I liked the review, and having both C1 Pro, and Lr4, and having occasionally tested DxO, I cannot disagree with the conclusions.
I'd add one thing: the default rendering of Lr, which is indeed quite flat, can usually be made much more pleasing by selecting camera maker profiles, when they exist. You can also tweak the look and profiles to your liking, and define them as the new default settings to apply to that camera on later imports.
What is interesting, is how close these three programs are getting. 6y ago, Lr, C1 and DxO were much more different software that they are today.
Finally, RawTherapee is a great converter with leading edge demosaicking algorithms. It is however not as features rich as the above software: it is still primarily a raw converter (even if the compatibility with Adobe's DNG color profiles and lens profiles extends its usefulness). And more importantly, it is still a beta product that has some serious stability and memory management issues.
I only have 32bit Windows installs, and there is no 64bit build for the Mac yet. Too bad as I guess it would fly on my 8 cores, 16 GB Mac Pro...
I liked the review, and having both C1 Pro, and Lr4, and having occasionally tested DxO, I cannot disagree with the conclusions.
LittleMonkeyMojo: Would I then be able to connect something other than a lens to the camera for capturing data which may or may not be visual?
Like a digital TV receiver? Cool... or not ;-)