Cartridges too small and no word of maximum print length. Can it handle panorama printing up to 112 cm as the old HP B9180? This feature most if not all currently available printers are lacking.
Finally, Group AF mode comes back to Nikon SLRs.
Use Canon DPP for raw development and apply some chroma NR and the 70D gets closer to the D7100. But some people will never get this…
MikeCanon: A4 print at 300ppi 3,508 x 2,480 9MPA3 print at 300ppi 4,960 x 3,5081 8MPA2 print at 300ppi 7,016 x 4,9603 5MP
Is this data is correct? A4 needs more MP and A2 less ????
6MP for A4 and then double as you step up. But half is okay, too, because 150ppi are enough. Also consider the viewing distance.
Karroly: It is a great picture. It is an example of how post processing can circumvent gear limitation.To you who think the reflections of some stars on the lake look brighter than their counterparts in the sky, and conclude it is not natural, you did not look carefully. The reflections are blue, never white, when many stars in the sky are white. So the reflections are not brighter, but bigger only. This is what happens when a light spot is reflected by a convex mirror (the top of a wave), plus the 15-sec exposure that combines each moving reflection into a larger spot. It is only your brain that concludes bigger equals brighter... Moreover, the kind of unpolished, matt surface of the lake acts as a strong AA filter, reflecting the bigger and brighter stars, filtering out the small and dim ones : just look at the small details of the mountain that are no longer there in the reflection.
It's not "gear limitation", how do you come to this conclusion?It's photo manipulation, nothing else. By that, I don't want to say something against it.
The majority of people needs 3 MP, max 6 MP. That would be DIN 4A at 300 ppi or roughly 8x10". Even 3 MP is okay for that size.
lensberg: DXO might serve as the holly grail for the average Nikon fan... but their "supposed tests" hardly serve as any meaningful purpose in determining which camera / brand is the best from an overall performance point of view...
DXO's only real purpose seems to be that of a proxy for Nikon's marketing department... to give the average joe something "scientific" to go by... Plus they should add a camera quality score... something where Nikon's D600 / 800 would score abysmally... oil spots and dust galore...
Best method of determining which camera is best suited for you is to read a broad spectrum of reviews across the web to formulate your own nonbiased opinions... Or just walk into any camera store and get a first hand account for which body suits your best...
DXO supports cheating by Nikon because it's quite obvious that Nikons (and Sonys) RAW files are processed in camera in the lower ISO range to gain more DR. It's very curious that from ISO 800 on the EOS 5D Mk. III takes over the Nikons, isn't it? And why the lower ISO values? Because you have less noise there after boosting the shadows, so the closer you get the narrower the gap gets until it disappears completely. And some guys call this "scientific". Another reason why we don't need science…
Looks more like a Bridge camera to me, very cheap look, including LCD. The upgrade path thinking is okay, but it could backfire when people regard the camera as too cheap and don't buy.
Could it be that Canon finally got their things straight? I'm curious about the noise performance.
Basically, even more PS in LR. So what do we get here, what do we want? Raw development or picture retouching? Let's see how far this goes and there won't be too much of a difference between the two. It's the same as with cars: entry level cars are getting bigger and bigger, and at some point a new model below gets introduced and it starts anew.
So what? Pretty straightforward...
So Marissa Mayer is an amateur...
Amateurbob: You left off Zoner, which will do everything picture takers need. It is powerful and easy to use and does not contain the bloatware of some software that was listed. Photoshop is for those who thing a good picture can only to taken with an expensive bulky camera.
What a nonsense...
No programm here allows to work with any projects you’ve already started in Photoshop, because none has 100% layer functionality support.
yabokkie: a 42.5mm f/1.2 FourThirds is a 83mm f/2.4 equivalent on 35mm format (bring you every result the same) and thus worth about 60% of popular 85/1.8 ones, about 300 dollars compared with Nikon G.
Some folks here cannot even calculate correctly. The f-stop equivalent only applies to the DOV of a crop lens, not to the f-stop itself as the counterpart to the exposure time.
You can just hope that the 30/1.4 has the same quality than the 35/1.4. If so, it'll a clear winner and better suited for APS-C. The current version is quite mediocre at best, particularly wide open.
Combatmedic870: An sharp 85mm 2.8 would have been much much much more useful.
If Sigma would make a SHARP(like their 35mm 1.4) 24mm 1.4, 30/32mm 1.4 and a 60mm 1.4 for Fuji,NEX, Samsung and M43(all NON IS, if you cant hand hold a 24/30/60mm steady, then you have problems) They would make a KILLING.
They would have the fastest native lenses for NEX.
Of coarse lets say at the same prices of the 50mm 1.8 os and 35mm 1.8 os and 599 for the 24mm 1.4
What do you with f2.8? Stopping down a f1.4 has the same effect and you have two stops reserve, albeit with less performance. And even wide open the f1.4 is quite good. Some people really talk a lot of nonsense.
jquagga: So ... the 60 DN is the only real new lens. The others are the same lenses in new housings. Which Sigma has taken to announcing as "new".
Since everyone has to update to have the uh, stylish new exteriors I'll take all of the old lenses everyone will be binning.
Just take them: you get the old optical formula with less performance and the others get the improved one. Then you can glare yourself in your stupidity.
(unknown member): WoW a Photo from a 30mm F/1.4 Lens that is around 7 Years old.What is wrong here ?
Image Digitized: 2006.03.23 07:43:28
Are you blind? Surely it's the new one.