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…
What an ugly beast! And I'd like to see the noise you get when Sony goes 36MP.
Frederik Paul: So, the AF selection switch is gone and it has a video/live view switch instead. By that, following the trend to give SLRs not only video functions but even (over-)represent them by assigning dedicated buttons to them and thereby replacing photo functions with them. Which is more important, changing AF selection mode or go into video mode?
No. Anything else?
So, the AF selection switch is gone and it has a video/live view switch instead. By that, following the trend to give SLRs not only video functions but even (over-)represent them by assigning dedicated buttons to them and thereby replacing photo functions with them. Which is more important, changing AF selection mode or go into video mode?
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.
What is strange is that I get better results for the D7100 when I process the RAW files myself, especially regarding color noise.
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.
High ISO quality seems to be very good, but to test the continuous AF in video mode needs some faster subjects, same you would use for normal AF.
I'm so relieved. Canon finally got their things straight and produced a sensor that can match Nikon's. Noise is marginally better than with the D7100 (okay, 4MP less, so all in all roughly the same noise) and the noise behaviour in the shadows have been improved a lot. That's how it should have been from the beginning. Still, Nikon - and Pentax with the K5 - are still visibly better in this regard. So maybe Canon can improve this further with the EOS 7D Mk.II.
Design is closer to the 7D, which isn't a bad thing. But it still has the mini back wheel and no joy stick. Apart from that, it looks okay. Now let's wait for image quality and noise.
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...