You can see the sub pixels of an ipad with a drop of water:http://www.photoluminaire.co.uk/posted/IMG_7888.jpgShot handheld with the 100L macro but you will see the colours (and even subpixels as the spot dries) with your eye.
As a good will gesture and in consideration for...1) those that were not expecting to be buying into a dead end product and have spent a lot of money on upgrades on the understanding that there would be a future CS7, 8, 92) those that were misled by the "only upgrade on version ahead" policy that was introduced, then modified then made redundant. ...it would be nice if we could get the full ACR8 versions in CS6. Call it a parting gift so those that feel cheated get that as a sweetner. Maybe then we will see if you hold you promise about Lightroom and buy into that down the road when it isn't quite so slow compared to ACR. As it is I won't buy anything by Adobe.
When they tried to force CS upgrades with the "only the last version" gets upgrade they neglected to mention (I don't think they even they knew) that there would be no future CS versions to upgrade to. One bitten, twice shy.
After using ACR from well before lightroom one I don't want to be pushed into some software I don't like. With all the extensibility LUA brings to lightroom I'd much sooner have the streamlined ACR. I wanted my usual ACR upgrades and paid for every upgrade CS2/3/4/5/6 just to get them. Now they'll get nothing from me. I'm more likely to buy capture one because I like their pilot app.
Unless I'm missing seeing all the test images then this is like testing an underwater camera by taking photos of a cactus.
Buy a suit jacket with fine weave. Put the suit on a model. Take photos at full, 3/4rd and portrait length. Look for moire.The original 1Ds, weak AA filter, images extremely sharp, chance of moire - high. The 1DsIII, stronger AA filter, images slightly softer, chance of moire - low.The low pass filter is a trade off but as far as I can see you are looking for the benefit of removing it without looking for the reason it was there in the first place.
Lightroom's strengths are also its weakenesses.Being coded "mostly" in LUA it allows for scripting and plugins. Its not going to be as fast as the ACR interface and Lightroom lags behind ACR on export speed. Databases are great if you do need cross linking and keywording of images. For stock its essential to have that but for people shooting event by event or contract by contract the complexity of a database over a simple file system isn't usually required. I could tag all images with flowers in by the florist that did them, the dresses by dress shop and designer, the images of each venue, etc. For me that would take longer to set up for every wedding than the odd time when someone says, "have you any flower shots from the wed of x and y". Most important for me is data integrity and simplicity of backup (the easier it is the more often you do it). Being able to sync .xmp files (Beyond Compare) and simple drag and drop duplication across drives is essential to me.
So, to get the new features after buying the last 5 upgrades at (UK stupid) prices I have to rent it as well?
Beach Bum: It's about time people woke up to the deficiencies within Nikon.
I can't say that I've ever been on the Nikon bandwagon, but my first taste of these deficiencies were when I was considering buying a bridge camera and first tried the Nikon P500. It took me a while to realize what a piece of junk it was, but I eventually realized it couldn't compare to the Sony, Canon, or Panasonic offerings.
Yet, when I read online reviews, they seemed to be giving some kind of deference to Nikon that was clearly unmerited by the quality of their product. It was then that I realized that something wasn't kosher with online reviews, and this type of bias in reviews would threaten the quality of cameras in the future. Apparently the Nikon name opens up a lot of doors that shouldn't be opened.
This is where a forum like this really shows its value. The average person has a voice and can demand some change, without Nikon being able to censor or silence people, like they do on their own site. :)
"For comparison, the iPad 2 had a resolution of 132 ppi and fewer than 1/3 of the Retina display's total pixels."
Yes, 1/4 is less than 1/3.
gl2k: Great idea because storage is soooo expensive. LOL2 TB about €100
Enterprise class drives are double that cost.I have 2x 3TB manually mirrored on this machine, another copy goes on an external and similar at another location. Storage isn't that cheap. I also like to keep a copy of unculled sets, just incase gran dies and they ask if there were any more of her that didn't make the cut. That set I've converted to lossy DNGs, the quality is very good, I can pull them apart to tell the difference but its quite hard on most images. There are other reasons, you could upload a lossy reduce size DNG for someone to else to adjust and get back the .xmps. Save hours uploading a full set of images on the average connection.The new option is great, you don't have to use it if you haven't got a good reason.
The photo of the dog with poor camera settings (+1EV compensation) still makes the cut? I'd post a longer comment but the last one was deleted.
The two of the dog are taken with +1 exposure compensation and look about a stop overexposed. I was put off a camera that I'm really tempted by until I looked at the exif. Is that the reaction you want to your galleries? I'd get a better exposed shot with my phone.
It should be a very useful focal length, I do a lot of professional work with 135L on 1DsIII and 1DIV and used to love the classic Minolta 100f2 on the KM7D.
Maybe its time to harness the power of dpreview - it users. Put the cameras and lenses into some good hands.
ChapelThrill23: The 41 megapixel number is a great one for spec-sheet warriors who judge products based on numbers but in the real world it won't mean that much. You'll never be able to match a decent camera with a fraction of the pixels. This camera will outresolve the lens by a massive amount, you'll never have any control over depth of field, and the files will be large. At this point with most cameras it is the lens that is the limiting factor and the laws of optics all but prevent a tiny cheapo lens like that from being worthy of 41 noisy megapixels. But it is a wonderful thing to brag about to your camera illiterate friends.
Did you see the full size sample of the climber hanging from a rock? Check it out and then see if you agree with what you've just said.
andrewD2: Picked up a X10 at the fuji stand at a calumet autumn open day. Took one shot and it locked up, couldn't even turn it off. If this was 10 years ago or a budget camera I could have understood but the least you expect now is a camera that works and has no obvious imaging flaws.
The camera was showing an image and didn't respond to any button presses including turning off via lens switch.
Picked up a X10 at the fuji stand at a calumet autumn open day. Took one shot and it locked up, couldn't even turn it off. If this was 10 years ago or a budget camera I could have understood but the least you expect now is a camera that works and has no obvious imaging flaws.
Thanks for this, some I have not seen before. I like minimal folio for the way it syncs with dropbox, well worth a look.
Halibut: Once again the Brits are fleeced - $49 or £49. $49 is currently a hair over £30. Not that I'd want this stuff anyway.
I won't buy plugins from nik software or any other company that does this. The apple app store doesn't do $1=£1. Alienate users and over price your software and we won't buy it. Companies like hdrsoft that allow you to pay in dollars are rewarded with my custom.