carlos roncatti: Anyone can give me a link for a dng converter 6.7 for windows?
On the same page as the ACR download, as always.
phlowtography: Is it possible to use ACR outside of LR/PS? I'm a LR user, I used a PS for its trial period, and raws were opened in this clean looking and tidy UI of ACR which I really liked. I get that at the heart of Lightroom ACR is working, but isn't it possible to "just" use ACR when one doesn't want to fire up LR/PS?
It's possible to do your editing through Bridge. Select 'Open in Camera Raw' and it will open the file in ACR without firing up the full Photoshop application. If you just press 'Done' instead of 'Open' when finished, the ACR settings will be saved to an xmp file (or embedded in the RAW if you're using DNGs), providing similar non-destructive editing to LR (though without the history). Bridge will allow you to then export the photo to a jpeg with standard resize/quality options.
AFAIK, you will, however, need to have the full Photoshop installed for this to work.
As mentioned below, this is a reaction to having sold more X100s than they expected. There's clearly life in the carriage-trade end of the photography business, especially for Leica-wannabes.
This was inevitable as soon as we saw Fuji making 'special edition' versions of the X100 - does that remind you of any other company?
Mssimo: 4k is for big screen theater. Some movies were make in 1080 but it does not look very good.4/3 sensors are the same size of 35mm movie film (or half frame) The orientation is different. I believe someone adapted 35mm film to be used for stills. They turned it sideways so achieve a larger image circle.In other words, 4/3 is the closest format to old 35mm film (correct me if I'm wrong)Since its the same size, it has the same feel as far as DOF and Bokeh.The u4/3 mount also has the flexibility to mount almost any lens mount format used for movie and still. Up till now, broadcast digital industry has been stuck with very small sensors. 1/3" broadcasting cameras still sell for about 10k
@inevitable: Actually, arranging the long axis of the frame parallel to the film's length and using it for stills predates Barnack by almost a decade. The first camera to do this was built in Denmark in 1905. The first 24x36 stills camera was made in Missouri in 1912.
While the judge here is manifestly wrong, the real idiots are the lawyers for the defence, who failed to advance a argument of independent design.
The images show significant differences in composition and the mere juxtaposition of two iconic images with differences in colour saturation is a common technique that doesn't confer any original creation in itself. It would have been trivial to argue that, while Houghton was aware of the 2005 work, he was also aware of many other similar works, and set out to create an image that combined these iconic elements in a novel and distinctive manner. As a few people have mentioned in this thread, it's clear to any photographer that the composition and framing of the second image is superior to the first.
Basically, the defendants shot themselves in the foot.
If Copyright Law is to remain true to the purpose of promoting useful creation, though, it should deny protection to kitschy tourist-puke photos like this anyway.
Oh look, a snapshot of Audrey Hepburn ... yawn. And look, he was channelling the series HCB did of Chanel the previous year, and stuck her right at the bottom of the frame - how original...
I suppose there are people out there who find celebrities utterly fascinating and will go crazy about them, but photos of film stars are tedious enough even when they're taken by a proper photographer.
zzapamiga: I agree with his comments regarding the accuracy of contrast detect autofocus. For those of use who don't need 10 frames per second but whose photography is at a rate of 1 frame per hour, I believe contrast detect autofocus is superior to phase detect autofocus.
I assume from his comments the next camera from Sigma will be a new DP compact body. If they could put the sensor from the SD1 in a DP body and price it under $2000 I believe they would have a huge seller on their hands.
Sure, give contrast-detect a second or two and it'll do very well. But if you're working at that rate you'll get better results with manual focus (either optically or through an enlarged LV) anyway.
PDAF can be fussy about calibration, but it remains *far* superior in dynamic situations, which is where auto-focus really matters.
DemonDuck: I hope Adobe concentrates on improving raw processing. It's pretty good now and hopefully it gets better over time. Especially in the area of noise reduction and highlight/shadow detail recovery.
I could care less about it's cataloging interface. In fact the catalog stuff gets in the way more than it helps. Just let me load a file or a folder or a selections of files from a folder and then "develop" them into a folder of my choice. That's all I need for image management. Folders are my catalog.
If you already organise your files into shoots based on coherent projects, then the 'metadata mindset' is largely a waste of time. If you take a whole bunch of snaps of different things, then organising through metadata can be useful ... *if* you've spent the time required to input meaningful keywords on every photo so you can later dredge up every snap you've made with Uncle Pete in it.
TonyC5D: Be honest, yes there is some smearing at 12,800 ISO, but not long ago you would have given your right arm for results that good from any camera, let alone a compact. More vindication for less pixels maybe?
Er, completely the opposite!
It has about the same pixel pitch as the 7D (4.3um). Scale that to full frame and you'd get over 46Mp (864mm2/(0.0043^2).
We need to see some standardised images (such as dpr's usual test scene) and we need to see the RAW output bypassing their noise reduction. But it's obvious that you no longer need to use chunky pixels to get very acceptable low-light performance
Ayoh: With no aspherical elements and no highly exotic glasses (which are essentially impossible at a price point of $1k) this lens will have a ridiculous amount spherical abberation. In fact it is clearly visible here http://vimeo.com/34409965 at 1:25 (note this is only HD resolution on a 4/3 sized sensor). The image quality will be extremely poor on a full frame sensor at large apertures. A 'cine lens' is the only spin they can put on it.
It's impossible to judge sharpness from a piece of HD video, but the bokeh are clearly *atrocious*, with multiple concentric rings and harsh edges.
Ayoh is absolutely right, there's a *load* of spherical aberration going on there that would look nasty in a print, but is probably acceptable for low-budget movie work, which is where this lens is clearly aimed. I'm sure it'll be an interesting option for those looking to do late-night shoots on the cheap. But on the evidence of that movie any attempt to compare it to a Noctilux is laughable.
Just another internet scammer to steer clear of.
If you're worried about privacy (which is wise) then you should strip the exif data anyway before posting an image. If you're not doing this and posting a lot of pics in various places then it would be possible to piece together your identity without knowing your Google account name (which, frankly, isn't that helpful).
If anyone wants to track expensive cameras on the internet they just need to scan through the various Leica groups.
Richard Franiec: The reviewer(s) went out of the way to downplay the lens decentering issues. Going through five copies to pick one unit performing as it should is a little stretch. To say that soft corner/border does not matter in "real life" shooting is a deception in my book. Even if the difference is not easily distinguished, the worst thing is knowing about the potential problem and probability of the lemon which is statistically 80%.I think the disservice of the review is twofold:1.Telling the potential buyer that no matter how good or bad particular camera copy could be it does not make the difference in final IQ.2. Helping manufacturer to get away with obvious deviation from expected quality standards for relatively expensive flagship model.
I think you're all missing something rather important.
Lens fabrication is far more complex that has been portrayed in this thread. There isn't a simple continuum of soft<--->sharp. Instead, the design needs to accommodate a variety of compromises in order to produce a lens that falls within acceptable tolerances at all focal lengths and focussing distances.
The review clearly showed that the lens that was soft in the studio was better outside. Would you buy a camera that was advertised as "Canon S100, performs perfectly in the studio at 1m, but lens is a bit soft on the right when focused to infinity"?
I don't think this is anything new. All lenses are subject to these tradeoffs, and those who engage in the quest for a 'good copy' of a lens are often fooling themselves. Absolute perfection just isn't going to happen.
The only real question is whether Canon tried to go too far here and produce a tiny lens that was fast and had a wider zoom range. Maybe they aimed a bit too far.
KAllen: I would be happy if Adobe charged me in £'s the equivalent price they pay in $ in America. I can see no reason other than greed for the massive UK price hike.I use and have paid for Photoshop CS5 and After Effects 5.5 and I am about to buy Premier. Thats a big chunk I will have to keep upgrading.What if CS6 is just an upgrade for graphic designers with nothing of use to photographers? We will have to buy 6 in order to get 7 which might be a photographers must have.Shame on you Adobe.
The new sharpening/NR engine in CS5 was a major upgrade, probably the biggest since Smart Objects.