jorg14: I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW. Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster. Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.
Kryten61, I work with raw. I know it's virtues. But the great thing about shooting jpeg is that you can skip all of that post work once you've found the in-camera settings you like. you're not a better photographer just because you shoot and process raw. Some of the most successful photographers in history shot the analog equivalent of jpeg: transparency. There is no tweaking that slide after you've developed it, so you're forced to get it right in camera.
By the time I've taken the dxo out of my pocket, connect it to the iphone, launch the app and get to shooting, I've already missed the shot.
Valen305: Those $599 are better spent on a used RX100 III. You're welcome.
Yes. The quality of the dng samples I tested from the dxo is better than the RX100. But by the time I take the dxo out of my pocket, connect it to the iphone, launch the app and get to shooting, I've already missed the shot.
Valen305: I shoot with the A7R and A7RII and have yet to find any artifacts/issues due to compression. Maybe it's because I expose correctly in-camera and bracket when needed.
There's nothing wrong with pixel peeping if you print large. What's the point of shooting 42mp if you're not printing?!
Those $599 are better spent on a used RX100 III. You're welcome.
I get Jorg's argument. For some applications, jpeg works really well. For example, Fuji's jpeg engine renders great skin tones right OOC that would otherwise take time to reproduce with another camera brand's raw. Sony's B&W filter produces jpegs OCC that are pretty close to what I like to get after tweaking a raw and using silvereffects.
Valen305: Waiting for a firmware update from Sony?! The A7R-III will probably come out before that happens. Yes, there should be an option for uncompressed raw, but the issue isn't a show-stopper for me. I haven't noticed any glaring artifacts on my photos yet, and omg do I pixel peep. Maybe it's because I expose correctly and bracket.
There are clean and sloppy ways to use those 14 stops, Esstee.
I shoot with the A7R and A7RII and have yet to find any artifacts/issues due to compression. Maybe it's because I expose correctly in-camera and bracket when needed.
Waiting for a firmware update from Sony?! The A7R-III will probably come out before that happens. Yes, there should be an option for uncompressed raw, but the issue isn't a show-stopper for me. I haven't noticed any glaring artifacts on my photos yet, and omg do I pixel peep. Maybe it's because I expose correctly and bracket.
I held the S2 when it first came out in a Leica store - it felt solid and well balanced with the 70mm. It would probably leave you sore after shooting all day, but it's still a wonderful camera.
I bet it will be an f/1.8 version of the 23mm. IBIS would be welcome instead of OIS to keep the lens compact.
The color I get straight OOC from my old X10 is really good. Especially the skin tones. I bought it as sort of a party cam that I could take anywhere and not have to worry about losing or damaging it, but it has really surprised me. Granted, you can't make as huge a print with a fuji APS-C camera as you could with something shot out of a D810 or A7R, but I think Fuji is worth considering as a work camera.
Valen305: That continuous eye-AF is amazing! I tend to miss focus on about 20% of shots with the a99 + 85mm CZ.
Thanks Rishi! Wide open, yes. Sometimes the shot I like turns out to be the one that is oof! FML.
That continuous eye-AF is amazing! I tend to miss focus on about 20% of shots with the a99 + 85mm CZ.
What a misuse of a partnership with Sony. What they should be doing is creating a new segment of compact medium format mirrorless cameras. The 50mp Sony CMOS sensor seems perfect for it. The hardest part would be creating a new line of short flange lenses for it. I wouldn't be surprised if Mamiya/phase1 beats them to market.
Samuel Spencer: Correction to myself, a 28mm Summilux costs MORE than the Q by itself.
Indeed it is interesting that the whole combo costs less than the 28mm summilux, but the summilux will be screwed on to a newer M in 5 or 10 years, while this Q will probably be in a camera shop shelf as a relic.
Basically, the way I see it is A7r II + FE 55mm = ~ $4,200 and 1.5lbs. vs 810 + Otus 55mm = $7,000 and 4lbs for pretty much the same quality, minus IBIS, 4K, silent shutter, etc.
One of the biggest selling points for me is the high shutter speed flash sync ability these fixed lens cameras have. It means I don' have to screw a ND filter to open up the iris when balancing ambient with strobes.
Just downloaded some dng samples and didn't like the rendering at all - the highlights appear to clip early and the midtones aren't as rich as I expected. The shadow detail is OK, but overall it renders like a panchromatic film emulsion on crack.
Sannaborjeson: Thousands words with no single picture to support the point.
I wonder if anyone can spot the difference between DSLR image converted to BW in Lightroom and Leica Monochrom output.
The average person will probably not be able to tell the difference. Same story with resolution. When you see a guy getting nose-close to your print, he's likely a photographer and he ain't buying it!