Very sparse information about the video features here. External mic input? Manual audio input level? Earphone monitoring while shooting?
If not, it look like RX10 will have the serious photo-cum-video camera market all to itself, never mind the extra dollars.
Still no local adjustment features. So, no more DxO for me, thank you very much.
I'm not interested.
Now you've heard from me. ;-)
I suggest that a mod ban this character calling himself 'tell the truth' and purge the thread of his posts. His infantile drivel is hurting this discussion, causing it to lose any pretensions of being taken seriously.
Petrogel wrote (1 day ago)"EOS is a Greek word for "light" NOONE can claim anything out of this"
No, it's not. Eos is the name of the goddess of dawn, derived from a word that means exactly 'dawn'.
One of the many words for 'light', though, is φως (fos). Combined with γραφίς (graphis, 'brush') it's the foundation of the word photography.
Lea5: To STU 5. You CAN run Corel DRAW on a Mac. Read:
And the most important statements:
"We also make sure to test new releases on our design software on Apple computers."
"Adobe’s recent announcement will put the discussion back on the table."
Adrianf2 in sublime ignorance writes: "Pixelmator may not be a direct competitor to PS, but it sure beats the hell out of LR."
You obviously don't have a clue what either program does. LR is a sophisticated cataloging database and an advanced RAW developer.
Pixelmator, in its current 2.2 Blueberry guise, has no cataloging features AT ALL, it is only 16 bits/channel, not 24, and it's dependent on the Mac OS RAW engine, which is a far cry from the latest Adobe CR.
Pixelmator shows a lot of promise for the future but there is virtually NO overlap between LR and Pixelmator. You're comparing apples and blueberries.
If Adobe, as a kind of atonement to enthusiast amateurs and part-time pros, would add 24 bit ability to PS Elements 12, PSE + LR would go a long way to easing the pain of the Photoshop CC debacle.
Also, PSE can be significantly enhanced by Andrei Doubrovskis Elements+ (http://simplephotoshop.com/) which unlocks a host of hidden Photoshop features in any version of PSE.
DxO Optics Pro unfortunately still lacks local adjustments and thus can't compete with LR on that account.
Not to sound negative (some good ideas in the article, I think), but that heading profile photo, with a distracting strand of hair going right through the model's eye…
Personally, I'd have sent it straight into the Lightroom trash can for that reason.
Yawn. Most consumers can't tell 1080 from 16:9 SD anyway.
Just imagine if a fraction of this R&D money was devoted to paying script writers, educating producers and training actors.
Then people might sit up and notice.
Pat Cullinan Jr: "I believe it [8K] is about equivalent to a Kodachrome 25 slide shot with a Summicron 50mm on a Leica mounted on a tripod."
Possibly. But displayed how?
Just as an aside, avoid the Phase One Media Pro if you can! I've got a huge number of catalogs in the original iView Media Pro format and need it for that purpose.
The problem is that the Phase One version is frustratingly slow in rendering the media. Quite absurdly slow. Apparently, the Phase One people are aware of it and promised improvements early on, when I wrote a shocked message to support. But nothing noteworthy has happened.
I hate working with it, also because Phase One are notoriously glacially slow to add RAW support for new cameras.
There, I got that off my chest. ;-) Avoid it if you don't want to stare at a pixellated screen image while Media Pro is struggling to render it.
Let's hope that for DxO OP 9, our French friends will finally see the light and provide DxO with versatile local adjustments à la CR/Lightroom.
Until then, I won't bother with it.
No matter how sophisticated, automatic or semi-automatic adjustments can never replace the artistic eye of the editing photographer.
I certainly will not buy another upgrade to DxO OP until the day that they FINALLY see the light and give it LOCAL ADJUSTMENTs, à la Lightroom.
Smart this and smart that can never replace the artistic eye of the photographer.
What an ideal tool for triggering IED:s.
I use DxO, sometimes, for specialised jobs.
But really – in 2012, how can you take a workflow/RAW editing piece of software seriously that doesn't include ***local adjustments***?
The 'intelligent one slider' philosophy can't read my thoughts and decide if I want to brighten just a particular face or darken a part of the sky.
I won't do any more upgrades until local adjustments are there.
"Incorporating powerful digital asset management features found in Media Pro…"Powerful it may be (Media Pro) but ***slow*** it is!I've been with that program since it was iViewMedia and what happened when Phase One eventually took over, was that image rendering became ridiculously slow – even for JPEGs!Still, with the latest Media Pro on my Early 2011 17" MB Pro with 16 GB RAM, I have to sit and twiddle my thumbs waiting for an image to finally render.Elements Organizer 11 and LR 4 both run rings around Media Pro.So, the fact that it's now included in C1 is, let's say, a very mixed blessing.
consulting: The 200 is more a gimmick than an advancement. The only advantage is the "better" F-number (if you REALLY need it; do YOU?).
Not to forget the new viewfinder, though. The one in the FZ 150 is less than state of the art, to put it mildly…
I'm eagerly waiting for the DPR test. I'll get an FZ200 additional to my FZ150 fro two-camera video shoots. The 1080P50 video quality is just amazing.
quiddity: I've had the FZ200 for one week. Cannot yet comment on picture quality, but:
1. Full manual is on a CD ROM. Not convenient for taking into the field. Of course you can print it, but there is no index and the organization is less than desirable. E.g., the graphic showing the icons that may be displayed on the LCD/viewfinder is near the end of the manual.
2. The ergomomics are less than desirable. You have to use only your middle and fourth finger on the grip, with your pinky below the camera. Otherwise your forefinger reaches beyond the shutter button & zoom control.
3. When holding the camera, the heel of your right hand can easily-accidently press one of the buttons on the camera back.
4: This MAY be just a fluke: I took a shot of a sky with dark clouds and bright sky shining between them. The viewfinder showed the bright sky as dull and the momentary display of the resulting picture showed the same. However, when I looked at the picture later, the sky was bright.
"Full manual is on a CD ROM. Not convenient for taking into the field. Of course you can print it, but there is no index and the organization is less than desirable."
Welcome to the world of Panasonic manuals. They verily do suck.
The term 'robotic' assumes that the machine is able to make its own decisions and act on them, in response to human and/or environmental stimuli, doesn't it?
Judging from the text, the photographers are entirely responsible for controlling and operating the cameras.
So, what's "robotic" about a remote controlled, fully articulated camera mount?
From the intro above: "digital cameras' video cuts off after 30 minutes to avoid them being classified as video cameras (which attract 5.4% duty)."
This is nonsensical and erroneous.
The reason that (non-professional!) video cameras (incl. still cameras w. video option) are limited to a continuous shooting time of 30 minutes is to avoid them being classified as VIDEO RECORDERS. Video reorders (be they tape, solid state or HD) carry an added EU levy to compensate for the perceived losses of income to copyright holders whose broadcast work is recorded for personal use.
spitfire31: Why don't you post a summing-up 'Conclusions' page any more?
Very handy for getting quick impressions and decide if it's worth my while reading through the whole test to get the details.
Thanks for the pointer. I guess I didn't notice the scroll bar… ;-)