Chief: Anyone who voted for the OM-D has never used a full frame SLR with a good assortment of fast lenses, neither of which Olympus produces.
Wrong. Olympus make 2.0 constant aperture zooms for 4/3, f1.8 and f2.0 primes for m4/3 and has a tradition of making lenses that put all others, bar Leica and Zeiss, to shame - the OM-System lenses. And what makes you think people who voted for the E-M5 never shot with FF cameras? You know all of them, right...?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Nothing new about flash sync, aka stoboscopic photography. Harold Edgerton pioneered it in the 40's. Spectacular photos, though.
I never had the chance to meet Harold Edgerton, but I happened to see an exhibition of his photographs earlier this year. They are fantastic! I didn't mean to be dismissive of Reugels' work, but I couldn't help noticing the great amount of "OMG that's incredible how does he do it?» comments posted here.
Nothing new about flash sync, aka stoboscopic photography. Harold Edgerton pioneered it in the 40's. Spectacular photos, though.
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW: If Porsche should build a tractor, people expect it to go fast,If coca cola decides to grow vegetables, people expect them to have a coca flavor,If Apple decides to build pencils, people expect them to be sleek and webenabled,if Ray Ban decides to build hats, people expect them to be retro,if Polaroid decides to build Android camera's, people expect them to p[op out instant pics,
where to pop in that film cartridge?
And Lamborghini started out as a tractor builder. Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamborghini_22PS_1951.jpg
Hard to decide between the Nikon D800E and the Olympus E-M5. Both are breakthrough cameras, but I gave the Olympus the edge because, in my view, it adds more to its segment than the D800E does. I'd take both if I could...
rickysio: No 808? It is THE camera phone. There hasn't been anything like it before, nor is it likely will there be anything like it in the near future. It is peerless. It's a melding of PnS with a phone. Although there isn't an optical zoom, the lens itself is pretty stellar as well, doing well enough not to hold back a 41mp/38mp in normal mode sensor.
This isn't DPreview Connect, where smartphones belong.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
FreeRadical009: @Olivier from DxO Labs:
I just got two questions:
1) Have DxO Labs finally fixed the issue with Optics Pro 8 that means it crashes on me every single time I need to process more than 20 pictures.
Version 8 crash way more frequently than V7 ever did.
2) Could you please forward to the development team my personal request to enable the option to disable the automatic application of the Smart Lightning option?
While it does work on pictures that are over or underexposed, on shots properly exposed, it just makes colors dull and dims the exposure when there is no need for it. I got to be struggling with this frequently and takes time I need to correct the pictures.
I'm not against the function, I just want to enable it on only certain shots, not all of them.
I'll usurp Olivier's duties. :)If you right-click on the picture, a menu will appear. Choose the option 'no correction' to bring the image back to what it looked like before automatic corrections were applied. Then work the image as you want (you'll lose geometric corrections, but you can always reverse by clicking 'default'). You can make your own presets if you don't like the way the images look after DxO's default preset has been applied.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Oh, all these Lr4 fanboys...This is not about how the programmes measure against each other, it's about which one suits your photographic style and your equipment better. As for me, having bought Pro 7 last June and tried V8, there's no way back. V8 brings two extraordinary improvements over the previous version: smart lighting and selective tone. Now DxO provides the kind of control I experienced when I demo'ed Lr4, plus the great optical and geometric corrections which Adobe can only dream of. It's better for me - for my style and my gear -, but others may think otherwise. If Lr4 suited me better, I'd have bought it instead. No point in saying X is better than Y based solely on objective criteria.People complain a lot about DxO's interface: well, Lr4 might be more intuitive and a bit faster, but it all goes down the drain as it takes ages to complete the final processing stage. At least that's what I found.
Either we aren't talking about the same thing - final processing and saving the file at the end of processing - or you have a NASA-spec computer. 5 seconds?
Reilly, I tried both and I'm absolutely sure of what I stated. Final processing takes me between 12 and 20 seconds with DxO; with Lr4 I've got enough time to get myself a cup of cofee...
Oh, all these Lr4 fanboys...This is not about how the programmes measure against each other, it's about which one suits your photographic style and your equipment better. As for me, having bought Pro 7 last June and tried V8, there's no way back. V8 brings two extraordinary improvements over the previous version: smart lighting and selective tone. Now DxO provides the kind of control I experienced when I demo'ed Lr4, plus the great optical and geometric corrections which Adobe can only dream of. It's better for me - for my style and my gear -, but others may think otherwise. If Lr4 suited me better, I'd have bought it instead. No point in saying X is better than Y based solely on objective criteria.People complain a lot about DxO's interface: well, Lr4 might be more intuitive and a bit faster, but it all goes down the drain as it takes ages to complete the final processing stage. At least that's what I found.
designdog: What is missing, unfortunately discovered by me after I purchased it, is support for the Fuji X Pro1...
Maybe you should have got informed before purchasing it. But don't despair, new modules are coming all the time. And you may do your corrections manually until support for your gorgeous X-Pro 1 comes.
thewhitehawk: Pffff, if this lens was for a mirroless system it would it in my pocket.
Note: this is a passive-aggressive humorous response to some of the comments that have been repeatedly made in most, if not all, mirrorless system lenses announcements on this site.
It is not meant to be taken as an offence, and I apologise beforehand if someone finds this inappropriate. If so, just ignore it.
You'd better do indeed. And they didn't even start with their "equivalent aperture" crazy BS theories...
Daniel from Bavaria: 500$ and no lens hood, that's ridiculous.
What happend to Olympus?
"The food is terrible and the portions are too small"... right?
Me want it. It surely must be better than the 17mm-f/2.8 Pancake lens I use for street shooting. And it is not that expensive, providing the quality is there.
bobastro: Always surprised to notice how so many people actually believe there are no rules in composition, or they are subjective ore mere guidelines. For centuries, all the great artists have undergone long and exhausting studies and very hard work in order to learn those rules and create masterpieces. And this includes the modern masters such as Picasso, who undertook very serious learning of the rules in order to know when and why it would be legitimate not to respect them.
Photography is no different, however modern the medium might be.
And now you have a legion of hobbysts with minimum knowledge of art who claim that rules are not necessary.
How about a bit of humility?
I interpret this negation of the need for rules as a legitimation of people's ignorance. Nowadays everybody thinks he's a great writer without a proper knowledge of grammar rules, or a great musician without being able to tell a flat and a sharp apart. The same in photography.
JDThomas: “Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” – Edward Weston
“The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant and immaterial” – Ansel Adams
In my first book I mentioned these two quotes, right afterward I pointed out this: Find me an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image that DOESN'T follow at least ONE rule of composition. You can't. The reason why these photographers art is considered great is simply because they followed these rules intuitively.
Edward Weston didn't need to consult the rules of composition, his brain and eye naturally saw that way. Not all photographers are lucky enough to have that talent. Most of us have to think about it and work at composing compelling images. More often than not when you THINK you're breaking a rule take a closer look and you'll probably see that you have followed one of the rules of composition perfectly.
Have no illusions. Edward Weston and Ansel Adams knew what the composition rules were before they felt free to break them. One look at the former's pictorial photographs is enough to tell that. Picasso and Kandisnky's first works were very conventional and they only broke free of rules when they were accomplished painters. As someone else said before, you have to know the rules before you break them - otherwise transgression will be a lame excuse for ignorance of the basics of composition.
Reilly Diefenbach: In other news, the DXO development team with an eye to Version 9 are closely studying a new program that's only been out for five years called Lightroom to try to figure out how to make DXO as fast and easy to use.
As a matter of fact I find this v8 very similar to Lightroom 4, especially the highlights, midtones, shadows and blacks controls. Still DxO is unbeatable when it comes to optical corrections and chromatic aberration suppression. Noise reduction is also fractionally better. Still I see your point.
How come? This is not an invention! There have been compact cameras for a while now, and even if we'd admit putting a large sensor in a small camera is an invention (it isn't), Sigma did that before.An innovation, perhaps; never an invention.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review