I've compared Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro 7 for a month. This showdown exactly matches my conclusions. Lightroom is better at everything, except what counts the most for me - lighting, geometry, distortion, chromatic aberration and noise corrections. (though Lightroom has a small edge at correcting highlights). I didn't try Capture One because it was too expensive - I use DxO's standard version, which is much cheaper than Elite -, but it is quite impressive. All in all, three great programs, each one with their strengths and weaknesses. There was really no point in finding a winner here, as you should choose the one that best suits your needs rather than the Gold Award.
forpetessake: Absolutely irrelevant. The camera world goes where Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony takes it.
zkz5, that would depend on what you mean by "mirrorless". There have always been cameras without mirror and pentaprism, such as the rangefinders that Leica keeps producing till these days, but "mirrorless" (or CSC - Compact System Cameras) applies to interchangeable lens cameras that rely on live view (or an electronic viewfinder) and contrast detection autofocus. They were first created by the micro 4/3 consortium, compounded of Olympus and Panasonic. The latter launched the first CSC camera, the Panasonic G1, in 2008, followed by the Olympus E-P1 in 2009. The latter was the first to present the compact, slim lines that establish the trend other manufacturers would soon follow. (The Panasonic G1 had the shape of a DSLR.)
slncezgsi: ... so the m4/3 is going viral ;)
Mssimo, that's what wide-angle lenses do. By the way, the camera is an Olympus E-P1.Jan, however lame the sarcasm was, it was not half as pathetic as the arguments against the 4/3 sensor. It couldn't be, no matter how hard I'd try... it is true the first generation 4/3 sensors had limited dynamic range and were quite noisy above ISO 400, but the new, Sony-manufactured, 4/3 narrowed the gap to APS-C drastically.
acidic: What happened to Tokina and Tamron? They joined MFT last year and we haven't seen anything yet.http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/26/Tamron_Tokina_join_MicroFourThirds
Tokina released a 300mm f/5.6 mirror lens last year.
@hammerheadfistpunch, I have normal fingers. When I'm photographing, these normal fingers of mine are usually holding a micro 4/3 camera - as you would have noticed if you looked at my 'avatar'.
I knew my reply would be misunderstood - at least by some... it was meant to be a sarcasm on micro 4/3 dismissive comments I've read here on the last few years. I'm so sorry you didn't get it.
Seems so. Not bad for a noisy, fingernail-sized sensor size that:a) has no depth of field control;b) no dynamic range; c) multiplies the aperture by X2 andd) is found inside "glorified point and shoots"...(NB all quotations from comments read here at DPR)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I wouldn't call it fetish, but I do have some similar feelings about my current camera. Up until the 70s good cameras were held in high esteem by their owners; some of them, as the Pentax K1000, the Leicas and the Olympus OM, had a cult following. This is lost in the digital era, but cameras like the Fujifilm X-series could just retrieve that cult status cameras once had.By comparison the DSLRs of today fall in the 'tool' category. There's nothing really attaching in them and their owners tend to appreciate them for their performance, rather than their looks. I'm not being frivolous here: the old cameras I cited were beautiful AND had great image quality. That added to their appeal and amounted to the very high pride in ownership those cameras brought to their owners.That's what makes the mirrorless concept interesting. Now we can have cameras that look good and take great photos. And it was my camera, the Olympus E-P1, that started the ball rolling.
Gordon, we're not talking popularity here. It's about how aesthetics can influence a camera reaching cult status. In such respect the Canon Rebel is a really bad example. It is a mass-market camera that is a paragon of the democratization of photography (and I hold nothing against such democratization: it helped me get into photography after all). No matter how successful it was, it can't compete with the AE-1 in terms of aesthetics. And it certainly isn't prone to reach cult status either.
I agree, rd. None of the cameras produced these days will make it to the history books. (Not even the Ricoh GXR, the only interchangeable-sensor camera in production...)
Lest you think the meaning of this artwork completely passed me by, let me say cameras are - no matter how much attached we are to them - mere objects; photographs remain, cameras just come and go. What's important about photography are the photographs, not the gear. I believe that's the point of these sculptures. (At the same time, however, cameras can be artforms.)
I wouldn't call it fetish, but I do have some similar feelings about my current camera. Up until the 70s good cameras were held in high esteem by their owners; some of them, as the Pentax K1000, the Leicas and the Olympus OM, had a cult following. This is lost in the digital era, but cameras like the Fujifilm X-series could just retrieve that cult status cameras once had.By comparison the DSLRs of today fall in the 'tool' category. There's nothing really attaching in them and their owners tend to appreciate them for their performance, rather than their looks. I'm not being frivolous here: the old cameras I cited were beautiful AND had great image quality. That added to their appeal and amounted to the very high pride in ownership those cameras brought to their owners.That's what makes the mirrorless concept interesting. Now we can have cameras that look good and take great photos. And it was my camera, the Olympus E-P1, that started the ball rolling.
Mike921: Wow, 220 quid for CF? Guess I'll keep lugging my old CF rig around then ;)
Triopo makes it even cheaper - though not with this clever Y-shaped column.
galebars: Nay-Sayers? Are those that have loyally supported Dxo for several years not entitled to comment? I fall into that category and also updated to Pro8.BTW Capture One does not do a "crappy job" , it may not be perfect yet but it does a pretty good job and we can expect better to come. At least they don't exhibit Dxo's arrogant and dismissive attitude toward customer enquiries re. Non-existent support for x-tran et al.
Relax. It was nothing personal. I'm just tired of seeing that 95% of the comments on articles about DxO are negative. If they don't support Fuji CSC cameras is because they can't afford to launch a less than perfect solution. If they launched support that was as flawed as Adobe's (or even Capture One's), can you imagine what people would say? No less than a mutiny, I'd guess...
Oh, the nay-sayers... it doesn't spport this, it doesn't support that. It's getting tiresome, you know. If it does not support your equipment, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.For Fuji X-something owners: would you rather DxO did a crappy job out of your Raws, like Adobe and Capture One?
bobbarber: To all the, ahem..., rocket scientists who continue to argue that this device improves the resolution of the native lens, because it projects the information captured onto a smaller area, so there are more lines of resolution per unit area:
I had no idea that the lens on my crappy Canon SX230 HS "Out-resolved" a Nikon D800, because my tiny, fingernail-sized sensor has more information per unit area than the Nikon.
I had no idea that a wider field of view put "more information" into the scene. I thought it just meant that you were taking a different picture. What's amazing to me is that I can take a closeup of a house, then make that house tiny in another picture, and the same amount of information about the house is in both pictures! I don't take away information from the house in the first picture, and replace it with other information in the secon, no, I just keep on adding information!
The alternative is to think that you guys are rather slow, but that's obviously not so.
Petka: sorry, but I'd rather believe my photography teacher - from whom I got the answer that there's no such thing as «equivalent aperture» - than you. Nothing personal, really.
This doesn't change aperture at all. How would it? By pulling the iris blades further into the lens barrel? The f/ number refers to the width of the orifice formed by the iris blades, so it is inaccurate to say this adapter increases aperture. What it does is change two variables taken into account when it comes to depth of field - the distance needed between the subject and the focal plane and (equivalent) focal length. That's why it appears to have gained an extra f-stop.What I find surprising is that so many people write about this MetaBS as if they had actually used it - when it hasn't even hit the shelves yet...
Bob, you're absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. This Metabones thing is the new snake oil. Their claims about making the lens faster is total BS, but as people have been brainwashed into believing this ridiculous «equivalent aperture» theory, they're sold into those ludicrous claims. I find it hard to believe how many people buy into it and are willing to part with their money - serious money, mind you - for this scam.
Samuel Gao: people still can make decent prints off of compact cameras. Phones still can't really compare just yet...
«Old generation»? Really, T3? ...Oh, forget it. I was going to think of an articulate reply, but it would be a complete waste of time. Stick to your opinion.
T3, we usually agree but not this time. The fact some people like prints doesn't mean they're old farts who live in the past. Printing and uploading to the internet are not incompatible. (And why should they be?) People didn't stop handwriting and fraternizing because computers gave them the convenience of writing with a keyboard and socializing on Facebook. Why should it be different for photography? If you think the new habits brought by the computer age completely replaced everything people used to do before, you'll end up lost if one day you're deprived of a computer.And what exactly, in your view, is photography about? You should accept the fact that some people like the feel and the permanence of a print, instead of bashing them as fools who lost touch with reality. It's not like everything new is marvellous and everything old is shameful. Your reply makes you sound like an alienated person who has no tolerance toward anyone who thinks differently.
Some people actually like prints. It is the ultimate way to assess image quality, but that's not the most important reason for printing: a physical support is forever, images on the Internet will vanish from memory in just about seconds.That said I agree with Samuel, although it takes a more than decent compact camera to get good prints. Large ones aren't within the reach of most compact cameras.