Peiasdf: "We quickly adapt to market needs and demands. In Europe, we will be discontinuing sales of Pentax cameras for now since there is already much better and upgraded cameras. This is specific to the region – and is not necessarily reflective of conditions in other markets. We will continue to thoroughly evaluate market conditions and will make further adjustments to maintain our competitiveness in emerging Camera categories"
One can only hope...
that's from a quote from Samsung! I checked using goggle:""We quickly adapt to market needs and demands. In Europe, we will be discontinuing sales of ..."
Shiranai: Istead of adding DRM, they should better add lossless compression and support for transparency and layers. And a better compression.(So actually they could just change it to a better Jpeg2000)
And to the whole DRM thing: Thats just silly. ALT+Printscrn to copy the screen and you have the picture.
learn something new everydayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEGApparently it was added in 1993, however:"Lossless JPEG has some popularity in medical imaging, and is used in DNG and some digital cameras to compress raw images, but otherwise was never widely adopted."
PVCdroid: The odd thing about this is that current Sony users have been content with Sony's compressed raw. This article indicates otherwise. It really doesn't please anyone because only anti-sony types were bitching about it. ....for the most part..
To you it didn't make a difference. To some of us, it does. Also hope this is released to the A6000/A51000 and/or their updates
photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.
Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!
and it's not like the camera manufactures don't know how to improve their jpg output. So why imagine that they would do better conversion to some new format? Somehow they'd screw that up to
Poweruser: A solution to a problem that doesnt exist. JPG in best quality is already "good enough" for almost anything. If you want something losless, use PNG, TIFF, whatever.
14-bit is already obsolete so why push it? by the time itbecame a standard everybody will be complaining aboutall its limitations
ppl will expect this to be a "universal" RAW format which somehow every image application will be able to manipulate.Remember DNG?
it's sad to see history repeat itself
doctorbza: The question here isn't whether or not this is right or wrong, but whether it will produce compelling work. Seems to me the real reason behind the truck is that it's a "getaway vehicle" that allows the photographer an easy exit. If this elaborate rig exists solely for the purpose of keeping the photographer from having to interact with his subjects, then I doubt it'll deliver the content desired.
Why not just use a food truck?
First blast them with blinding light,Then sell them midnight snack!
Anfy: A pity the camera has not a built-in motor for AF and AF-D lenses, it would have been the perfect choice for me.
at base ISO the D5200 shows CA at cornerscheck out the checker board pattern in the upperleft corner
maybe micro-lens problems at corners?
also the OOC jpegs lose lots of detail comparedto RAW at base ISO
Asylum Photo: The most damning thing is the photographer taking a picture instead of trying to save a life. I don't buy the whole "I popped my flash to slow the train down" bit. Maybe this is why I could never be a photojournalist. Given the choice between stepping into the scene and doing good, vs capturing the scene, I'd choose the former every time.
don't jump on the tracks. Besides getting hitby a train ppl can easily be electricuted by touchingthe third rail
the photographer probably would have died tryingto save his life.
here's a case of a rescue that worked, but ifit hadn't the two childern would have beenfatherless, and had a bad traumatic experiense
YES! - supports winXP !!
in their new releases both LR4 and CP1 don't
i've compared it to both LR4 and CP1 and i'm very happy withDxO and plan to upgrade
RuthC: Wasn't this supposed to be a 'Lace' challenge? Not a flesh and (almost) nipples challenge? I freely acknowledge that I'm an older lady, and so have different values to younger males, who are the majority of the entrants and voters here at this website. However, I wonder how many of you who think this is a great shot would be comfortable seeing it on your young daughter's bedroom wall, or on Grandma's wall? Double standards perhaps?
have you seen all the women orientated magazines? totally jammed with images of women, in various stages of undress
btw, i agree with the contruversal subject of photoshopping images of models in advertisements - it's bad!
plus besides all the other issues the photoshopping always seems to be done "on the cheap" using unskilled workersand such never looks natural or normal yuck!
Raist3d: Not sure what the point is of the car ISO 12800 shot (and the next one), which are shot at slow apertures and rather high shutter speeds… ?
The same issue with the EM-5 gallery (ISO 6400 with 1/4000th shutter on two shots. What is that supposed to show? )
These are not real world conditions and don't show much the high iso performance. True lower light conditions are really tough on the sensor. F2.8- iso 1600/3200, 1/25th-1/35th as a start.
My years old Olympus e-300 can take fairly good ISO 1600 at high noon. What's the point?
right on! totally agree. 1+