upuaut: This image was taken 7 months from now! Cool
Yes, the exposure is still on-going and is planned to be finished by then.
rrccad: okay. so if I'm shooting static scenes. why do I need pixel shifting, since I can usually keep the ISO low, and increase the shutter speed anyways, since you're a) already using tripod (have to for pixel shifting) b) taking images of static scenes.
at least with Olympus - you can see the benefit for product photography, this though outside of reviews .. I'm at a loss to when I'd actually use it and need it.
should be interesting to see all the people in here SCREAMING in mortal agony over the lack of a flash, wifi, articulating screen,etc,etc... especially after all the ranting over the 7DII not having it ;)
It gives you image stacking in the camera resulting in a single file that can go right into your raw converter (and not requiring the raw converter to group and merge multiple images, or even requiring exports to separate stacking software). The single file also means you only need the storage space for 1 file instead of 4.
And while this only provides 2x the exposure on the green channel (than a standard 4-image stack which in theory requires the same total capture time), it eliminates the (color) noise that's created when interpolating color from signals that already are noisy (as every signal is). And this 'interpolating-noise' is something nobody really has a good handle on as it depends on the specific raw converter. Whether that results in overall less noise than a conventional 4-image stack is something I don't know, but I'd assume it results in differently structured noise.
And this is added to the increased color resolution (including the massive reduction in color moire).
Derek Dean: I understand and appreciate what Apple is trying to do, making it easy to work with our photographs on any device we happen to be using, but I feel their implementation of that concept is seriously flawed.
My experience with Photos has been so bad that I've had to revert back to OSX 10.10.2 to even be able to download RAW files from my camera...... and this was after spending several hours with two different Application Specialists who never could solve my issues.
I will say this though, after 12 years of using Apple computers, this is the first real glitch I've encountered, so I'm willing to give them some time to work out the bugs and hopefully give us a quick update that addresses many, if not all, of these valid concerns.
Post your problem with raws and 10.10.3 in the Mac forum here and I am sure we'll solve your problem.
Lab D: So this is an FZ1000 with a shorter slower lens, a lower resolution sensor, and most likely lower DR, all for about 3x the price! Awesome!
You are right about the weight, I had accidentally used the weight of the 4/3 lens. But there are also two 14-140 mm m43 lenses:XC10: 125 x 102 x 122 mm, 1040 gGH4 + 14-140 mm f/4 - 5.8: 133 x 93 x 120 mm, 1020 gGH4 + 14-140 mm f/3.5 - 5.6: 133 x 93 x 111 mm, 825 g
With the 4/3 lens (and incorrectly attaching it without the adaptor) I got: GH4 + 14-140 mm f/3.5-5.6, 4/3: 133 x 93 x 126 mm, 1080 g(width - height - depth, the latter for the lens+camera combo estimated from camerasize.com)
chbde: To those comparing XC10 and FZ1000: When using the 4K-mode on the Panasonic, only a crop fraction of the sensor is used, resulting in an equivalent focal length of 37-592mm instead of 24-400mm for stills and 1080p video. Also, because the effective sensor area is halved, this may potentially result in a worse low-light performance than the Canon (dependent on the sensor performance of course).
You mean nobody in his or her right mind will buy a camera like the AX100 which is more than twice the price of the FZ1000 with a sensor that small and a lens that dim for taking stills?
Yes, you are right, nobody will buy either the XC10 or the AX100 for primarily taking stills. And since the vast majority of posters at DPreview are primarily still shooters, the vast majority will ding both cameras (XC10 and AX100).
Faster lens only compensates in light-constrained situations (and in regard to DOF), and it is not faster at the wide end. For base ISO performance, only the sensor size counts (for sensors with similar technology). And with a video camera, shooting mostly close to 1/30 (or 1/60 s), one is likely to stay at base ISO more often than with still cameras.
The GH4 remains the best deal for shooting video and stills, not least because it is attractive for both still and video shooters and thus appeals to a larger market and be sold profitable with larger margins. But it is also larger and heavier than the XC10 (and AX100) once you add similar lenses. And it lacks some videography features like a built-in ND filter (which is much easier to implement with a fixed-lens camera).
The closest comparison is with the AX100, and here things are much closer.
Androole: Isn't this a pretty direct FZ1000 competitor? Similar features, worse lens, better video bitrate?
A better comparison is the Sony AX100. The Sony has a number of advantages (somewhat larger zoom range, 29-348 vs 27-273, faster lens at longer focal lengths, separate EVF, cheaper: $1700 vs $2500, though in a few months that difference likely will be smaller) but the XC10 also has advantages (4:2:2 vs 4:2:0, 305 vs 150 Mbps).
Yet, for 4K capture the FZ1000 is clearly more compromised (smaller sensor area, no real wide-angle, 305 vs 100 Mbps, no HDMI output, no 'log' output, a much smaller battery).
Most criticism here is coming from the still photography side. And from that side, it clearly falls behind the FZ1000. And even the price criticism is based on that, the much smaller volumes of designated video cameras vs still cameras mean the latter are more expensive for a similar type of cameras.
Yes, I've now seen it mentioned below. My point still stands that choosing a sensor resolution that allows for 4K without cropping (to be precise, without the unavoidable cropping due to different aspect ratios of still and movie capture) is one that should not be seen as a negative aspect. Both choices (FZ1000 on XC10) have their merits, ie, higher still resolution on the FZ1000 and larger sensor area and real wide-angle option for the XC10.
Does the FZ1000 do 4K without line skipping? The point being that the lower resolution of the Canon was chosen to fit 4K without any resizing.
You got me there for a minute.
OBI656: CaptureOne is a great application for pro photographers however to install CaptureOne and specifically do an upgrade it is absolute pain.
I have NOT seen application in history of Mac computer being so terribly difficult to install and upgrade.
Why they are doing this so difficult for end user is beyond to comprehend.
"""The point here is not how often something occurs, but whether there are technical or economic reasons for it."
Sure those 30 seconds to update your software really hits your companies income.... If so you must be Tim Cook. ;)""
As it apparently was not clear, I meant economic reasons for Phase One, ie, whether adding an updater would cost Phase One significant amounts of money. The moment somebody in a product meeting at Phase One said, we don't need an updater, is the moment they lost it.
I have seen many car reviews where the reviewers complained that car X takes much longer to fill up than most other cars. Others complain about tanks that are to small and thus require you to fill up more frequently. You see, it is not about complaining about inevitable tasks, it is about complaining about things that can be avoided. The point here is not how often something occurs, but whether there are technical or economic reasons for it.
The moment a software developer consciously decides against implementing an obvious improvement like an updater, the moment they consciously put saving a small amount of money before improving the customer experience, is the moment when you start to ask yourself whether they really care about the user experience.
Assume your brand-new car takes 30 s to start while most other cars take only 5 s. Is that a major issue? No, but it is an unnecessary issue. Would it make you an anal-retentive person to be annoyed about that?
Or if you don't like car analogies, what if your camera takes 30 s to start? Wouldn't that be something you would want to be improved I the next version.
There is an open source framework called Sparkle on the Mac which allows for this in-app update process, a lot of applications use as it is not very difficult to implement, no need to be on the Mac App Store. Of course, using Sparkle in cross-platform apps might not be easily possible, you thus will have to write one yourself as Microsoft does for Office and Adobe for its apps.
It is not that updating C1 is difficult, it is that writing an updater shouldn't be difficult either. Shaving 30 seconds from the update process multiplied with the number of C1 users is a substantial number. It's called attention to detail, making your customers life easier in whichever way you can, and nobody can tell me that they couldn't do it with a reasonable effort, there too many apps that have updaters for that be too difficult.
I think OBI656's point is that there is no updater. With most Mac applications you usually get a window popping up saying there is a new version available with a highlighted button saying 'Update' (being highlighted just hitting enter is sufficient). You then get a progress bar as it downloads and when that's done another highlighted button saying install (& usually relaunch). Meaning all you have to do is hit enter twice.
With Capture One the automatic checking didn't work so I had to select 'Check for Update' manually. Then a window popped up in which there was a tiny '8.2' that I had to click which send me to the downloads webpage where I had click a download button. Then I had to manually navigate to my downloads folder, double-click the installer image (agree to the license), drag the application to the applications folder, confirm that I wanted to replace the existing application (which I manually had to quit first). And then I had to unmount the image and delete it.
jadmaister2: Small but significant upgrades keep the DX Nikons ticking over JUST.My gripe (since gripe is what we do best here it seems) is that Nikon fail to support wide angle shooters with suitable quality glass at a sensible cost.Yes Nikon have a good lens range, but recent releases do seem to favour DX shooters. Since my interest in landscape has increased I think the 7200 and it's lenses have just persuaded me to make the jump to a D750:)
No, he means 35 mm equiv., ie, 24 mm actual focal length.
The Squire: OK, let me do the maths.
1/focal-length rule for shutter speed = 1/20005 stops of IS means I can hand hold at 1/60 and shoot at 2000mm.Seriously?Believe it when I see it.
The angular shake your hands induce do not depend on the AOV of the lens you are using. Neither should be other sources of shake. Optical image stabilisation could become less effective because it simply might not be fast enough anymore at that AOV.
Things are different at macro distances because with them the vertical and lateral shift become more important (which is largely irrelevant at larger distances). However, Canon introduced a macro lens several years ago which also could compensate for this kind of shift (and sensor shift stabilisation techniques certainly can).
For sharp images (with digital cameras and their 10+ MP resolution), 2x the 35-mm-equiv. focal length is necessary, ie, 1/4000 s. Using the sunny f/16 rule, we'd need ISO 670 on a sunny day. Depending on how many stops the VR can add at 2000 mm equiv., if it adds three stops, we can shoot at base ISO of 100.
Nukunukoo: Nikon added Zebra, flat profile, etc., claiming "Cinematic Superiority"... AND YOU CAN'T EVEN ADD A LIVE VIEW APERTURE CONTROL????
Aperture control during live view likely requires hardware changes as the mirror and aperture I think are triggered by one electric motor and thus once the mirror is up the aperture lever position cannot be modified anymore.
Zebra and flat profile can be added via firmware changes.