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.
Raist3d: Makes sense. Sad for those who are out of a job after working so hard. Not sure they will hit it with virtual reality but for video can see.
One problem: they are coming in with some tough competition that got the video workflow figured or mostly figured out. Like Red and BlackMagic. That's tough to get right and if they don't, no film maker will take them seriously.
Getting the focus right with moving subjects is not trivial with video. Maybe that is an area where a light field cameras could provide some real value. However, to do so they would have increase resolution and make the 'focussing' much more fine-grained. To keep costs and data volume down, the post-capture 'focussing' should be restricted to a very narrow range, ie, you have to get the focus as close as possible during shooting with the light field aspect only allowing to correct for small errors.
PeaceKeeper: That 16mm f/1.4 is enormous. 67mm filter thread? Egad. O.o
I know this Fuji has autofocus, but the old Olympus OM 24mm f/2 I own is tiny in comparison. And by the looks of the elements compared to body size they "padded" the outside of this lens quite heavily. There is no way the autofocus internals take that much space...
This would be a dream lens for me by the numbers, but it looks like it will hang off the front of an XT-1 like a brick. It's as big as the 56mm f/1.2(if not bigger).
I can only hope that the "WR" on this lens is not "provisional" as it is on the 35mm f/2, and they did some serious work to make it bulletproof, accounting for the portly nature of the lens.
A FF 24 mm f/2 DSLR lens (which the OM 24 mm f/2 is) combined with a 0.71x focal reducer (Speedbooster) gives you a 17 mm f/1.4. This is therefore a very fitting comparison. AF partly explains the size difference but a different optical formula to achieve a higher performance than the 24 mm f/2 + speedbooster combination is probably a bigger reason.
LSE: I thought it was more than just a modified filter?
the base ISO isn't the class leading 64 found on the D810 but they start at ISO200 which in theory means their high ISO results should be superior to the standard 810. If they get a 2 stop advantage, it would make all those f2.8 telephotos a lot more interesting. But even wide angle fast lenses like the 14-24 F 2.8! would benefit for those fast aperture wide shots.
No, it's just that when exposed according to ISO 64 (ie, such that the green channel has a headroom of 3 1/3 stops), this sensor would blow out the red channel way to easily. To give the red channel the standard 3 1/3 stops of headroom you have to reduce the exposure by 1 2/3 stops.
joe6pack: Sony's SELP1650 (16-50mm for APS-C) is just 29mm collapsed.
Panasonic's Vario PZ 14-42mm is 27mm collapsed.
They don't count because they have no mirror, hence not DSLR?
And the K-mount has a FFD of 45.46mm, more than twice that of E-mount and M43.
It is highly misleading to hide the DSLR part in a footnote but the category of DSLR zoom lens is a relevant one, and it implies also a sensor size (APS-C and by luck also 4/3) without a category would be meaningless.
What is creating this huge gust of water? And what kind of dam is this?
Marty4650: It looks like Sony is getting serious about FE.
Smart move, on their part. I hope Canon and Nikon are paying attention.
55 mm is also a decent portrait focal length for APS-C.
Papi61: This is what I don't understand; why do you *HAVE TO* sell all your DX lenses when you buy a full-frame camera? This is what manufacturers would want us to do, but it's not a rational choice, especially now that lenses aren't selling on EBay as well as they did a decade ago. You'd be taking a huge loss, and for what? What's wrong with using a DX body *AND* and a FF one? A DX body is certainly more useful when you shoot with a long tele (or tele zoom), while your FF camera has the upper hand in low light. In other words, best of both worlds.
There is nothing wrong with having two systems that serve different purposes but that is not was this article is about. The article specifically talks a about using DX lenses on a FF body.
Papi61: Did we really need another iteration of the 55-200 kit lens? Looks like the thread size is the same (52mm), while the body is possibly a tad more compact. Most likely, the AF motor is the same (i.e. nothing to write home about.) I seriously doubt there's a way to squeeze any better performance out of this design. I guess they just wanted it to be smaller.
BTW, have you noticed that some people clicked on the "I had it" button? How's that possible? These lenses haven't even been released...
It is 25 mm shorter than Sony 55-210 mm f/4.5-6.3 E-mount lens. Since the flange difference is 28.5 mm, Sony E-mount camera with the lens mounted is only 3.5 mm less deep than a Nikon F-mount camera with this lens. And for taking up space in your bag, it clearly beats the Sony lens.
Joseph: No AF-S 24mm f1.8 yet. The 300mm does sound interesting though. Will wait for review(s) to come out first.
Its zoom range is so short, you could almost call it a prime.
noirdesir: Multiple sources have reported over the years that Nikon uses non-Sony 24 APS-C sensor, from both their own sensor group as well as Toshiba. I have repeatedly heard that the D3300 sensor is a Nikon sensor and the D7100 a Toshiba sensor. Thom Hogan recently mentioned that the D5300 sensor is also from Toshiba. When the D7100 came out, it was remarked upon that it a tiny bit more banding than the D7000 (which had a Sony EXMOR sensor), suggesting that Sony still had a small edge in that regard.
The only other brand using a 24 MP APS-C sensor (besides Sony and Nikon) is Pentax. As Thom Hogan also mentioned that Sony hasn't offered its 24 MP APS-C sensor to other companies (or they did not want it, the NEX-7 sensor appeared to be much more picky in regard to the angle of incidence than previous Sony 16 MP sensors), it might also have a Toshiba or other sensor.
Ah ok, the lower end models (D3x00, D5x00) are a bit of a blur for me, in particular when they keep the same number of pixels.