Apr2? Is it safe to start reading 'news' sites again?
teeranui: No RAW support for Olympus???
Sure, how about an app that seamlessly renames your zip and wraps it with "an exit sector in the raw container" or whatever else you want?I'm surprised they let you store even DNG given how big they are.
Or just pay an extra $40 a year. So maybe skip a dinner out twice a year.
How does this compare withhttp://michaeltapesdesign.com/focustune.html
I have used neither, but have a LensAlign target widget
matthew saville: The more I read about the weird things happening in the Sony camp, the more I realize the system is still not even close to being the right one for me. Lens startup lag time? What is this, 2004?
Oh, and a professional system with wide-angle adapters? Good grief. Talk about a cop-out.
I'm sure all this has a target market of folks who don't mind the "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" approach that Sony is taking, but it's not for me.
People say that Nikon and Canon have their work cut out for them if they want to "catch up", but I just don't see it. Sony knows that Canon and/or Nikon could still turn things around overnight, and that's why their speed is as "frantic" as it seems.
@EthanP99 don't think there are many full time landscape togs. I hear mountains have been paying less and less for portraits lately.
Heschulz: I updated my Zeiss 55mm f1.8 and now I can say that the camera takes less time to start. By the way, I have an a7R.
Before update: takes about 7 seconds to start when changing the battery and about 3 seconds without changing the battery.After update: it takes about 5 seconds and 1-2 seconds.
Interesting you can shave ovv 30-50% startup time with just software. Does that mean maybe they should have written the software properly to begin with? Being in IT for 15 years I have not seen any software that can increase speed by that amount without some serious laziness in the original code.
A Girard: Perhaps there needs to be a standard definition between altering a photo vs enhancing one.
Yes, like a a standard definition between a good and bad photo.It'll make judging and entry so much easier!
HowaboutRAW: Samsung NX1?
Adobe is untrustworthy so there need to be other Sam RAW options.
DXO have had a financial relationship with SONY since v5. It gets bundled with many SONY DSLRs. Outside SONY it has only falling numbers.
brn: The article claims it's fully interactive. Given that description, I'm anticipating you can actually operate some features of the virtual camera. That doesn't appear to be the case. It just seems that each virtual button will simply launch a video.
Also, according to the video segment that I was allowed to see "The AF/MF button is the button you would use to backfocus". That doesn't seem like a good way to lead off when talking about AF/MF. I hope he gets a lot more in depth, but I suspect he merely shows you how to backfocus and not much more.
I'm a bit disappointed that DPReview would promote this via an "article". Let Gary buy an ad.
This IS the ad Gary bought.
I too will add a comment "this looks very cool"because it adds to the conversation.
Nice. And it has a red ring!
steelhead3: Is the shot printed from your downloaded picture in Flickr or can a higher resolution shot be used? I've always printed my own, so am not familiar with send out photos for printing.
Or alternatively use a proper print shop?
Phil Rose: "...for US users who want to order physical prints of their photographs…"
So, a "physical" print is distinguished from some other kind of print (such as "imaginary")?
Zeisschen: OMG, I'm seriously glad that mirrorless cameras have no problems with lens calibration. Unbelievable for me that this is still an issue in 2014 on DSLR cameras. Great innovation from Sigma though for this redicilous problem.
No, it's not a problem at all on DSLR with liveview focus since 2008.So what's your point?
Joriarty: This is what Canon should have launched with their (horrible) marketing campaign.
That, and a big update to the promising-but-languishing EOS M system.
What's wrong with the EOS M?
Zvonimir Tosic: Price is not a negative point because the cost of K-S1 is not associated with any similar model. The design is all new. Say, Nikon D3300 is cheap because there is nothing in it that makes it stand aside from D5xxx whatever. It is even more dumbed down that any Nikon's model. Same goes for Canons.The K50 was cheap because it was built on K5, K5II, K30, etc. tech. This model is brand new, and it involves all new imaging engine, new parts, new tech, new design. You cannot compare that approach of Pentax with Nikon's or Canon's strategy of putting technological waste in low end products.
Pentax always had good bang for buck but the loss of the 2nd control dial is puzzling.
obl97: The monkey took a camera and start shootingwithout worrying if this lens/camera is good "enough"
for me, that was a better job than a lot of techno heads will ever do.
(BTW, not from the monkey's agent).
A lot of people take selfies that look like that. Only difference is they weren't happy when they were told they look like a monkey.
ecube: 1. What is the monkey's position on the subject?2. Can Mr. David Slater prove the Monkey retained him as his (Monkey) agent?3. Who posted the photos in Wiki, The Monkey or David Slater.
Based on the copyright law, Mr. Slater cannot own the copyright for any photos taken by any other individual using his (David Slater) camera. The individual who took the photo, using ANY camera owned by ANYBODY owns the copyright to that photo. In this case, the Monkey owns the copyright to the photos.In hindsight, David Slater should be swallowed his pride, be dishonest and claim he took the photos. He Should not have bragged about his buddy, the Monkey. He should have not posted the photo in a public forum or at least put a water mark of copyright ownership on the photos he posted.
I wonder if the Monkey set the camera image capture to RAW . . . LOL
"It doesn't hurt to say what you mean."
You must be new to the internets.
Dezzz: If Mr Slater hadn't taken the camera he owned to Indonesia, there would be no photo, so I say it's his equipment he owns it.
he means "wouldn't have"
JonathanFV: Also, I'm wondering about something else. Let's say I have my camera on a table in my room, and that I own a cat, who happens to bump head first on the table leg, making the camera fall and the impact triggering the shutter and taking a picture of the cat whose head is still smashing on the table leg. Then I get home, find my camera on the ground, take a look at the photo, and surprise! It's a good photo. It happened randomly. I didn't really take the photo. I could claim a copyright for it, lying and pretending I'm the one who too the photo. But if I told the truth, and if I was honest with myself... I was just lucky. It's okay that not everything belongs to someone.
The difference here is that monkeys are intelligent enough you can argue it had intent to take the photo => owns copyright