LJohnK2: - No mask function- No blemish removal - No CCP- No generic clarity slider- No, No, No,
Hey Nikon com'on up here to Canada.... we have Community College Programs that have 2nd year Co-op students that can produce better than this.
What the hell is Nikon thinking !!!....seriously Nikon just open source your ADL algorithm so real programs like Lightroom can include it and be done with this.
That "years ago" is less than two years, and any updates to CaptureNX 2 were just Bayer extraction matrices (database stuff, not software changes). Look, Nikon lost the rights to the technology (after a reasonable transition time) with Nik's acquisition because Google wanted Snapseed and an improved feature set in Picassa, and Google just can't be outbid. It's not like Nikon has deliberately played a rotten trick on you (us, since I'm a Nikon shooter too).
qwertyasdf: I had been using the PS I bought like some 5 years ago, I don't even know if it's a CS 5 or 6. No issues, no subscription crap.
Does having the latest (not necessarily the greatest) PS matters so much to a real photographer?Aren't there many great photos created before PS even existed?
Sorry guys, if you think that having this CC is so important to your pictures, you might just not be a good enough photographer.
Yes, they did - and they make better software now, with fewer work-arounds and kludges needed to do the same work we've always done, and with better results to boot. Do you need the latest and greatest? Only if you want to do a better job faster, with more immediate feedback. Don't romanticize a past that never was; the REAL past was expensive, smelly, seriously hard on the eyes, took days to perfect a single "straight" photo, and involved a lot of swearing.
Complain about the licensing if you want to - I pretty much agree with that - but not about the software. It's necessary for "real" photography, and CC 2014 is a significant step up from CS 5.5.
G Sciorio: It's a beautiful lens. Shame they don't make one with a native M43 mount. I ended up buying the parts and built my own which cost me about $150 and a few days of time. Mine is not as pretty, nor does it have aperture control but the bokeh rocks like nothing else.
No, you don't want a native mount - you want a nice cherrywood-and-brass cabinet-sized housing for the MFT that has a Canon or Nikon mount up front. With a dark cloth, of course so you can see the LCD "ground glass", and matching sticks. And to really do it up right, you'll need to have your subjects hold very still for a second or twelve after the exposure is complete. The film holder would just be a frame holding a dark slide, but if you're going to do it, might as well go whole hog, right?
Ken G1999: I use CS6 only and concerned that when I get my next camera the RAW converter may not be compatible as I believe there will be no more updates for CS6. Does any one know if this is correct. I am happy to stay with CS6 for some years yet and although I can use Canon DPP to convert my RAW files I find it very clunky and without the great features of Adobe. What are the alternatives as I am not going CC. I guess I will be stuck with DPP. Any ideas please
If you aren't using Lightroom and are happy with the process engine in ACR in CS6, you can always use the DNG converter utility. Basically, that takes in the raw sensor data, along with a baked-in version of the Bayer matrix/camera profile and the profile for the lens (if the lens is in the Adobe db; custom profiles are not supported), and stuffs it all into one file so that it can be processed by an older version of the raw processing engine that doesn't support the camera. Of course, this will only work for as long as the camera you're using is still using a Bayer-pattern colour filter array, so it's not completely future-proof. And there are quite a few alternative raw processors out there, some of them quite good. (If you're a Mac type, you can always use Hasselblad's Phocus, which is a free download, at least for as long as the basic raw codecs are part of the Mac's OS.)
I see this getting a lot of likes, which is really sad. It indicates an almost complete lack of knowledge of what went into photography in the past. We chose our film emulsions for their responses. We chose our developments. We chose our papers (and processing for them). We dodged and burned and scraped and masked and sharpened and softened and bleached and spotted and sometimes even airbrushed and rephotographed. Last I checked, you couldn't easily swap sensors in most digital cameras, and dodging and burning on an inkjet printer while it's printing is a real pain in the buttocks; post-processing takes the place of not only the darkroom but an awful lot of the decisions that we once had to make before the shutter was clicked. Photoshop (and other image editors) didn't change what we do, it just changed how and when we do it.
benbammens: I like this article :) Makes it easier to understand what Nikon changed in the camera :)
The "What You Need To Know" feature is a new one here (and the D810 isn't the first product to get the treatment, even if it is the first *camera* to get it). The site is improving, and you're complaining about it?
Nukunukoo: I don't get it. With or without an OLPF is a binary thing: you either have it or not. It's like saying a woman became "slightly" pregnant! So all this while that we have been hearing that the D800e has no OLPF, it actually has and the "effect" is created automagically? So does that mean that the D7100 without the OLPF will suddenly be like the D800e when the D7200 comes out? Kindly clarify.
> once the information is missing (filtered out) nothing will restore it.
That's not exactly true, but only because of the way the OLPF works. We use the word "blur" as a sort of shorthand, but it's actually a very controlled (and directional) spreading of the light when it passes through a crystal. Ordinarily, there would be one spreading the light left-right and another doing the up-down (so light "bleeds" controllably into the 8 pixels surrounding the target pixel). But these crystals are directional; passing the light "backwards" through a crystal oriented in the same direction but flipped front-to-back will bring the light back together. Like splitting then recombining a spectrum using two prisms, it's not perfect, but it's awfully close. It's not like sharpening a blurred image; the second filter isn't trying to create something out of nothing, the "data" is still there. Removing the OLPF altogether just gets rid of the remaining imperfections (and makes the system simpler).
David Myers: I would buy it for the 24mm 'wider' angle lens and the 'real world' viewfinder. These are two things that every expensive 'prosumer' should consider as being the bare minimum items for a pro's 'pocket backup' camera!
The 24mm 'lens equivalent' matches the angle of view of the Zeiss 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC - perfect for interior shots. This is the 'Goldilocks' wide angle: Not too close - not too wide: A really wide shot without details being too small in the image! I can then do a simple crop if I need more magnification at the 'long' end and all is well!
And EVERY pro needs a proper eye level viewfinder. You can't 'lock and brace' a camera into your face like a 'human tripod' for precise shots if you have to wave the camera around in the air with one hand while shielding the LCD screen with the other!
David Myers: www.digitalmasters.com.au.au
Really, when you think about it, this machine is essentially the equivalent of a very nice entry-level APS-C DSLR/MILC + kit lens that's a smidge wider but just as "fast" (whether you're talking about ultimate light gathering or DoF) *that fits in a pocket or purse*. No, you can't swap lenses -- but an awful lot of people don't ever swap lenses anyway. And an awful lot of people that might have been DLSR/MILC buyers have really been looking for a camera like this one. The fact that it makes a really handy second/third/fourth camera for the obsessed or the professional is just an added bonus.
saralecaire: Goes to show that technical know how and skill plays second fiddle to the people/connection you have.
Most of what makes Peter's work stand out is a phenomenon I've described as creating "a person who happens to be in a picture rather than a picture that happens to have a person in it". There are an awful lot of highly competent camera operators, lighting technicians, colourists and designers out there who pretty much forget that the end game of headshots and portraiture is to have the viewer look *through* the picture *at* the person. The purely photographic aspect is often about not making any real mistakes; the human connection is what elevates the merely good to excellence (in this genre). It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Hurley's running banter and simple setups or the intricacies of a Karsh, it's the ability to breathe life and the sense of "knowing" the subject into the picture that makes all of the difference.
photo perzon: So what camera got you started?
Peter started with a Mamiya 645 (a smallish medium format film camera that now lives on as both the Mamiya and Phase One 645 bodies). That made a lot of sense at the time for anyone who was aiming for pro work - not too tremendously expensive (as these things go), and enlarges well with a LOT less grain than 35mm. And digital wasn't really a thing yet at the time (2000). You can do pretty much the same thing he was doing at the time with any of the current generation of larger-chip enthusiast/pro digital cameras (film grain isn't a concern anymore, and the ISOs where noise becomes a problem would have been strictly double-naught spy work stuff in the film days; nothing you'd use for headshots). You still have the sun, and any lighting you might want to use is a whole lot cheaper at the entry level than it was back then. And the learning resources today compared to then?! All you need is the drive.
ojosodo: I can't imagine how this isn't completely useless. And so what about processing? Are we going to give Ansel Adams' great works a "Don't trust" rating because they have been post-processed? haha.
I'd think that "this is the purported use case" and "it's essentially worthless for that use case" isn't exactly "refuting your own argument", since badi never actually argued that it was useful (the smiley is usually a dead giveaway in such cases).
F Stop Fitzgerald: I vaguely remember hearing an interview a few years back on NPR radio, where a computer scientist found a way to detect if a shot had been altered in Photoshop. He was using this technology for legal/court cases, etc. I wonder if this is a by-product of that guy?
Philosophically, perhaps, but not technologically. That method analyzed the image noise signature, which would allow it to detect things like compositing and cloning/healing; areas of the picture that weren't part of the original capture would have different noise patterns from the rest of the image. (Unless, of course, you knew exactly what the software was looking for, reduced the original image noise to insignificance, and overlaid consistent artificial camera-sourced noise to create a unified noise signature throughout the image. With sufficient technical chops, you can even back-port an edited/composited image to a "raw" file. It's just a lot more trouble than a person is likely to go to unless there was a lot at stake.)
Andrew Elliott: Hello there,
If f-stop is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, should an f0.95 lens not be a little shorter than it is wide? OK maybe add in the barrel width, etc so a little longer than it is wide.
How come this lens (and others the same shape, like the faster MFT lenses) all look twice as long as they are wide?
thanks for any helping my understanding...Andy
Focal length does not necessarily have much to do with the physical length of the lens system. A lens may be retrofocal (physically longer than the focal length - optically the equivalent of a long lens looking through a wide-angle lens at the world) or telephoto (physically shorter than the focal length - optically equivalent to a wide-angle lens looking through a telescope). Even when the system is neither retrofocal nor telephoto, there may be a significant amount of glass both in front of and behind the optical centre of the lens (which would lie at a distance from the sensor equal to the focal length of the lens). Most fast, relatively short (wide-angle and "normal") lenses made for digital sensors are retrofocal so that the light from the back of the lens is hitting the sensor at closer to right angles. That allows both the colour matrix (Bayer) filter and the microlenses that lie above the actual sensor to do their job.
BorisK1: Not sure how this technique could work. Maybe somebody with knowledge can chime in and explain?
If I understand it right, the "calibration" is supposed to remove the color inaccuracies introduced by the camera.
To do that, they photograph a color target at the scene, and then use that image to build a "profile" for the camera.
Problem is, the colors they're recording are affected *both* by the camera color response *and* by the color of the ambient light.
In short, how would they separate the color shifts introduced by the camera (which they want to fix) from the color shifts introduced by the ambient light (which they want to keep)?
To put it simply, you don't. If what you are trying to capture is a hodgepodge of dissimilar lighting impinging on your subject/scene, then you'd use a "baseline" camera profile created under more-controlled conditions (daylight, say, or unfiltered flash in a studio setting) so that the lighting effects show up in your final image.
Usually, the only colour shift that you want to see reflected in the image is the colour temperature, especially during the "golden hour" -- but you want that in controlled doses as well, and you want the *relative* values of all of the colours to be close to correct. You can either eyeball the shift you want, or you can use one of the targets on the "creative" panel of the Passport as a white balance picker (and, perhaps, adjust from there).
The goal is to have a consistent and reliable starting point -- especially when you're using multiple cameras.
JaimeA: Mr. Jeff Keller: Please make sure to mention the omission of the electronic level in your report/review of this important camera. The level is an essential tool. I still cannot understand why it has been removed.
There is a rather large difference between "an essential tool" and "a convenience I have come to rely on". Architectural photography was (perhaps surprisingly) possible before cameras had electronic anything at all, let alone levels. If the camera's base is flat and perpendicular to the sensor, you've got what you need. If that isn't what you *want*, then there are other choices.
MadManAce: What I find interesting is that every test chart (so far) says this lens is amazingly sharp wide open, but I have yet to see one sample photo that supports the test results. Either there are focus issues or it is true that tests mean very little.
That 2'3" of DoF is based on viewing an 8x10" print at 18". The depth of field is not a measure of "how much of the image field is in focus", but "how much of the image field is acceptably sharp at a given output size and viewing distance". You'd need to print the original size image at a little over 450ppi to judge the DoF traditionally.
Judging by pixel-peeping, it appears that the actual point of focus is at the edge of the fellow's tee shirt just above his belt on his right (picture left), with both the belt buckle and the back of the hoop around his waist being "pixel sharp". The second hoop on the ground just in front of his right foot is also "pixel sharp". That would put his head quite a bit closer to the camera than the plane of focus, so it won't be "pixel sharp", and digital doesn't *do* smaller than a pixel, so there's no in-between when you pixel-peep. But print that pic at 8x10 (or 8x12) and hold it at arm's length and it will seem sharp enough.
Jay Williams: Shouldn't they stop calling it a 645?
Hasselblad does. They distinguish between "HC" (full-frame) and "HCD" (crop-frame) lenses, and don't reference the film format, just the sensor size.
Simon97: What are the advantages of the larger sensor? Some I can think of:
Larger Pixels for low noise. The old 645D wasn't that impressive at high ISOs, but this new sensor sounds very interesting.
Smaller DOF for artistic effects. Hopefully Pentax designed the new lenses carefully concerning Bokeh quality.
Smaller apertures before diffraction blurring is noticeable.
Probably others I'm not thinking of.
@carlos - The previous-generation sensor really started to fall apart at ISO 800. I haven't seen any real-world images from the Z yet, but both Phase One and Hasselblad have been able to get *really* clean images with good depth and colour at ISO 6400 out of this sensor, so ISOs at and above 400 become genuinely useful. That, combined with "next frame fast" (burst is silly with a machine like this, but the ability to get a second frame quickly isn't) means that this camera can go where medium format, particularly the 645 format, used to go - as opposed to being the modern equivalent of a 4x5 sans movements. Indoors, you don't need to have kiloJoules of flash available to get adequate DoF; outdoors you can work earlier and later without the gentlest of breezes making everything a blurry mess. Not to mention that hand-holding becomes a thing again (extra tripod socket notwithstanding). And believe it or not, for some photography, shallow DoF is a bug, not a feature.
justmeMN: A Gold Award for crappy JPEGs, and mediocre AF?
Oh well. The review is very detailed, so people can draw their own conclusions.
... and for me, one of the least important. Not arguing with you at all, Mike; just pointing out to the OP that each of us has a different set of needs and desires for a camera to suit our own idiosyncratic oeuvre. In-camera JPEG is a disaster-recovery option for me; I'll shoot RAW+JPEG, hoping I never need the JPEG and expecting to massage the RAW quite a bit (as I did when developing and printing film). I like "next frame fast" (and always had a winder/drive on my film cameras if one was available) but I can't recall ever actually using continuous mode; photography that requires it simply doesn't interest me. I'd rather have something like Hasselblad's True Focus (a focus-and-recompose compensator) and a very small number of good AF points than a screenful of action-grabbers, though I can see why other people would want the opposite. The K3 interests me for different reasons than it would interest others; a camera designed just for me would sell precisely two copies, I think.
itchhh: Fantastic video about photography; could care less about the D4S.
This is one of my own pet peeves. The actual idiom is "could care less", and we stole it from Yiddish. There's an implied continuation: "... but that would be too much work." The idea that natural language is supposed to be composed of logically-consistent Boolean algebraic statements is one man's silly 18th-century idea (Robert Lowth, in case you were wondering), and most of what he thought about the English language (and which has been schoolroom drill for a very long time) runs contrary to the real rules of the language.