PKDanny: Why no Windows??? Only MAC!!! HUH.....
WinPhun just doesn't sound convincing.
Just get a DMC-XS3 for 100 €. Looks as cool and probably has as good image quality too.
I can understand why I would want attach an olloclip telephoto lens, but with all this gear we reach the point where it is more sensible use a dedicated camera with normal equipment.
tkbslc: All brand bashing aside, this seems like a great idea to get a little zoom into camera phones.
I am not much into zooms but decent optics for portraiture would be cool. Wideangles just do not do it.
RadPhoto: So, the "Pro" should pay more (double) to get presets. Shouldn't the "Pro" create his/her own presets?
I thought "Pro" gets plug-ins for LR etc?
Sarge_: I just wish there were a way to convert the optical effects to what you would see from a medium or large format sensor, to eliminate the distortion.
As a pro who shoots a lot of architecture, that's my biggest beef with shooting wide on a 35mm body; there's not much value as things get so ridiculously distorted.
Has anyone found any filters or software in general that can overcome the 'wide angle' distortion from these wide lenses?
The geometry in the image still looks the same. (BTW, I have also 47mm Super-Angulon.. have not used it for ages :-D)
I do not think that lens is a zoom lens. Just ordinary 2X teleconverter.
Fixx: 3 is enough. Lightroom, Photomatix, Photoshop.
Architectural photography. HDR is needed for managing the dynamic range.
3 is enough. Lightroom, Photomatix, Photoshop.
I still have my Kodak DC50.
Does this work with RAW-photos or does the processing produce JPEG-files? That is, if I have distortion control enabled in my camera, do I get corrected NEF-files to my Lightroom library?
Closely Observed Images: After decades of constantly battling with windows based architecture I bit the bullet and bought a S/H Mac Pro 1.1 that is the most amazingly capable (and stable) computer I have ever owned. I handles LR4 and photoshop apps with ease and speed, but runs Snow Leopard (IOS 10.6.8).
I have used every version of LR since it's inception.
Why no support for LR5 running under Snow Leopard then? I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer who makes a living driving taxi's and enjoys tinkering with images.
I'm gutted that whilst I would happily pay for an upgrade. Adobe have just lost my custom by making themselves even more exclusive.
Bye . . . . .
Snow Leopard is though very stable and efficient operating system. There are few benefits in upgrading to Mountain Lion.
ScottRH: Why, why why - because it is a consumer body, not pro.
that has been always the case. Fastest shutter speeds were in consumer bodies even in film era, as fast shutters got easier broken.
Does that replace i1ProfilerD2LionEdition? Which is quite beta and suffers compatibility problems. Or is it only for newer profiler devices?
Looks like tool for portraiture and maybe product photography. Less a toy for amateurs (who insist on interchangeable lenses).
I find LR to be very useful and efficient tool for photo management and editing. For management part I wish it could write keywords to RAW header. They would be universally searchable that way. Of course within LR it should use its own database for speed reasons.
In export LR seems to write some metadata to images though I am not sure if it includes keywords (it should). I can find title and description (in Finder show info and in Quick Look/SneakPeek Photo) which in my case contain most of the same information. Very useful when you need to access already exported files in Finder. Command-F finds them immediately.
As for folder structures... I use folders which are by shoots and named accordingly. Generally I access latest jobs by folders but anything older I access by keywords. No substitute for that after a few years of photo accumulation.
huyzer: Please DPreview, provide more portrait under high contrast light situations without fill flash. It's great to see how the sensor handles those situations. And while you're at it, can you provide RAW files for us to see how much Dynamic Range we can extract from each sample file you upload? Thanks, I hope you consider it.
May be that there is no software available that can open 6D RAW.
Would be nice to have a comparison review of best HDR packages. I currently use Photomatix but it has some issues.
JohnFredC: The problem with larger sensors is the size of the lenses. As long as manufacturers persist with camera form factors where the lens protrudes from the front of the camera, the sensor size will determine pocketability. This continuing reliance on historical camera design impedes progress in the areas debated so enthusiastically in this thread.
The first mfg who combines a larger sensor (1" would be swell) with a folded optics design (similar to the Sony T-series, for instance) and a decent zoom range (6x-10x), smart camera interface via large touch screen, and SLR-style mechanical controls ergonomically placed, will change the camera paradigm forever, and get my money almost immediately.
I would buy camera like that with even less zoom range. Even bifocal 35/70mm (35mm equivalent) "variable prime" lens would be enough, if f would be around 2.8.
Torkn Photo: In what universe is a 1" sensor even remotely close to 1 inch?
In my day, 1" was 25.4mm, and the so called 1" sensor is only around half that size. Even the diagonal is much smaller than 1".
I guess the size is meant to be diagonal (like in TVs & monitors), but you're still right..