Aur: I don't understand the point of them having to provide raw files. I know canon has provided all the data any developer wants about their RAW format and how to parse if. It's not some kind of secure format that is not open to tinkering. All the info on how to tinker with RAW files and do so without detection is out there.
The only way to force them to be honest is to force ppl to shoot JPEG or film, by limiting the medium, some predetermined cameras, once you allow ppl to shoot in RAW, manipulation can't be stopped. It's pointless trying to stop it otherwise, since the RAW format can be tinkered with without detection.
A good reason that this RAW post processing should be stopped, an Italian photographer took pictures of Belgian city charleroi, and manipulated them , ppl of the city and the mayor were upset.
"“You will not find one single inhabitant who will recognize his city in these pictures, not to mention the captions that look more like a settling of scores than a reportage.”
Send me a Jpeg, I'll manipulate it and send it back to you. Jpeg format can be manipulated without detection as well. It's just a matter of how careful and knowledgeable one is.
Nikon has always done specialty instruments, mostly outside of the camera market. While this camera isn't for me, I can't wait to see the pictures it takes. I'm still waiting for a 5x macro lens. Maybe someday.
Hey, Canon (and Nikon). Let me tell you what I want in a camera besides megapixels. With all the effort spent fighting a battle for the resolution king, I'd rather see these improvements:
Virtual depth-of-field indicator calculated from lens data, since zooms and many prime lenses don't have it any more.
Less noise at high ISO. I want better pixels, not more of them to fill up hard drives.
Focus bracketing with in-camera lossless compression so a stack of images doesn't take up a lot of storage.
Wider dynamic range.
Better RAW architecture for custom ICC profiling.
Faster frame rate for wildlife and action shots.
Improved autofocus. Yes, these cameras are pretty good, but much more can be done here.
Switchable anti-moire (use the sensor cleaning vibrator to shake the sensor during exposure.)
Dual white balance (highlights and shadows) so that both ends of the dynamic range are neutralized. That's the way our eyes work.
Lensjoy: The caption for photo #1 appears to be incorrect. The virga shot is later in the slideshow. Nice photos; I've been to some of the locations but not had the time to get the results he's accomplished.
Also, I agree with many other posters that it's long past the time to stop putting down photographers simply because there is some fault with their work in the eye of the viewer. We don't need a love fest for everyone Dpreview selects, but piling on to criticize is unprofessional. If one wants to be a critic, join a critique group. Criticism is best done when there can be a relationship and a dialogue between photographers. I've learned much more from belonging to a critique group than I ever did from random comments received online.
The caption for photo #1 appears to be incorrect. The virga shot is later in the slideshow. Nice photos; I've been to some of the locations but not had the time to get the results he's accomplished.
I especially like the way the trees on the left appear in the water, but not in the sky. Nice job with the healing brush and clone stamp! A perfect homage to Lik and well-deserved first place.
Usee: Sorry, but within the comparison tool it wipes away the pattern in the green area around the Nike logo on the shirt of the left player - even at the "Large" setting...
OK, it reduces the file size noticably, but I would have liked a comparison with JPEG 2000 and also different jpeg compressions...
...I see only examples of "noise reduction" with a heavy loss on detail.
They should at least improve the comparison tool, or maybe also, the format......b.t.w. which is the reason why JPEG 2000 isn't used that much?
"Kakadu" is a C++ closed-source implementation of Jpeg-2000 from Kakadu Software (kakadusoftware.com). I'm not an expert on it, this is the people who wrote it. It seems that the major benefit of BPG is sharper, smoother edge detail at the expense of preserving texture. You get one thing at the expense of another, as is always the case with compression.
Jpeg 2000 is there; it's listed in the dropdown as JP2K-Kakadu.
I took some test shots of this lens down at my local photo store. I was disappointed at the sharpness. It would be fine for web resolution, but not for any kind of print at 8x10 or larger. It also has a plastic bayonet mount. Yes it's cheap, but I was hoping for better quality and would have paid more for good optics and a metal mount. I didn't buy it, hoping for a version 2.
While the DR test does look nice for the Panasonic, look at the other parts of the photo and the G7X really shines (as does the RX100 III.) I'm not sure I'd want to pay the extra for the Panasonic and sacrifice a longer lens and superior resolution of the Canon or the quality of the Sony. The Sony lens looks deliciously sharp compared to the others.
Lensjoy: I'd like to see some sample images emphasizing green foliage. I've found the D800 to be weak in hue separation of greens, and it would be a help to see how the D750 compares.
I see it in Raw conversions using Capture NX 2. There's a D800 ad shown in print magazines of a woman standing in a forest with a dress that has a forest print on it. Interestingly, this image has exactly the same issue. All the greens look the same, when there ought to be a lot more hue variation.
I'd like to see some sample images emphasizing green foliage. I've found the D800 to be weak in hue separation of greens, and it would be a help to see how the D750 compares.
goblover: Is it just me, or the Canon G7x sample was motion blurred? And the LX100? If you see the top left and bottom right, the red water colour paint, and colour circle on the bottom left, the letters are blurred. The circle also not a full circle, a bit distorted. I'm not the expert, maybe DP Reviewers can help clarify why is that?
It may be the G7X wasn't aligned parallel to the test scene. Look at the color wheel on the lower left vs. the upper right for the G7X. The upper right is much crisper, and actually a bit better than the RX100 in that part of the image. On the lower left, the two are reversed with the RX100 looking better. Both cameras ought to be re-shot with the lens wide open to check alignment before doing the final test image.
Read the public's comments at this link:
My own comment is below: http://www.lensjoy.com/Blog/Blog_home.htm
Please make sure to add your voice.
Lensjoy: The human eye is most sensitive to green. When calculating luminance (Y) from the respective RGB values for gamma 2.2, the formula is: Y = 0.2126*R^2.2 + 0.7152*G^2.2 + 0.0724*B^2.2Blue is only 7 percent of perceived luminance! So if I were to design a sensor doing what Sigma is purporting to do, I would put the high resolution four pixels in the center green layer, not the top blue layer.
Perhaps Sigma is doing something more complex than the schematic in the article above implies, but from the above description I expect this sensor design to have faults that we'll see remedied in a future version. I wouldn't buy the camera yet.
Thanks, this explanation really helps. My next question would be, what is the exposure latitude like for that top layer since it receives all wavelengths together rather than just red, green, or blue? It will be interesting to see how the sensor stacks up in that department. Since there's no blue color filter, I also wonder how it deals with yellow since a bright yellow will register high intensity on the top layer as well as the red and green layers, making it difficult to distinguish from white light. I've seen some Foveon tests on color separation, but never seen a white/yellow pattern. Maybe there's a reason for that, because it shows the problem. Admittedly, white/yellow distinction is a fairly rare situation photographically.
The human eye is most sensitive to green. When calculating luminance (Y) from the respective RGB values for gamma 2.2, the formula is: Y = 0.2126*R^2.2 + 0.7152*G^2.2 + 0.0724*B^2.2Blue is only 7 percent of perceived luminance! So if I were to design a sensor doing what Sigma is purporting to do, I would put the high resolution four pixels in the center green layer, not the top blue layer.
The schematic of the sensor layout looks wrong to me. The eye is most sensitive to green, and least sensitive to blue. If wanting to capture maximum luminance resolution, the green layer in the middle of the stack should have the highest resolution, not the blue layer.
The idea is interesting, but the execution needs more thought. Without knowing anything about the lens' optical characteristics, I can go into Photoshop and apply these two operations to the original version above: 1. Filter/Sharpen/Smart Sharpen Lens Blur 79%, 5.7 pixels (more accurate checked)
2. Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask 47%, 5.7 pixels
I haven't corrected it for chromatic aberration, but examining the green channel alone it's clear that the corrections above produce a better result with much better separation of tonality in the details, and more fine detail. If I had a chromatic aberration tool I am confident I could outdo their effort. Perhaps someone here can apply that with these steps and post the final result.
What steams me the most about Adobe's plan is that if I have existing files and don't keep my subscription current, I can't edit those files as I could with a perpetual license. Also, if I don't use Photoshop for a month, I'm still paying for it. If Adobe were to go to metered access where I paid by the hour for the product I might be happier than with a subscription. At least I would be paying for what I use. Subscriptions are just a way to get money from people even if they are not doing anything with the product or don't need the new features.
You've probably heard this before, but please focus on photography! The time spent reviewing phone features could be better spent on lens reviews, editing software, camera tips, and other things we care about that are lacking both at dpreview and other places online. I wish dpreview were the go-to place for photographers rather than a me-too place where I can find just another tired cell phone review.