bobbarber: I just want to know where the mermaids are.
Evidently, Japan only too. That's why I haven't seen any over here.
I just want to know where the mermaids are.
I like this gallery a lot. Awesome!
KAMBIC: It's a shame they don't make larger sensor cameras. I have liked Panasonic's feature set for a long time, and now Olympus is improving their own. I just can't bring myself to go smaller though, if only they made FF, or at least apsc.
"Yes,so who is right? and what is 'Presentable'?"
I choose C.
Yes, but I think it is reasonable to have an idea of how much DOF control you need.
If your answer is "as much as possible", then you need to buy a medium format digital camera, or a 4x5 or even 8x10 film camera. Otherwise you are compromising, right?
If your answer is "I want a lot of DOF, but I will balance that against the size of the camera I have to carry, ease of use, and other factors," then the answer is m43 for many people.
These arguments about "most", "best", "biggest", etc. are silly, because they have no reference to any standard.
Yes, a tractor trailer has more cargo space than my pickup truck. No, I am not interested in buying a tractor trailer, because I have a standard for how much I need to carry, and it is overkill. The same goes for any other feature, in cars or cameras, such as cruise control, more DOF, etc. I might need it, I might not. 50mm f2.0 on m43 is a LOT Of DOF control, to the point of being bothersome when trying to keep all of a subject in focus.
I think they're taking the right approach here.
I have never needed the IQ of a full-frame camera. I have printed 13x19" with my 7 Mp C7070, and the prints are great. I think there are a lot of people like me out there. A 16 Mp m43 camera is overkill for what I do. I don't look for better IQ than m43 anymore than I look to buy a dump truck when a pickup already handles all my needs.
I think it's cool that FF is available for people who really need it, or think they do, or pretend they do. But m43 is all right.
For shallow depth of field I have the 50mm f2.0 Oly, which is a couple of hundred bucks on ebay right now. I don't want more control of DOF than this lens gives me. I have trouble with this lens at f2.0 as it is, and I have some others, like the Nikon 180 f2.8 via adapter, that are even shallower. So, it works for me.
I AM interested, however, in the features of these firmware updates.
ralph bishop: "Canon says it is 'considering the application' of the sensor for surveillance, measuring instruments"No more fuzzy images from streecams
No. Sensor resolution is already good enough to not have fuzzy images from streetcams. The reason they are fuzzy is that resolution is reduced INTENTIONALLY, because the processing power needed as well as cost of continually shooting HD video, or God forbid, 4K, is too much. It might sound like a great idea to put 10 Panasonic GH4s up at your local K-Mart to monitor everything, until you think about actually storing and processing the feed. You would need a bunch of powerful servers that nobody wants to pay for. This sensor changes nothing, except for a few very high end customers, maybe.
SeeRoy: 250 mp..."Considering the application for surveillance..."That's pretty funny. Every time there's a major crime or terrorist atrocity we see surveillance footage of abysmally low quality: I can't recall an exception to this rule. Most of the images appear to have a resolution of about 1 mp and the dynamic range of a finger-painting.That's when the cameras are actually operational. In the recent Bangkok bombing, although I can't recall the exact figure, about 90% of the 200 or so cameras covering areas relevant to the investigation weren't working at all. Of course this was in Thailand and consequently not exactly surprising. If ever there was an area where digital photographic technology was severely in need of improvement, it's surveillance, not absurd increases in amateur cameras. 250 mp iPhone anyone?
The problem is that high-resolution video is expensive and impractical to produce and store. This sensor doesn't solve that problem. It makes it worse. Video is like 30 fps continuous shooting. There's a reason that even the highest-end DSLRs can't do that at the full resolution of their sensors.
pdqgp: Too little too late for me Epson. I was tired of your prices and printers constantly clogging and halted my printing several years ago. I spent $60-$100 on carts several times per year and go tired of it.
Really, we have several tablets throughout the house. In fact I remember buying my old iPad 3 from work for less than $200 and it's easier to just pass around several tablets than photo albums. At holidays we just view them on our TV's.
I'm done with printing outside the occasional prints for the office.
But images look better in prints, at least in my opinion. You lose too much resolution on a screen. What sense does it make to buy good gear, and then lose 3/4 of the detail in the picture because the image has to be downscaled to fit an 1200x800 screen? Zooming is not an "advantage"; you have to zoom on a screen, unfortunately, to get the same detail which is already visible in a print.
I agree with you in general, and I do look at the vast majority of what I photograph digitally. But I'm not under the illusion that I'm having a "better" viewing experience on the screen. The viewing experience on a screen is worse, without question.
Dan DeLion: I believe the inks in these printers are dye based rather than pigment based. If so, these printers would be a step backwards for photographic purposes. Dye inks differently fade quickly whilst changing picture colors. Their advantage is that they don’t have solid pigments that settle out over relatively short periods of time.
Looks like Dan DeLion might be right about dye inks, at least the ones that come with this printer.
gunkan: The problem is when you don't use the printer for maybe a week... the inyectors get dry and te printer stop working. It happens to me twice and now i really love my brother color laser printer. Sayonara Epson.
Guys, these could be honest differences in environment. I'm in Phoenix. You leave a glass of water on the nightstand, and it evaporates pretty quickly here. The same thing is going on inside your printer. So if you live in Florida, and your printer doesn't dry out, good for you, but don't assume that everybody's situation is the same, and they're just making up stories against Epson.
I've owned a bunch of Epson printers, C-88, C-88+, 1200, R1800, R2000, and they ALL clogged, although not nearly as bad as some people make it sound, and I was able to unclog them and keep printing. I don't have experience with the Canons.
Cihangir Gzey: This is a first hand experience. I am an amateur photographer. Damien Demolder, on last spring I bought a second hand (It was unused because due to below problem; first user couldn't solve the below clogging problem and I even saw service label on the box as it traveled to service without having success and I guess that's why user had sold it!) EPSON L210 all in one printer.When it came home, it was not printing at all as all nozzles were clogged! I spent 2-3 hours making many head cleaning cycles and printing full line of colors to open clogged nozzles slowly and patiently. I did it! After test page was fine, I printed many A4 size photos. When I checked the ink level it was not moved at all!Than in time, I printed more than 70 pages of 13x18cm photo papers in finest quality. When I checked the ink level, it was just lower marginally (a few milimeters in all colors; all less than a centimeter).
OK, here's a disclaimer: "Don't try this at home! If you try this and break your printer, I'm not responsible."
I had an Epson pigment ink printer that I left in South America in storage for two years. It was a C-88. It was dry at the end of that time. We're talking cracked flaking ink inside the printhead and all of the nozzles.
I had a set of refillable cartridges from a third party vendor. I filled them up with window cleaner, and printed through them a lot. (20 cycles? 100 cycles? can't remember...) I used the same sheet of paper, so as not to waste paper. I'm not talking about the printhead cleaning cycle; I sent an actual photo to the printer, over and over again.
Anyway, you guessed it, the printhead eventually cleared out and the printer worked perfectly. I've been told that window cleaner will damage something inside the printer, but it didn't for me. YMMV
maxnimo: People still make prints?
Seems kind of outdated and wasteful of resources considering the growing abundance of tablets and 4K TVs with superb image quality and resolution.
So, prints can be replaced with a TV?
You must have a lot of "4k TVs with superb image quality and resolution" hanging on the walls!
I had a lot of fun looking at the thousands of photographic prints, side by side, exhibited at our state fair last year. I'm trying to picture the environment using 4k TVs, lots of them, or maybe instead of a hall filled with prints, there would be long lines at the few monitors available, so that people could flip through the images one by one, without having been able to judge them first with a quick look to decide which ones to linger in front of.
Just curious--Are you sure that dye inks "fade quickly"?
I don't own a photo printer, but when I did, I always used pigment inks. I hoped my photos would last longer. They look OK after a number of years. But I always thought that dye-printed photos had more pop.
Lately I've read that dye inks are not as bad as people used to think--that you can get decades out of them without much fade. If that's true, then dye inks are good enough for me.
My first camera was a Polaroid black and white. I forget the model. I won it in a contest in middle school in the mid-1970s. Anyway, I haven't thought about that camera for a long time, but this article brings back the memories.
It was a pretty neat trick back then to be able to pass around a print instantly, and the quality was high, better than you can see on a phone screen today.
mononk: I certainly do not appreciate the type of pictures you post on these so called "real world sample gallery". Would you publish any of these shots in your SHOW CASE. Come on guys, work a little harder, you are supposed to be pros.
I like the pictures.
AbrasiveReducer: It's true that a computer and software can take the fun out of anything. But what's killing cameras is that existing cameras are more than good enough.
Only on DPR can you read things like "The sensor is almost 2 years old." So what? This probably works in the fashion industry, where you can't afford to have last year's style.
deep7, I shoot old Oly DSLRs, and the IQ is excellent under the right conditions. Modern cameras run rings around them with features, especially video, and at high ISO the old Olys can't keep up, but a well-exposed shot still prints very well at large sizes.
Agreed, and you didn't even mention megapixels. Long after the megapixel war "ended", the headline feature on these monstrous DSLRs Canikon wants us to buy is "more megapixels".
In a way, the camera industry has done themselves in by making too good of a product. Very old digital cameras, by a number of manufacturers, take very good photos, especially when used by those oddball photographers who a) take pictures when there is actually light around, or b) use a tripod or flash when there isn't.
I think we've hit something of a plateau with IQ too. I mean, there is only so much detail to be extracted, realistically, from a scene. I guess you could go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole with landscape photography, but once every hair of a subject is resolved in a portrait, what more do you need to resolve? Many cameras can do this, from m43 and compacts on up. It makes a "better" camera a tough sell. Most of what you have to sell on today is features, not IQ, despite what the FF camp, etc. claim.
The green revolution and animal breeding gave us the cows we have today, much bigger than they were 200 years ago. However, the low-hanging fruit in cross-breeding and feed improvement has been picked, and you can't keep making cows bigger and bigger, until they're elephant-sized. The dynamic is a giant leap, and then stagnancy. We might be getting to a place like that with cameras. The numbers today sound great (50 MP!), but the gain in IQ, in real life, is less dazzling.
I like smart phones, because I can share instantly. With whatsapp, I can snap a photo and share it internationally in seconds.
There is a glut of good used cameras in the market too, at very reasonable prices. I still use DSLRs and small sensor compacts, in the 8 Mp range, that are 10 years old or more. They make excellent prints at 13x19", which I rarely do. At 8x10", they make tack-sharp prints.
My "best" camera is a Panasonic m43 model, not current, that does nice 1080 video. I rarely take it out, because the smartphone (with video) + old DSLR has me covered.
I look at it this way. If I'm in the market for a pickup truck, I don't automatically say, "I have to have the biggest (1/2 ton) and most powerful (V8)." Instead, I think of my needs. A 1/4 ton V6 might suit me better. With cameras though, according to some posters here (shills for manufacturers?) even all but but indiscernible "improvements" in IQ mean that I'm supposed to drop everything and spend $3,000 for "more". Right.