Frank in Bridgewater: People who make decisions on the quality, or otherwise, of lenses, cameras, based on sample internet galleries and talk about 12 or 14 or 16 bit color and stuff seem to forget that what you are seeing in a browser are 8 bit jpegs displayed at (probably) 72 dpi (or less).
Well, with that argument dynamic range of cameras doesn't matter for how pictures look on lcd screens with limited dynamic range. We know it does. What you see on a screen is a compression of N stops dynamic range and M bits of color, to a smaller range on the screen. The source material isn't unimportant to what the screen result looks like.
So shooting raw+jpg and sending the jpg is ok, but shooting raw, applying a quick fix such as +1 EV and then sending the jpg is not? How would they even know this? It can be done in camera!
What's the difference between shooting the RAW to have a one stop margin, versus e.g shooting 3 jpgs directly in a +/-1 EV bracket?
It feels like a very roundabout way of saying "send us the pictures quick and don't edit too much".
so someone is doing "photoshop forensics" under the assumption that the person making the veiled marketing image would use an image of the new product underneath? Wouldn't you just pick any random body and make the image from that? The whole point is to reveal that it's a canon slr body and nothing more. An image of any canon slr body will do.
Still confused about the various lens mounts. If we disregard anything needing an adapter, how many lenses with full image circle do these cameras have available at launch? How many more are announced? I'm surprised they haven't launched it with a pancake 40mm or so, which would have really shown its compactness and offered a cheap kit.
Most importantly, what is the track record of 3rd party manufacturers for providing Sony lenses? I assume that because of the different registration distance, it's not as simple as providing a different mount if e.g. sigma wants to make a 35/1.4 or 25-105/4 for these bodies?
This is what it all comes down to in the end, how fast will we have a broad lineup of good quality lenses at competitive prices (meaning competition required)?
Roland Karlsson: Interesting.
I wonder how it performs if it is applied to a rather good lens, like an average zoom kit lens?
You just need a psf per aperture and focal length and I believe it could be done with the same algorithms as in the paper.
alistairhenning: If the image quality is up to the standard of the previous DP Merrills, this will be a great camera for professionals who need this focal length.
Usability has really improved since the original DP1. I've owned a few DP models over the years, and the DP2 Merrill is the first whose handling and overall responsiveness feels competitive with other brands' recent efforts.
In terms of per-pixel sharpness, the DP Merrills beat any APS-C sensor cameras out there, regardless of price or size.
As for the cost of buying three Merrills? Consider the cost of owning a Fuji X-E1 or X-Pro1 with the three available primes (which happen to be approximately the same effective focal lengths); it's the same, or actually slightly more, in cost plus you're still left with just one camera body.
No, you will have gone through 2-3 bodies in 10 years, to go with those 3 primes. The last couple of years you use them on a body 2 generations better than the current. By that time the three DP bodies look antique.
Pythagoras: how is this better than picasa? free software integrated with my email and websharing that has allowed metadata (tags) for years. as well as multiple organizing options and simple editing tools.this is a real question. i haven't used lightroom, and i want someone to explain to me why i should use lightroom instead of picasa.
I believe no canon dSLR has had raw in the auto modes. Have used 350D, 600D and 60D.
Agreed, a bit inflammatory. But: if you don't have time to do Raw editing and let the jpeg engine do its job (often better than a quick manual conversion), I still recommend even beginners to shoot Raw+jpeg, whether you touch the Raws later or not. Cards are so cheap these days that it is a non issue. When you get that shot of a lifetime and realize you exposed it two stops wrong, having that raw file is invaluable. That said, if you have this raw+jpeg workflow you can get away with Picasa + any raw converter for the shots that need editing. Bottom line: what I meant was that it is fine to not convert your raw-files, but DO shoot them! For canon at least this means moving past the full auto mode, though.
Picasa doesn't do Raw. It appears as though it does, but it really doesn't. Until it does that, it can't really compete with LR/Aperture and similar tools. If you shoot 100% jpgs then you either have a P&S camera (nothing wrong with that but you aren't going to many dollars on software, before you spend on a more expensive camera), or you own a mirrorless/dSLR camera that can shoot Raw, but you don't. And there just aren't any excuses for that.
how does the sensor compare to the 5D II? If it "only" has the dynamic range and noise properties of the 5D II then canon already has a similar (cheaper) model. If, however, this is essentially a 5D III-generation sensor then canon quickly needs to make 6D to match Nikon in this segment.
gnewsch: Does it also do distortion correction natively, or do you still have to resort to plugins like PTlens etc?
Lens profile corrections (with a large library of lense profiles) has been available in LR since Version 2 I believe. It corrects distortion and vignetting, I'm unsure if it also tries to correct CA but I'd think so.
Did I miss something? "Excellent response"? The response actually just confirms her suspicion?
The photographer does 20 weddings (that is 20 days at the most, in other words not a full time job by a long stretch, rather a side income as a semi-pro enjoying a hobby), and then goes on to motivate the cost with *living expenses*? I understand the reasoning behind the costs of gear/software, transportation to/from the shoots and so on. But living costs?
If I just made one wedding per year, I could motivate a price of $50k then, using the same logic?
That said, I don't care if a photographer wants to charge $3k or $10k, I'm free to choose not to hire them, and I'm sure there are cheaper options. But I'd prefer motivation to be an honest "because I can", or "because I don't want to work more than 20 days per year"...
Looks awesome. What I don't understand is why they decided on a 4:3 sensor? 3:2 or even 16:9 would have made more sense.
andersf: If both elements and Lightroom are organizers/editors and handle RAW images, what sets LR apart as a pro application (and motivates the price difference)? Is there a substantial difference in operation between elements and lightroom? Is there a feature matrix somewhere so one can compare LR3 with Elements 10?
George: I know and use LR, but I have long been looking for a simpler alternative. Only requirements: "real" raw processing, non destructive editing, and good/simple organizer for the amateur dslr shooter on a budget. No "selection" editing or other bitmap based tools required other than simple red-eye removal or simple sharpening brushes. So what I need is an iPhoto clone, and I'm surprised that the giants don't produce one (Microsoft, Adobe, Google don't have an option). Picasa ticks all the boxes but does not do raw (only a dumb conversion from raw to 8 bit, then works non-destructively on the 8bit image, which is stupid!). Iphoto on the other hand appears to be simple, non destructive and keep all the bits of the raw image so I can correct a 1-2 stop overexposure later on, which is all I want. But iPhoto is mac only!
I thought non-destructive editing was par for the course (and really the only way to do it since editing a raw image makes no sense for the most part). Importing to jpg and editing that (picasa) can't be what PSE10 does can it? Presets/multiple editing also feels like a glaring omission even for an amateur tool, or perhaps especially for an amateur tool. I have been looking for an easy alternative to iPhoto for windows, but still found nothing (I.e. easy organizer, decent raw processing). I'll try the evaluation.
If both elements and Lightroom are organizers/editors and handle RAW images, what sets LR apart as a pro application (and motivates the price difference)? Is there a substantial difference in operation between elements and lightroom? Is there a feature matrix somewhere so one can compare LR3 with Elements 10?