Neodp: Not withstand the efficacy of the update and overall good or not enough improvement(s) then their its a much greater point here....
No one (hardly?) said (possible or not) this camera was deficient in tracking AF or low light comparatively when they were promoting it's first adopter goodness and new pros!
What does that have to do with value? It means you can't know until the camera has been out a while and put through it's paces for the tasks photographers value the most. It begs the question; what benefits matter most? Subjectivity is not a wide... as it is made out to be. Yes there's room for subjective benefits and horses for courses to a point. There no accounting for tastes. Yet that view is completely overblown; from the perspective of new camera design. Yes that should include the user need, that's the photographer that actually takes pictures. Not Gear Acquisition and paper specs alone. There's a lot more to a total camera than that. It's a warning about over priced vanity.
No, you´re not.
Searching: OK, I see it is only available in CC and not CS6.
It is available for CS6 herehttp://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/03/keeping-photoshop-up-to-date.html#notconnected
rubank: How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)
Yeah, 1/160 sec and f/16 is a givaway. Extremely bright, eh.:)
How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)
Pat Cullinan Jr: These images are flat and have a cool cast. I hit some of them hard with Photoshop and achieved snap and pop. I applied White Point to remove the cast. Digital ROC was no help.
Is this a beta example?
Everybody's having a great time on a memorable sunny day.
There are some flat and cool pics for sure, but they are mainly with the 100-300 lens as it seems (on my screen).
fatdeeman: Beautiful photo Rishi! You really help to show what these cameras can do creatively as well as technically!
I agree, very nice photo!But, in the commentary you say "no banding". I see a lot of (ugly) banding in that shot, how could you have missed that?
OT: that lens (11-24) looks stunningly good!
BarnET: Have to admit.For a 50mp sensor the ISO performance is pretty impressive!
To BarnET:Not if you process to the same output size AND the same resolution. Then the high Mp sensors win even at high ISO.
rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.
Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).
This will turn into an endless debate if we were to continue, so I´ll just recommend that you d/l the 16 Mp RAW and the 64 Mp (HR) RAW. Convert them (e.g. in ACR) and pixel peep to your hearts content. That should do it.
Don´t look at DPR:s HR conversion because there is something wrong in their conversion. D/l and do your own conversion. I use ACR at default settings.
You can actually see the advantage even when pixel peepeing, but the point is that an image is almost always resampled for output and the diffraction is the same regardless of sensor pixel pitch - it is a property of the lens.
If you have troubles seeing this, take your own studio scene at f/5,6 and develop it to a 64 Mp image and tell me where you see the diffraction effects...
You´re right about the number of images, but wrong on everything else. Diffraction isn´t worse than for a single 16 Mp image.
It is one 64 Mp image built from 4 16 Mp images. Diffraction or other issues will not be bigger than for each exposure.And the effects you´re worried about aren´t worse anyway, for the same output size, even if it was a single 64 Mp exposure; downsampling helps only at pixel level, which is a moot point.
I dont agree at all.I have converted to 64 Mp JPG and the result is truly impressive.
I have a question for the DPR crew.
rubank: Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800. Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.
Possibly a little, and I mean little, less colour noise from ISO 12800 and up. So what.
It´ s not just in the corners where 810 loses to 800.Look at the line bars. 810 just produces moiré when the going gets tough...36 Mpix isn´t enough to get rid of the OLPF, you would need at least the double pixel count. Those who claim otherwise have blurry vision.
Nikon´s reason for the omission is just cost reduction.
Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800. Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.
rubank: Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....
Once upon a time there were FF compact (film) cameras with very good lenses a lot smaller than this monster - and they were both wider and faster.
Lot´s of replies and all miss the point :~|
The lens elements (the glass part) in this Sigma are tiny while the housing of said elements is huge (in comparison). The question is why, that was the meaning of comparing to compact FF cameras, since even they had AF. So the huge housing isn´t necessarily due to things like AF...I think it´s just styling, not a "must-be".
Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....
If one downloads RAWs from the DPR studio test and develop them in RawTherapee 4.1 at default settings, the result will look a whole lot better. And I mean a lot!