I disagree. Phone cameras are taking over with the masses because they always have their phone with them and there is no need to carry a second object (camera). Also, phone cameras are now good enough for the masses. Neither of those things is going to change.
I didn't like the Photoshop convertion of Canon RAW files when i tried it a long time ago, so I stuck with Canon's DPP for RAW conversions and it just keeps getting better. So I still use my legally-purchased Photoshop CS2 and see no reason to upgrade or care about what Adobe does with Photoshop. If in the future I feel that the cloud subscription version offers something I really want, I'll do that but not before.
KBarrett: The flash sync speed is 1/50? Holy K1000, batman!
Flash sync speed 1/50 sec is unbelievable and unacceptable. Flash fill in direct sunlight would not be possible. What were they thinking?
It's the same size as my XSi and 10% heavier. What did it do with the should-have size advantage of the 4/3 sensor and lack of a mirror?
micahmedia: Anything yet that will transfer directly to a computer or server via internet, without going through a third party server? I talked to Eye-Fi a couple weeks ago and they admitted they still couldn't do it. Had to go through their servers.
You mean that all file transfers from the Eye-fi card go through Eye-fi web servers?
seri_art: Can you shoot RAW + JPG and have the card transfer only the JPG files?
I'm assuming only one card slot.
Can you shoot RAW + JPG and have the card transfer only the JPG files?
seri_art: >I would recommend direct connect (card straight to device) rather than an ad-hoc<
I'm not clear what direct connect and ad-hoc mean. Where there is no wifi network available (many outside locations), how do you effectively transfer photos from the card to either an iPhone, iPad, other phone or tablet, or laptop wirelessly?
If you are where you have a good wifi connection (fast), is it better to use the ad-hoc method?
>I would recommend direct connect (card straight to device) rather than an ad-hoc<
gerard boulanger: I hate to say this but "smart" phones and their integrated camera devices are eating some of the market share of the entry level digital cameras.Anywhere you might go in the world, most people take souvenir/family/vacation pictures with their telephones.Now, how to explain the drastic drop in shipment re DSLRs and even on the relatively new concept of mirrorless cameras? Economy, lack of new technology, prices?
> since the product has pretty much matured feature and IQ wise there's no real reason for present owners to update<
I couldn't have said it better myself :-) I said the same thing differently above.
After I got my first digital camera in 2002, I upgreaded often as new cameras arrived with much-improved ability, especially image quality. But now, I've had my XSi for five years and see no reason to spend the money to replace it, because it's so good. Same with my S100 pocket camera I've had for almost two years.
I'll vote with my feet by staying with my current version of Photoshop. If I decide I want more or improved features, I'll find different software. Photoshop isn't the only game in town and will be even less so in the future.
Where is this?
Jirka and Mark H below have it right, that the Rolleiflex and other cameras like it were square format because of practical necessity. What they didn't say was that photographers who used those cameras often cropped their photos to make non-square images. That said, square is an option that probably isn't explored often enough.
caterpillar: Sounds good! We'll just have to wait to see how it actually works before more comments and suggestions come in!
I have a question though, how will this revamped pages work out with android OS or tablets/smartphones accessing it? Do you have a separate/alternate template for that or it will work just the same?
On another subject, I bet those stats on complaints column is going to be a subject by itself! A positive or thumbs up column would also be helpful.
I second (or one-hundredth) the Skip the 'Voting on threads and individual posts'. If would very much degrade the forums and quite possibly push me right out the door.
Great shot, whether the perfect alignment between the two planes is perfect execution or perfect luck :-) Don't let anyone tell you that you should have used a slower shutter speed so the propeller on the P-51 would be blurred; it's just fine as is.
In the RAW comparison, from ISO 1600 on up, the 650D image is noticeably worse than the 600D.
GirinoFumetto: OM1 was small, its lenses where small and it was, obviously, full frame, had prism and mirror and was small.How many years have to pass before the new technologies can make something similar? OM1 was a jewel to hold.
I bought an OM-1 soon after they were released and later paired it with an XA. I now have a Canon XSi which is quite small and light compared to more "professional" DSLRs, and also a Canon S100 which often takes the place of the XSi. As you can tell, I like small :-)