HowaboutRAW: The Lollipop OS supports raw, right?
The Olympus XZ10 has a 1/2.3" sensor and it shoots amazing raws. It's helped by the very very good lens.
And in raw it could realistically shoot at ISO 1600.
Let's hope Olympus replaces this amazing still camera with something as good, but with good video.
The lens on this camera must have been a deep embarrassment to the Sony RX100II types.
The fact remains that the high ISO performance of the D3 is much better than then 5D.
Now about DXO sensor scores, they're next to useless.
But in this case right the D800 sort of equals the D3 for higher ISO work, except the D800 colour above base ISO is really washed out. So it's not at all a serious high ISO camera.
And the D800 has an AA filter.
Plenty of D3 bodies are still working just fine, and that body released in what 2007?
Just for white balance ALONE raw makes sense, no matter the sensor size.
You're not the first to be wrong on this subject.
It's a constant refrain from those "explaining" why Olympus shouldn't put raw in as an option on the tough cameras, and it's just as incorrect here.
munro harrap: D750 AA and low pass filter?D7100, same res, half the price, no AA filter-better detail acuity and visibility, than ANY Canon, but why do Nikon continue to put filters in front of their sensors? WHY?Why go back to the dark ages. Why did they ever fit them at all?It is a good question.The 5D Canon is better at making images than is the D3, or the D700, as was the first Canon 1Ds, due to their having weak AA filters.You can see the difference even on a normal typists 1920x1080 monitor.
We should be sold machines without AA/low-pass etc filters, and then have them fitted IF we are unhappy, not have to pay a fortune to have them removed, or wait until the odd rare model appears without one.
Instead these greedy folk programme in obsolescence decades before they make anything, force you to pay upfront for software without which you are stuck with jpegs (and no jpeg 2000) and cant use the camera!!!!
AS bad as the banks.
The fact remains that the high ISO performance of the D3 is much better than the 5D.
But in this case, right the D800 sort of equals the D3 for higher ISO work, except the D800 colour above base ISO is really washed out. So it's not at all a serious high ISO camera.
Cane: Can you imagine the outrage in the horse forums when the car was introduced?
The press conference is a different point altogether.
A sports magazine, or website, still needs technically difficult photos for serious sports coverage.
Both the automobile and the horse drawn carriage carry people. So the car versus cart thing is silly. (Car versus horse is more akin to digital images versus film images.)
krassphoto: Unfortunately, Kodak is not a Kodak anymore, even if it says "Kodak" on it. It was sold out, and now whatever Chinese company that bought it is piggybacking on it's name hoping to sell their sub-par crap. Too bad, I loved Kodak...
First the Motorola chip division most certainly still exists as an independent company, it was spun off as Freescale years ago. (I think it's based in Austin, TX.)
Then Google owned the phone division for a while, and likely still owns many of those patents.
So not at all like Kodak. No big part of Kodak exists under a different name anymore, while Motorola does.
The Lollipop OS supports raw, right?
Jim Evidon: This is what happens when the bottom line becomes the only reason to operate a business. When you have the company run by the bean counters rather than by the product oriented management as was the case at one time, then the only thing that matters is increasing profit margin over what it was in the last quarter.
This is the demand of the investment community aka Wall Street. Theinvestment gurus on Wall Street make a prediction as to what the next quarter's profits and dividends will be. If the company doesn't make that mark even though it may have increased it's profits over the last quarter, the company is deemed to have failed and the stock price drops. This is what happens when the decisions are made by the street instead of the company's product division.
It is all going down hill fast and it seems to make no difference what product the company makes as long as it can cut costs to artificially inflate the profit line to keep the investors happy.
Welcome to the new reality.
And the worship of the investor class is part of the problem.
Microsoft stock hasn't performed real well in years, it's isn't simply Ballmer or the fiasco of Vista. It's that people who grew up using computers are now in charge of making mass purchasing decisions.
Also there weren't mass layoffs at Microsoft while Gates ran it day to day.
Investors in the remnants of the Time magazine empire are likely to be disappointed.
And has nothing to do with SI firing photographers.
No, one is talking about banning photographers, or the internet.
Cars in 1900 were an oilly mess.
If we cared about Orcas, we'd probalby ban the screw drive propellers on ships in 2015.
Not news that new tech can introduce problems, and still nothing to do with SI. The internet didn't kill SI, the fact that SI can't generate revenue from the internet through its own stupid policies is the problem.
Several Nikon D cameras, for example the D4, D3s and D4s, and likely the D810/800, D3/D700 can shoot to tiff.
The Canon 5D doesn’t come close to the Nikon D3/D700 for high ISO performance.AA filter or not, image sharpness, which is far from the totality of image quality, has much to do with the lenses used.
It’s pretty safe to assume that for several decades to come photo software will open Canon and Nikon raws. Now there may not be some significant improvement in how those raws are processed.
mediman30: Sony, it's time to rock the boat again, we are enjoying it...release the A9 soon! Yipeeee!!!!
I stand by my point, and you can go test say a Sony against a Nikon, with the same sensor, any day, well if you can get to a decent gear store. (The A7II against the D610 would be a perfect test in the same lighting.)
Does claiming that I've never handled a Sony camera, let alone the A7II, make you feel more secure. Keep telling yourself that lie, if it makes you feel superior; it's still not true.
Also I've never broadly said "Sony A cameras 'suck'" or said the same of Sony cameras, so that's another lie by you.
Now, I do think the mechanical shutters on Sony A cameras are too loud, and that the colour looks washed out above really low ISOs, even when using very good SonyZeiss lenses. (The A6000 and A77II also have this colour problem.)
Shiranai: However, NX1 is still on a very low rank regarding sellings. Thats a thing you cannot fix with adding features. IMO they need to release more lenses or they need to adjust their price to other manufacturers mirrorless APS-C models (and not to fullframe).
Not true in the USA--the prices are in the same neighborhood. And remember I didn't say exactly the same.
The Sony A6000 isn't built to the same toughened standards. (And the A6000 is a good camera, but it has the compressed raw problem and horrid native Sony lenses.)
The Samsung 45mm f/1.8 is optically excellent, so too the 30mm f/2.0--this latter is closer to a "real" 50mm. Both are inexpensive, probably since neither is f/1.4.
As for counting users, that's silly. Given that Samsung had no presence in the digital camera market 10 years ago, and very little 5 years ago.
Don't know whether you mean actual 200mm+ lenses, or FF equivalents. Since the latter do exist.
And then Samsung has been showing an actual 300mm f/2.8 at trade shows.
But right long telephotos are the one weakness in the lineup of lenses.
Right, you quoted me accurately.
And then entirely made up a meaning, with added terms, that just isn't there.
It's called projecting your wishes into someone else's point.
Mike FL: "I own it = 484" and "I had it = 78".
So 16% of the D750 were being returned. The rest of them missed "Returning Window", and need to be refurbished by Nikon.
Any one got "Black DOT SPECIAL EDITION"?
"refurbished" doesn't mean what you think.
And you can't get "refurbished" figures out of those numbers.
Who cares if Nikon has fixed the item?
In fact, since the problem is so infrequent, who really cares except those who want to bash Nikon and ignore the same problem in Canon?
Frank C.: buy d600 ... do I have oil blotch issue?buy d800 ... do I have left focus issue?buy d750 ... do I have flare issue?buy Nikon ... do you have an issue?
You do get that the stepped flare is real infrequent with the various Canikon DSLRs it has been demonstrated with?
That right "Canikon".
What's is going to replace the horse? Meaning what is going to replace the good still photo of pro sports events?
I can think of replacements for SI, or print, but not the photographer.
Now in 20 years when 8K cameras can easily record hours of raw footage (that's raw files), then maybe most good still photographs will get pulled out of video. (Though the cameras will still need operators.)
Eleson: Do you all remember the times when an article was accompanied by a photo relating to the event?Nowadays, the only photo is one of the person who wrote the article...
Nope, TimeWarner no longer owns Time Magazine or SI. The magazine business was separated.
It's the rare reporter who also knows how shoot sporting events well. So not going to work that way.
Now true, there maybe some staff Time can dole out.
nopicleftbehind: they will pull still from the videographers
Not, that's still more than a few years away, even with 4K cameras, and those aren't shooting pro foot ball yet.
Gollan: In the past, how did SI staff photographers get into premium sporting events? Presumably they were invited or special arrangements were made. Can freelancers even get sideline/trackside/courtside access to premium sporting events? Most venues don't allow regular ticket-buyers to use "pro" cameras. How will SI guarantee they will have good quality photos of any particular event since a freelancer who gets in can just sell his or her work to the highest bidder. For some events, SI might end up buying iPhone photos taken by a "freelancer" in the front row.
The photographers will likely have to pay for some form of credentials.
Has nothing to do with this.
If you want a good still photo of say a pro tennis match you still need a photographer with good gear onsite. This is not going to change anytime soon.
It doesn't matter if the photo is printed or posted on the interwebs.
In other words you've posted a confused point.
As for cars and horses, well the dung and the dead horses went away. But thing thing is cars were a mess to use for 20 years, and then it was another 20 before various governments started building good roads for cars.