oselimg: Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off. But how about technically comparing it to an ordinary DSLR or M4/3? I can't imagine people suddenly shedding their cameras for Nokia phones even as hobbyists. Another gimmick for wannabes.
"Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off."
But what processing did you do to the raw from the Nokia? Raw processing has many different variables.
Also, why cite camera types with much bigger sensors?
AndreSJ: Samsung are just about to release the S5 with a new 16mp ISOCELL sensor so let the camera phone battle begin.
if anything i feel phones can be a good testing points for sensor improvements before putting them in actual cameras
So is your thinking that the Samsung S5 must have raw because Android 4.4 can shoot raw?
Possible, but I'm not sure that's the case. Could be a hack a few months after the phone ships, I guess.
Edgar Matias: Definitely an improvement.
The ACR Adobe Standard looks very flat in comparison.
Gotta say though... The OOC shots look really good (especially the skin tones). Not sure how much room there is to improve on them.
Or you can use serious raw extraction software to extract to tiff.
tmurph: The nearest competitor is the Panasonic GX7...not the G6 then, strange one that, considering they are both DSLR type cameras whereas the GX7 is more like a Olympus Pen.
No, that Panasonic can't match the high ISO performance of this sensor. This NX30 competes with Fuji X APSC sensored bodies.
And the best Samsung lenses are better than the best Fuji lenses.
HowaboutRAW: Is there a download link for these DNGs?
AussieBarb: What is the AF like? I ditched my NX11 sick of it "hunting" and focus system poor.
Seems good, like the NX300.
Not amazing or anything like that.
Is there a download link for these DNGs?
howardroark: Every time I hear the word Adobe I get this taste in my mouth like someone poured in a bag of dirty pennies.
And if you read my comments, even from the last 3 months alone, you’ll see many more than 11 “likes”.
Conclusions, 2: You don’t read my comments, fine. And the “like” counting software doesn’t work. Not real surprising, given that DPReview can’t even fix the enforced GearCrap sign-in, and that’s been a problem on and off for something like 6 months.
Adobe made its choices and those choices still relate to ACR in particular, that's why you'll be seeing more comments about Adobe's bad behavior having repercussions and leaving a bad taste.
It's similar to Microsoft again and again releasing unstable operating systems full of security holes.
It's not rental that gives people, me included, such a bad taste; it's "rental only".
My CAD software (Ashlar) has had the option of renting for years. It's gone down in price a bit, but the full version is still something like $3,000 to buy, so there's real motivation for renting to learn or do something for a month or two. (I only ever owned the $1,200 variation, still more capable than Solidworks in many ways. And there's free reader software for the files.)
At least for users of PhotoShop CS6, Adobe's bad decision is going to make many seek out other raw extraction programs once Adobe no longer supports ACR for PhotoShop CS6, options like CaptureOne, PhotoNinja, and DXO9. No, Lightroom is too much of a mess to get future variations of ACR that way. And PhotoShop CS6, or CS5, will be excellent editing software for years.
Cameras you be referring to? Fujis?
WB adjustment sure is easier with the raw files from whatever camera.
Also if you don't like results from a default ACR extraction, there's always learning to use ACR. (Doesn't work like that with out of camera jpegs from whatever camera.)
Then since you can extract to tiff you have a lot more to work with in a photo editor--PS, Corel Paintshop, GIMP, etc.
It's that the software (Photoshop CC) dies if you don't pay that money and Adobe won't give you the option of paying a higher one time purchase price as other companies that also rent their software do.
I have no problem with Adobe offering the rental option, but it can't offer only rental and keep me as a customer.
Cheezr: DPReview is being a little over eager, this is the Adobe Labs beta for ACR 8.4 and you need to use their links because the usual Adobe updaters will not pick it up until it is a released product.I just installed it (it comes with an installer) and it works in both LR CC and PS CC
There's a LR CC? When did that come out?
D200_4me: Glad to hear that, regarding the Fuji profiles. Looking forward to it. I love the Olympus profiles for my E-M1.
I swear I'm always baffled by people that complain about the price of updating Lightroom to the newest version. Seriously? They'll spend thousands on gear but can't fork over $79 to upgrade an excellent editing tool every year or so? Amazing.
Okay, but you're stuck with ACR 7.
If better raw processing, in ACR, and new camera raw compatibility isn't important, there's no reason for LR5.
Doesn't read like you have Photoshop CS6 or CC (or CS5).
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
Below ISO 400, and sometimes as high as ISO 800, colour film can be beautiful.
However it costs money to process, even if you do it yourself. ISO 2000 is unheard of. Good scanning takes skill and time, same with enlarger work. 5-7 bucks per roll, at only 36 exposures per roll, is expensive.
Yes, I know about bulk film and loaders. And yes I realize that B+W can be pushed more than colour film.
Nor am I defending these particular "film packs" from Adobe. I don't try to recreate the film look. (And would probably use DXO if I were to try.)
Eigenmeat: ACR is still a blurry mess compare to OOC JPGs.
Try learning how to use raw extraction software--ACR 8 included.
Try WB adjustment on any jpeg, sure is better to have the raw file and ACR, etc.
As for blurry mess and ACR, try setting things like Lumninance and all the other NR sliders to zero at the start. (Same basic rules apply to other good raw extraction software like CaptureOne and PhotoNinja.)
In other words you have no idea of what you're writing about.
tkbslc: If Sigma wants to grow their camera business, they need to put some effort into designing at least one model that has a bit more all-around utility. I am amazed at the detail at ISO 100-200 from these cameras. However, the lack of ability to shoot in lower light, stray more than an hour from a charger, shoot video, or focus on anything moving, means Sigma cameras are not really an option for more than 1% of photographers.
I'm also suprised that with their poor high ISO, they continually affix slower lenses to their DP line. Give us an f1.4 lens and maybe I'm OK being stuck under ISO 1600. And with battery issues, an OVF tuned to the attached lens would be a good solution.
Technology moves on.
This is something Kodak wouldn’t accept, and look what happened.
If digital cameras (full frame and APSC sensored) were only good through ISO 400, Kodak would still be selling a lot of film.
KAllen: I fail to see why this camera is anymore difficult to pick up than any other camera ever made.. I wonder what the comments on a Hasselblad would of been like at launch if DPReview had been around.I've been tempted with the little Sigmas before, workflow just kills it for me. If this is decently quick to use and "Foveon images" we have come to expect in image quality, I for one will give it a go. Great little system, 3 cameras with a dedicated lens. If only it had compatibility with 3rd party raw converters. I bet that puts more people off buying than speed or shape.
Old 4.9MPx3, before I read about my mistake.
I think Sigma shares information with other raw extraction software developers. It’s that most haven’t done much work with that information.
In fact, the Mac only Iridient extracts raws from DP+SD Merrills and older Sigma Foveon cameras too. So if you have an Intel Mac, that’s an option instead of Sigma Pro Photo.
And ACR will extract raws from some older DP cameras with the old 14MPx3 sensor.
Marty4650: And amazingly.... 4 people "already own" this camera that isn't yet available on the market, and 8 more "used to own it" but moved on to something better.
They probably got advance copies......or something....
It would also have to be secret and/or prototype raw extraction software.
So I'm far more inclined to think either outright lying or simply clicking "yes".