 |
wchutt
Lives in
MO, United States
Works as a
Photographer
Has a website at
www.williamchuttonjr.com
Joined on
Oct 28, 2009
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
There is no reason not to take the opposite view. Every DNG standard has been published so far. Why would future DNG standards not be published? Where is the evidence Adobe will not publish future standards? How does an eight month delay translate into fear about a complete reversal of Adobe's strategy? I wish Pardee's would elaborate on how Adobe will make more profit abandoning open DNG than staying the course.
Instead of fear and loathing, optimism and confidence are equally justified. I do not share any of the Pardee's concerns. Pessimistic speculation is no more or less valid than optimistic speculation. But I do know this. If DNG failed for sny reason, there are millions of DNG files right now and millions more will be recorded. Opportunity for ample profit will provide incentive for DNG data to be converted into something useful no matter what.
The sky is not falling.
Of course one prints photographs to increase the odds they will be around for a long time.
Are you saying Adobe plans to take DNG out of the public domain? As long as DNG is open, people can convert DNGs to something else. In principle the raw data within a DNG from 2010 could be converted to any other two-dimensional space array in the future. This could be done by highly motivated amateurs decades from now.
I am not concerned about on-board lens correction either. Are you saying the lens correction parameters written to raw fils are proprietary or encrypted so only Adobe can read them? Even if that were true, it would be possible to reverse engineer the corrections empirically. This too could be done by highly motivated amateurs decades from now.
Changing their name would have the same benefit as painting a a new name on the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg.
Clint Dunn: I have to admit....I'm actually surprised the new M is 'only' $7000. It's very unlike Leica to drop prices and the M9 sold for $8k not that long ago. With that said, the M-E should be cheaper than $5500....it's nothing but old technology from the M9 re-badged and sold as new. Leica would have sold a tonne of these ME's at $4000.
This is not SONY chip.
FTW: We will have at least the satisfaction that in any test we will not read anymore that the D600 or A99 make a better shot, it is the same sensor. Remains the absence of mirror, this can give it a serious advantage, the lenses can be used on the other brand with adapters too, so all plays on the mirror absence. But, I will not pay a surplus of 5000$ for that only. Bet all you want that NEX-7 with same lens makes the same good or even better shot. I have seen A99 and D600 shots. Up to 3200 Iso, A99 is cleaner and better than D600. Also the A99 body offers much more working comfort and the price difference is justified, it is an amazing piece of technology and D600 looks a bit poor compared to it. I do not compare this Leica to it, that would be waste of time. Starting by the price, all comment is useless. The day Leica sells it's cameras at a real value price, one can consider doing it.
It certainly is not the same SONY sensor.
I do think their color superiority claims are fraudulent. Their marketing prpaganda for the M8 being a lifetime investment didn't work out unless the LCD screen lasts forever. Why should he sensor magic be any different?
Oh praise be!
After all these years someone finally got color quality right on CMOS. Every time I looked at a Nikon or Canon photo all I could think was, "when will they ever get those colors to be just like a CCD sensors' 'natural and brilliant' colors." Finally SONY and Canon's incompetence is corrected. Pros will now flock to the new CMOSIS technology or go bankrupt.
What a joke. At least Leica is consistant by invoking magic Leica sauce in every digital product they ever made. Everyone without a CMOSIS or CC'D sensor remains a second rate photographer.
Unlike small micro 4/3 cameras, at least you don't have to put enormous zoom lenses on this thing to ge decent zoom performance.
My understanding is the only reason Kodak is still making film stock is to fulfill an obligation to the motion picture industry. I believe the motion picture film is part of a court ordered settlement involving their bankruptcy.
Kodak is under no obligation to produce still-camera film which is why they are trying to find a buyer. It could be the real crisis, with regard to Kodk film stock, will come after the court-ordered motion picture contract period is over.
CFynn: I'm sure it is a nice camera, but the reported prices are nearly $8,000 for the camera and $7,200 for the new 50mm f./2.0 lens. Is this a camera for bankers with big bonuses?
Except the ring won't depreciate.
snake_b: Awesome.
The X-series has been a complete disaster.
The 1.20 and 1.21 upgrades significantly improve the X100. Thanks Fuji for making it easier to get great results.