I'd say it's a nice camera, but no focus aids on a camera that accepts all old manual focus lenses really is a big omission. I hope it accepts the focusing-screens of the F3.
nicholo plaza: I agree with people saying that Lightroom is better for processing and has much more powerful tools, but Aperture just has such a smooth and seamless workflow that its difficult to ignore.
Actually, Aperture never required you to move images into a database. And even if they are stored in the library, they are not in a database. The library is a folder structure just like anything else. It only appears to the user as a single file. This technique is abundantly used in OSX. (All applications on the Mac are based on this principle)
From a technical point of view it's nothing different then asking Lightroom to move your photo's to year-date folders.
Zvonimir Tosic: I suspect Apple is doing this partly on a purpose, and by design — delaying important camera support — because it is in their best interest that as many people as possible use iPhone as the primary snap tool. When camera isn't properly supported, people will be reluctant to utilise it fully and will feel frustration, which they believe is due to camera manufacturer not doing their job (with Apple) properly — not the other way round.
Otherwise, Apple won't be able to brag around iPhone is the most popular "camera" on Flickr.Adobe, however, is in neutral position re all that hardware wars, and despite their questionable recent Creative Cloud moves, I believe with faster and timely updates they are a far better option for the photographers out there.
I mean, Pentax 645D support coming out after 3 YEARS since camera's been introduced ... Apple, shame on you.
Wow, somebody actually thinks that the iPhone is a competitor for the Pentax 645. I don't know whether that's a compliment for the iPhone or a slap in the face for the Pentax 645. By the way, you do actually know that Apple has beaten Adobe quite some times in being the first to the market to support a certain camera. So there is really no sense at all in your comment.
denny2020: I'm still a bit confused. Doesn't a 50mm 1.8 at F1.8 at ISO 100 give the same shutter speeds on a full frame verses APS-C sensor for the exact same scene? If that's the case how is adding these somehow give you a stop faster with respect to shutter speed? Are they saying the a 50mm 1.8 with their booster will be faster on a APS-C camera compared to the same lens on a full frame alone?
Yes, a 50mm f/1.8@f/1.8 will give the same shutterspeed on FF or APC-C or MFT. But what would happen if we put a 2x teleconverter in between. We would have a 100mm f3.6 lens.
Now imagine that we put in the teleconverter in the reverse way. That would yield a 25mm f/0.9. Such a teleconverter is called a 'speed booster'. But it's just the same principle as a teleconverter.
The thing is, that the f-number is dependant on the focal length. Change the focal length of the lens and you change the f-number.
e.g. The 50mm f/1.8 lens has a hole in diaphragm of 27.8mm; change the same lens to 25mm focal length by adding an extra element (and give this element a fancy name e.g. 'speed booster') and the f-number changes to 25/27.8=0.9
Witch regards to the M referring to 'Messsucher', 'mini M' may only be a nickname. When you look at Leica's website you'll see that the X2 is nicked 'micro M' and the D-lux 6 is nicked 'nano M'.
The new camera is shown on the website as '? Mini M'. Hence it will likely bear another name and is probably not a Messsucher...
huyzer: Wish it had a swivel back screen.
You don't need one with the WiFi module. You just use your phone as the screen.
I was almost going to write: "If only it had a swivel screen..." But then I realised that with the WiFi module this is no longer necessary. It will even make a sturdier camera without the fragile swivel screen.
What is it with these underwater housings that they are more expensive then the camera's inside them. (I probably know the answer though, must be something with supply and demand)
solarsky: The reduced version of this article might read (in 2012!):Nikon D800(E) shooting RAW+ good lens+ tripod+ filters+ suitable RAW developer software+ Kolor Autopano Giga (possibly also + Photomatix Pro)+ computer= Finished at much lower cost, at similar quality as the "complex approach", in much shorter time with much less of a fuss. Done.
@ Solarsky, Could you delve a little more into detail regarding the vectorizing of an image and creating 3D layers? It sound like an interesting technique, but I have no clue what it means. Is it like focus stacking?
CameraLabTester: Good luck to the success of the book.
Every author who produce well meaning books must be encouraged.
But to be honest, the subject is irrelevant and out of date, and there are other more easier and practical methods and techniques.
It is a good hobby to study typesetting and mimeograph procedures, but it is much better to use MS Office® or InDesign®.
Any argumentation on why this subject is out of date and which easier and more practical methods are available would make your comment actually informative...
vkphoto: Typo, 135 format
135 format is not really a typo. The typo is dLSR after that. Since 135 format was for aSLRs, in dSLR it's referred to as full frame.
135 is a type of roll-film which was 24 mm in height. Just as there where 120 and 220 film for the medium format camera's.
Joesiv: good article, but didn't really help with the hard part, how to actually do natural HDRs. The tools used mostly for HDR's are the reason why HDR's are often unnatural, as they're hard to use. I would have loved to see some tips for using the software, rather than a bullet point with only 1 arguably useful tip (the rest being obvious), retaining shadows.
And regarding the getting wet shot, I guess those flippy screens + live view have a use :) I wish more dslrs had them.
I wholeheartedly agree on this. Please show us how it's done!
Jono Slack: Well - I was horrified at first - my personal jury is still out on the grey icons, but I''m beginning to like them.On the other hand, my impression is that it's faster - I've not had any hangs (even with my 50,000 + library. the new auto enhance button is cool.Removing the RAW brick from the default is questionable, but it's only the work of 2 minutes to put it back in the default for good. I've recently gone back to Aperture after 5 months working with Lightroom 4 - I wondered whether it would prompt me to make the big move to Lightroom, but quite the contrary - the clone tool, the cataloguing, the brush based adjustments, the printing . . . . . and now Lightroom 4 is out the speed - Aperture wins at every level. I just wish they'd get their camera updates in a bit more quickly!
You do know that Apple improved on camera update speed as well, do you? At least they were faster to bring the D4, D800 and D800E to their platform, then Adobe was.
Nice, I visited their website and clicked to see some information on the ND-filters. Guess what, they are not made of CR-39 but of 'Lorum Ipsum'....
Chuck Fralick: I don't like plasticky, cheap cameras. That said, and contrary to what photo nuts posted, I think the high iso quality is exceptional for a camera at this price. If you're a photographer younger than 30 years old, you can't possibly understand how much better even the lowliest DSLR today is compared to the best 35mm cameras of only 10 years or so ago. I remember arguments back then about how long it would take digital to equal film. That was rubbish. As soon as the D2X, 1DS and later models came out it was game over. Add to that the HUGE advantages in modern digital workflow over film and it's ludicrous that we (me included) are so critical of some digital models today. I mean come on, ISO 12,800!! I remember when ASA 800 film didn't look that good. I wouldn't trade any film camera today (and I still own an F4, FM2 and Leica M6) for even my Canon G12. We're so lucky and so spoiled. I can't wait to see what comes out in another 10 years (if I'm not broke from buying new toys).
I, age below 30, can remember developing Tri-X exposed as 3200 ISO in Diafine to get a nice big grain. Grain is still one aspect in which film out performs digital, both in positive and negative ways ;-)
ZinZun: Nikon users - It doesn't really matter isn't it??still as long as Adobe uses its own algorithm rather than the official Nikon one to convert RAW files, photos will always convert much better (in terms of IQ) in NX2 regardless the nice features of Lightroom, I'm using D7000 and the difference is so huge that it's really a no briner but to use NX2 as much as I hate the workflow and the poor photo management capabilities.
I suggest to all Nikon users to just try and open a RAW image in NX2 and in Lightroom - you'll see what I mean, not mentioning the results of pushing the histogram...
sad - but true...
@instamatic, where would one be able to find those Nikon specific options?
Neil2112: The good:Better highlight recovery, new and more aggressive clarity algorithm, plays nice with video finally and I'm going to use the crud out of the added localized adjustments options. Thanks Kost, good work.The ok: Maps. Some pros may use this, but the day I look at a beach shot and not know which beach it was is the day I have assistants doing all this for me. Books. Fab, but Blurb has BookSmart already, and you cannot make custom layouts(?!).The not so good:Same clunky grey modular UI with pop ups from all four sides that never ever behave the way you expect. STILL no keyboard shortcuts for adjustments (sorry, but I'm not paying over $600 for RPG Keys.) We have books and maps but no HDR and no panorama. I'd wear out the HDR button if you'd just give me one.Overall, a net gain with some reservations. UI notwithstanding Lr still gives Aperture a good spanking.
What is the spanking given to Aperture then? All the new features seem to be coming straight from Aperture, and you don't mention any other features that spank Aperture.
geminihc: great article! i learned some new tricks , especially about the red channel blur to make skin smooth.
BUT can you go into abit more detail why the red channel specifically?
That's an easy one if you're coming from B&W film photography. Ever taken a portrait of someone with a red filter on the lens to darken the sky?
For the luminosity blending trick you'll want a layer where the skin is very light. The skin contains many blood vessels, and these are reddish in colour. The red channel will therefore be very light in the skin area. (like the skin of someone photographed with a red filter on B&W film)