 |
Dave Oddie
Lives in
Chester, United Kingdom
Works as a
IT
Joined on
Jan 23, 2002
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Thauglor: I bought LR3 for its many other features. I don't like the catalog feature. I find it to be completely unnecessary. Like the article states, many of us have cataloged our images by folder, by date, or otherwise, making lightroom's catalog feature not only redundant, but annoying. It seems it 'wants' to catalog my images, and will not take no for an answer.
Would it be a big deal to browse to the photo I would like to edit, do the edit, and then simply save the edited file in a folder of my choosing ?
Doesn't seem like to much to ask for those of us that prefer to work that way.
Corel After Shot Pro (Bibble as was) allows you to make non-destructive edits without using its catalogue feature. Not sure how it works but I guess it must be some sort of side car file associated with each photo that contains the edits you applied.
Justin Francis: Too big and bulky. Slow lenses. Blown away by MFT. Sony should just stick to making sensors. Just like its consumer electronics, Sony has lost its mojo on design a long time ago.
@ Thorgrem "That is why we don't see any body's designed for the photographer from Sony."
Anyone who says this has never used an A77. It is absolutely fantastic from a photographers point of view. It has many classic Minolta features and plenty of innovative features of its own that are genuine aids to taking better photos experienced users will appreciate. It handles like a dream.
I can only assume you write from a position of ignorance or maybe you are a troll?
As to Nex cameras they don't do it for me and neither does any mirror-less camera that is based around aps-c no matter who makes them. The lenses are just too big and d-slr type cameras - like the A77 - handle far better. If you want a compact alternative to a d-slr outfit I would go with M 4/3 for this reason. But that is just me. Plenty of people like their aps-c based mirror-less cameras. Just because I don't want one doesn't make them bad cameras or badly designed.
Lucas_: It's a start. Anyway, Panny is quite ahead and Sony ( not shown on this demo ) is easily the master with the SLT design.
The compromise as you out it simply works and works very well. And since it exists and PD AF sensors integrated into to sensor do not I don't think you really have a point.
You are basically suggesting something that doesn't exist is better than something that does.
Edmond Leung: This is the camera what we need !
Simple, small, light weight and able to use the whole range of Canon lenses.
An excellent choice for business travel.
I will take this one instead of NEX or other cameras with smaller sensor.
I really don't get why anyone would want to put Canon dslr lenses on this or Sony A mount lenses on a Nex for that matter. These lenses are large and require an adapter - which is more to carry. Completely defeats the object in my opinion.
I would go further and say both the Canon and the Nex have sensors that are too big. This means once you move away from the pancake lens and the kit zoom the lenses are almost the same size as dslr lenses.
While Nikon probably went too far the other way with 1 series I think M43 has it right. You can now get very good quality shots from M43 and both the bodies AND the lenses are small.
I own a Sony A77 and if I were in the marker for a second lightweight system the last thing that would influence me is the ability to put my A mount glass on the camera.
itsastickup: Mobile phone pics are low in dynamic range. Modern snaps with perfect repro (unlike vintage photos) are soulless.
These filters mask the issues with modern pics while lending soul/atmosphere.
Bevan may prefer the real thing with a real soul, but instagram is still improving on the consumer snap.
The best point she makes is this in my opinion:
"But for me, the Instagram/Hipstamatic/Snapseed etc filters are the antithesis of creativity. They make all pictures look the same. They require no thought or creative input: one click and you're done."
Everybody applying the same small set of filters as a matter of course will soon mean the end result is no longer viewed as improving the consumer snap.
Mach Schnell: Holy cow! Are they serious? $1,700. That is 3 times what I paid for the extremely good Sigma 150mm f/2.8. I can't fathom why it would cost so much more. I don't think they'll get many takers at that price.
I agree. Every time Sigma release a new lens the price is about triple the previous incarnation. OK it has IS and and no doubt very well built but surely the attraction of third party lenses like Sigma and Tamron is the very fact they offer very good quality at cheaper prices than camera makers own lenses. The Tamron 180 macro is £640 (and on a Sony or Pentax this is stabilised anyway). The equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses are around £1100.
Sigma are going to price themselves out of the market.
Gothmoth: who will buy this over the sony RX100?
i am not that´s for sure.....
sigma should do a reality check before announcing prices.
will this be another slow and cumbersome sigma camera?
you know... a good camera is more then a fancy sensor....
@sirkhann
"RX100 is for snapshots
DP2m is for photography"
what an idiotic thing to post.
I am sure we will see examples of fine photography from the RX100 and plenty of snapshots from the DP2m and vice-versa
yslee1: Bags need to stop opening from the front, and instead open from the back. I don't fancy having mud from the ground to end up on my back.
My Lowepro Flipside 400AW opens at the back. I use it all the time so it must be good because stuff that isn't ends up gathering dust very quickly.
I regularly carry a Sony A77 with CZ 16-80 attached (with lens hood attached ready to shoot). Sony 70-300G, Sony 500mm mirror, Sony 11-18mm (hood attached and ready) and a Minolta 28mm F2. There is still room for a gorilla pod tripod if I am not taking my monopod which fits nicely into the tripod strap.
If I know I will be using one of the long lenses right away such as when visit a bird sanctuary or whatever then it can easily be configured to carry the gear that way.
Best bag I have ever purchased.
DotCom Editor: Truth in advertising fail: A maximum magnification ratio of 1:2.9 is NOT a macro.
X Faktor Photo
" MACRO is not only classified by a 1:1 magnification ratio"
Yes it is. Always have been and always will be. Please do not perpetuate the marketing myth of Sigma (and Tamron).
DPR know this isn't macro lens in any shape or form hence the inverted commas in their write up: 'Macro'.
Macro STARTS at 1:1. The term was abused by the likes of Sigma and Tamron when they came out with close focusing zoom lenses decades ago. It's marketing ploy that may con the inexperienced but anyone who has been into photography for a while knows Macro starts at 1:1 and such lenses as this are just close focusing. 1:2.9 isn't even close to Macro.
DanK7: The lack of a view finder is a fatal flaw, sorry Pentax. I like the fact that Pentax thinks a bit outside the box, but this camera is more about design than taking photographs. The cart is definitely in front of the horse.
@JackM "If it had a viewfinder, it would be a K5. This is supposed to be more compact, while retaining the K mount. I'm tempted, I have 3 SMC-M primes."
The Sony Nex 7 has an outstanding EVF and it certainly isn't an A77. True it has a different lens mount but it shows an EVF can be added to a mirror-less camera without turning it back into an SLR
JoeDaBassPlayer: Jeff had some issues with bad lenses. I do not know if it was QC or shipping damage. Either way, his experience was not the norm. However, DPR chose to use this outlier review as their own. That should be a red flag.
Having owned one for a while, I know it is smaller than a DSLR. I also know the usability is very good.
AF performance is complicated. In bright light, it is slower than a DSLR. As the light goes down, it maintains its speed. At medium low light, it is competitive with a DSLR. It's AF will cease to be usable before that of a better DSLR. However, in really low light, focus peaking allows accurate MF while a DSLR would be hopeless.
For product shots, macro, street, and creative shooting, it is a fantastic tool. Go check out the Pentax DSLR forum. there are some great shots done with this camera. The people who use it do understand the camera and what it can do. It is not a sports camera but it does make a less expensive alternative to an M9 or Pro 1.
JoeDaBassPlayer writes:
"AF performance is complicated. In bright light, it is slower than a DSLR. As the light goes down, it maintains its speed. At medium low light, it is competitive with a DSLR. It's AF will cease to be usable before that of a better DSLR. However, in really low light, focus peaking allows accurate MF while a DSLR would be hopeless."
Focus peaking has been on the Sony SLT's for a while now and is on the Nex line as well but the AF of the A series SLT's will beat this Pentax to a pulp performance-wise in any light,
jl_smith: *sigh* Pentax, such a quirky company - at least they tried something a bit new. Alas, it seems this one needs to go back to the drawing board.
As to the DPR detractors that shout "Isn't IQ everything!?!" Erm, no, no it isn't. If it was, then we'd all be shooting with large 4x5 or higher MF cameras because their IQ is amazing.
There's a thing called "usability". If you're camera has very good IQ but actually using it to get those nice shots is a pain in the rear, then the score should reflect that as appropriate.
Really, this camera offers little to nothing better than the K-5 and a lot of drawbacks.
I can see it MAYBE taking off in Asia due to the styling (as it does look to have that Eastern flare) but looks to be luke-warm elsewhere.
Usability cannot be stressed enough. Cameras that are hard to use eventually get left in the cupboard once the novelty of the new purchase wares off.
I also think aps-c is the wrong starting point for mirror-less cameras. Yes it delivers very good IQ but even if you can make the camera small (as with the Sony Nex) the lenses are still large.
With this Pentax you get large lenses and a large body so it seems completely pointless to me.
I think Olympus and to a slightly lesser extant Panasonic are the only two manufacturers who "get" the concept.
If I could afford the luxury of a smaller alternative to my Sony A77 it would be a no-brainer to go for one of the Oly's. Why would I want the alternative to my SLR to be bulky?
Yes the IQ of the 4/3 range may be a bit less but I would accept that for the convenience. If quality is paramount then I would use the A77 anyway.
Sony A77 review:
"However, the somewhat mushy JPEG image quality, high noise levels and slightly laggy operation stop the A77 from getting a gold award. "
Silver award.
EOS 5 D MkIII conclusion:
"Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO"
Gold award.
Show some consistency DPR or lose credibility.
tkbslc: Why come out with a crop only 50mm lens? I know Pentax only makes crop cameras now, so wouldn't something like a 57 or 60mm make a lot more sense? Lots of people use 50's on a crop camera, but that's just because they were left over from film days. Who really wants a 75mm equivalent prime? It's just always felt a tad too short. 85-90mm equivalent would be much better even though it's only a few extra mm.
And I know Pentax has some great 70 and 77mm primes, but they already had a 50mm f1.4, too.
tkbslc I agree with you. The fact not just Pentax came out with a 50mm lens for aps-c cameras doesn't mean it is right. Sony brought one out some time ago and I said that was a missed opportunity to do it right and come out with a 60mm lens that would be equivalent to 90mm f.o.v on full frame. So is this.
People seem to have forgotten when aps-c first came out there were no lenses designed with the size of the sensor in mind and people used 50mm as a compromise because they were out there and fitted their new d-slrs. Not because it was in any way an ideal focal length because it isn't. The manufacturers need to get over their fascination for a focal length once sold as a standard lens (incorrectly, should have been about 40mm!) on 35mm film and start designing with the size of the sensor in mind.
Smartypants: I guess this is Sony's new kit lens. How many is that now?
It would be nice to see a lens or two or TEN that are good enough to stay in the line-up for a few years.
The old 85/f1.4 has been in the line-up since 2006 and its still good product, needs a new motor and sealings and other refreshes but it's still has good optics.
We need more lens like that and not a new ket lens each season like this one looks to be!
I agree. They need to stop covering the same ground and plug the gaps in the line up.
They can give up on SAM as well for me. What a backward step that was given it does not allow Dynamic Manual Focus unlike old screw drive or SSM lenses.
goodlensgoodlens: I don't get the concept of this: at the present moment I just select from my camera whether I want to shoot in colour or in B/W, how is this new model any better in terms of choosing the mode that I want to shoot in?
Maybe they should develop B/W glasses for the photographer too
"....But that doesn't mean the camera is worth buying unless it tests out to produce better B&W than the conventional digital camera."
This is the key point. This is only worth doing if the resulting images are clearly superior to ordinary digital cameras shooting in B&W mode or superior to colour images converted to B&W in PP.
With several cameras out there already with 24mp and 36mp sensors I suspect the gains due to lack of the colour filters will be offset by the higher resolution sensors.
Both this and the foveon solutions are far more elegant than the bayer approach but despite this bayer cameras are already producing stunning images at far less cost.
It will be interesting to see if this sensor is less demanding on lenses and technique or due to being "better" demands the same discipline. The Nikon D800 review makes the point about the demands high res sensors place and I see it to some extent with my Sony A77.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: So i want to have this leica... And reading the comments of the users... Can i just turn off the Af, and not use the video of my DSLR, ..put the dslr on manual mode...
Say my nikon d90 or d40x... Put a 20 or 24 0r 50mm prime...
Will i also, stop and take time to focus on what i am photographing?
Will such exercise give me the same feeling? Hhhmm...
Bevardis, I suggest you have a look through a Sony A77 or 65 EVF and try manual focusing through one of those. With the focus peaking feature and also the ability to magnify the image for manual focusing I reckon these cameras are the best cameras for manual focusing bar none. I have owned OM4's (100% f.o.v optical finder with interchangeable screens) , OM10's and used range-finder cameras and manual focusing my Sony A77 is easier than any of them.
645D: Make no sense to buy a DC lens when the FX lens are about the same price.
70-200 not useful on "DX"?
If you have a 16-80 and 70-300 lens combo on "DX" as I do them you are covered and then some in my opinion.
If you want speed then since when has F2.8 ever been fast at the focal lengths offered by this zoom?
Sigma have got too big for their boots in my opinion. 3rd party lenses sell because they are cheaper and sometimes different to what cameras makers offer.
Every time Sigma add OS to a lens the price goes through the roof.
Martin Gowar: A professional photographer friend of mine over here in England tells me that recently his faulty Nikon D1X was returned via Calumet from Nikon unrepaired, with a letter stating that as the camera was discontinued, no servicing was no longer available. The D1X was first launched in 2001.
On contacting Nikon about servicing his D3, (launched in 2007) he was told that Nikon will stop servicing this camera in 2016.
So it seems that Nikon have firmly embraced the 'throw away society' maxim to their (professional) products, and the philosophy is there for everybody to see : if your camera breaks down, buy another one - you know it makes sense.
Corporate greed personified.
Clint. In the days of film when cameras were mechanical for the most part pro's just got their cameras fixed by Canon or Nikon. Pro's preferred both the Nikon F1 (and F2, F2AS) and Canon F1 over more electronic cameras for a long time despite more electronic cameras coming out. I can remember when the Nikon F3 came and it went down a bit like a lead balloon because if the battery went it stopped working due to the electronic shutter.
But that is a bit beside the point. I think the point is Nikon (and Canon) need to keep the service support up for older cameras to keep their reputation as having a good service system in place. If pro cameras are just commodities like lesser models then why stick to Canon or Nikon?
Martin Gowar: A professional photographer friend of mine over here in England tells me that recently his faulty Nikon D1X was returned via Calumet from Nikon unrepaired, with a letter stating that as the camera was discontinued, no servicing was no longer available. The D1X was first launched in 2001.
On contacting Nikon about servicing his D3, (launched in 2007) he was told that Nikon will stop servicing this camera in 2016.
So it seems that Nikon have firmly embraced the 'throw away society' maxim to their (professional) products, and the philosophy is there for everybody to see : if your camera breaks down, buy another one - you know it makes sense.
Corporate greed personified.
Well I find it quite shocking Nikon cancels service support for its professional line of cameras so quickly. Did they used to do this back in the days of the Nikon F1 film cameras?
I thought the whole point of pro-grade cameras was not so much better image quality but how robust they were AND that you were buying into professional levels of support.
I do not consider the 9 year service life of a D3 a professional level of support. And it is only 9 years if you bought one on the day they were launched. If you were not an early adopter is much less.
I do not expect them to service Coolpix models forever but at the professional end of the scale I would expect decades of service to be available.