falconeyes: Another Lightroom without the raw conversion. Why do we need this?Why couldn't Alien Skin improve on their core competence which is Special Effects?
Yes, it does raw convert a few select cameras. Like A7, but not A7mkII or A6000. I couldn'tfind a statement about the quality of raw conversion too.
Another Lightroom without the raw conversion. Why do we need this?Why couldn't Alien Skin improve on their core competence which is Special Effects?
falconeyes: Forget the story.This is all about a 99$ mini printer turning any smartphone into a polaroid camera.
Thanks for the link, I was wondering too. Or the popular Instax printer, which is bigger and more expensive though. Some kickstarters are just great shopping opportunities and this seems to be one of them.
Which turns the campaign into a simple ad, and news outlets reporting about it into providers of free advertizement.
Forget the story.This is all about a 99$ mini printer turning any smartphone into a polaroid camera.
The layout of that article is unreadable.
1. It hurts the eye when switching
3. The font is so large that the page becomes too long to be enyoyable
It would be better to support a user-selected CSS in the profile, or just stick to a single default. It is a problem already with the Connect site.
The only reason I can figure out for such a desperate announcement is the Leica SL. Which must worry Nikon more than I thought.
Unfortunately, the announcement (giving a name, D5, and fact to become the next top-level again), confirms a sad thing: Nikon still does not innovate. If I had $7000 to spend for a next body, the SL suddenly looks rather tempting after this announcement ;)
Of course, my logic is flawed. I assume a SL cannot replace a D4s in 90% of cases. However, it may still appeal to current owners of a D4. I agree that I may be completely wrong. Yet, this empty and unprepared move by Nikon makes me wonder ...
@Rooru,going by the same logic, D4s can't do 24MP or 4k video, D4s isn't a competitor.Of course, they are. They are targeted at the same audience of $7000 pro shooters. Of course, Nikon will sell better. Still, I am puzzled by the temporal coincidence of the two announcements (Leica and Nikon).
@blackcoffee17Its the self-declared pro body and sports/wildlife is only a part of it. The part that's also asking for the D400 ;)
I cannot but wonder about this particular moment in time for such an empty press release.
@marc,I handled both the A7rII and SL. And the A7 feels too much like a toy to compete against the D4s. Moreover, a rather wait for real tests to judge if the Leica lens is good enough or not.
Nikon did this desperate announcement, not me.And I obviously talk about event photography, not wildlife/sports.
Calling it D5 and with external transmitter is an incremental update only. More MP, more AF points, more fps and that's it.
Canon and Sony have no new product to compete with the D4s. Leica has.
Androole: It seems equivalence is unkind to larger sensors as well as to small ones.
"$1500 for a 28mm f2.8? Who would ever buy that?"
It's perhaps an exaggeration, but it does say something that despite the 645Z's bargain price tag as far as digital medium format is concerned, it's still not a great value proposition unless you really, really need it. Especially since the 5DS has the same resolution, and the A7r II (and undoubtedly the D820) are nipping close at its heels.
@Rich, I did not say any camera does. I said more ideal cameras should. Higher iso images needing more storage than lower iso images is an artefact of bad camera electronics (adding readout noise). In the above, I explained why.
Therefore, higher iso producing larger raw should not be used to illustrate any argument. As it is not an inherent property of digital imaging.
@Rich, I fear you did not grasp the point I was making.Of course, less noise allows for better compression, lossless or lossy. That's almost trivial. My point was that an image at lower iso (which appears cleaner) does in fact have both more noise and more signal. And would require more data to store losselssly compressed.
Rich, you are right. But it always puzzled me. An iso 100 file would contain more noise than an iso 1600 file (and more signal, of course). It simply would contain more bits per pixel, both signal AND noise. And still, it is smaller even if uncompressed. Probably, it is from the analog iso amplification before ADC which adds noise (smears the discrete quantization steps with signals from a few captured electrons). I assume that soon enough, iso 100 files will be larger than iso 1600 raw files (where iso 1600 after elimination of readout noise will have become smaller, iso 100 remained about the same).
mmarian: It appears to be a great lens based on the specs. But quite honestly I never fully understood the so called MF hype because tyey are not MF. The MF term comes from past times. The MF term described the size of image on 120mm size roll film. All cameras which were using that film were called MEDIUM FORMAT cameras. The size of the MF was either 6cmx4.5cm or precisely 56x42.5mm ( such as Mamyi 645) or 6cmx6cm (Hasselblad ) which was 56x56mm or 6cmx7cm which was 56x68mm (Mamyia 67). These days however for some obscure reason anything larger than 35mm FF sensor is called MF. Why, I do not understand. The only sensor I know which trully represents the smallest of what used to be a genuine MF is the PhaseOne 80MP back with sensor size only slightly smaler than 56x42.5mm. Everything else is just a bit of BS and marketing jargon and it has nothing to do with true MF as we knew it. Anyway, this new lens just prompted me to have a bit of a winge but that is not to take anything from the fact that this should be a great lens even for the times when we might actually see a true MF size sensors and cameras for afordable prices.
To simplify discussion, one should probably agree MF to mean 4:3 56mm x 42mm format with *exactly* 70mm image circle or 0.62 crop factor (vs. "full frame"). (if nothing else is said)
All smaller formats with an MF mount should probably be called "cropped MF". The 645Z is a cropped MF body (55mm/70mm). This 35mm/3.5 lens is an MF lens, not a cropped one.
Smaller formats with a non-MF mount need a new name. E.g., Leica's term for 3:2 45mm x 30mm (54mm) or 0.8 crop is "ProFormat" or PF.
BTW The L mount (Leica TL, SL) has a larger diameter than E mount (Sony FE). So, I wonder if it doesn't support PF and we're going to see "PL" lenses (pro format l mount).
Well, equivalence isn't that unkind.
First, the lens is a DFA645 lenses which is for a mount with 0.62 crop factor. Which makes the lens a 22mm F/2.2 equivalent. The 645Z only uses a crop of it but that isn't the lens' fault.
Second, it is potentially much sharper across the frame fully open than any 22mm/2.2 full frame lens out there. Only tests would tell the whole story. But e.g., a Zeiss Otus lens is an expensive beast ...
The one underlying invention here is the application of Quantum dot photodetectors (QDPs). Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot#Photodetector_devices
It is an interesting and promising technology and I actually believe it will be in widespread use as soon as cost is well controlled. Not necessarily from InVisage but who cares ...
Unfortunately, the effect will be less revolutionary because quantum efficiency is rather high already. I anticipate the biggest impact for a more efficient color separation (smaller QDPs absorb smaller wavelength more efficiently). A Foveon-kind architecture with SNR better, not worse than Bayer. And global shutters are high on the agenda too, of course. But rolling shutters with faster read-out speeds can simulate a global shutter really well.
A background article by DPR about QDPs would be nice.
Doctor J: All this drooling over the quality of the Leica lens, but in fact it is a highly under-corrected optical design where the distortion and fall-off are corrected in software. Seems a bit cheap and nasty for a camera with that sort of price tag.
Ask Leica.Maybe, because there are many anolog Leica M cameras?Moreover, a firmware correction may serve as a cost cutting measure. Or to enable better correction of remaining aberrations than would have been feasible otherwise.
petr marek: The continuous denial of any full RGB sensor Sigma/Foveon camera for various funny reasons, especially in studio comparsion scene makes me laugh...What will dpreview do, when future cameras will end up (and they will :)!) with layered sensors?For now, dear photofriends, we can get insight into Quattro image quality at dpreview comparsion scene this way: select Pentax K-3 II with pixel shift...Get it?:)
> select Pentax K-3 II with pixel shift...
Pentax pixel shift simulates an ideal sensor (wrt color capture). It has full color separation in space (full resolution) and spectrum (tristimulus color filters). The quattros or original foveon don't.
In this age, a state of the art optical design makes different trade-offs than previous designs. You now trade distortion and lateral CA (which are both better treated in firmware) for better contrast, longitudinal CA and (corner) sharpness than possible before.