Aur: Sigma and Carl Zeiss need to force Nikon and Canon to open their autofocus patents or drop them stone cold. Many people have a bad experience with Sigma autofocus and never buy one again.
I remember Carl Zeiss ranting about it a few years ago when a person asked why none of their lenses for Nikon autofocus. Their response was one of anger with Nikon and Canon, Nikon and Canon refuse to let any other manufacturer use their autofucs system.
Sigma and Car Zeiss should make it clear to Nikon and Canon and they're not the ones with dropping sales and losses. Nikon and Canon are more irrelevant every day and Sigma and Carl Zeiss have many other avenues and OEM who aren't stupid and who do allow them to access their autofocus system.
It could be worth a DPR article ...
IIRC, the Japanese optical industry has decided NOT to license patents to anybody outside Japan after some lost legal battle (about autofocus, I believe) with some US corporation.
This leaves Sigma building AF lenses while Zeiss and Samyang don't.
The camera market belongs to China.
The only things which will remain strong outside of China are:- optics (which saves companies with proprietary mounts (FE, F, EF, K)- image sensors (Sony)- high end pro bodies
It is simply too easy to build, e.g., a good mFT body to have any defense line against China. It has happened before, when Japan took over the German camera industry.
Yxa: Why is it called Super 35 its smaller than the still 35mmIt should be called sub par 35 (that would be more true)
@Yxa, the only one promoting confusion is you.Super 35mm is a standard size in video just like 35mm in still. The fact you didn't know it doesn't mean anybody tries to confuse you.
Eric Nepean: Capture One Pro is another good alternative. In the big picture, I think vendors should separate the DAM function from the editing function, allow various editors to plugin into a DAM framework which not only manages the images but also the editing history. IMO Apples problem with Aperture was that they had a very good DAM solution but couldn't keep up the pace regarding editor and RAW conversion features.
@Eric, you are correct, that could be done. But you would have no access to editing meta information except by opening the editor.I believe i like the current approach by LR better. It is no full DAM tool, just images and a tad movies. But I can avoid the cluttering of sidecars and I can open its database with open source tools. It allows me to manipulate images which are offline, something I do depend on on the road and a less integrated tool wouldn't allow me to do.Any editor opened from LR could write its editing history into the LR catalog (or a sidecar), so most of what you suggest is there already.I see where you are coming from but at the end of the day, you would still depend on a single DAM tool when it comes to your meta data. So again, we would need some standards first.
Provia_fan: Current experience with Serif software for image editing as a user and teacher is a no go folks.Stick to Adobe. Crashes behind crashes and weird memory bugs, plus memory munching for the simplest of things. Stick to Adobe.My two cents worth.
@Provia_fanSoftware isn't patentable, not according to EU law which is applicable to Serif from Nottingham, UK. Moreover, code which handles CMYK can be written by any IT professional with a proper degree.While your experience with PhotoPlus is valuable and worrysome wrt Affinity Photo (AP), I assume AP is a complete rewrite based on prior experience with things like PhotoPlus. Let's hope they learned their lesson.
P.S.Innovative enough algorithms are patentable, even in the EU. Things like the SIFT key extraction in panorama software. But they must be licensed by anybody, Adobe included ...
Glen Barrington: I wonder how this differs from Photo Plus?
From what I see from Serif documentation about PhotoPlus, Affinity Photo and Photo Plus are two entirely different beasts!
Photo Plus is an express tool for amateur photograhers, more like the Develop module of LR if at all.
Affinity Photo is meant to replace PS for people now using PS.
waffel and co: People just like to stick to what they know but never really give a new process a fair go and even when they do most refuse to grow with it. Photoshop promotes mediocrity but most here feel safe within those confines it is just easier hence the anti smartphone as a photographic toll cult
I disagree. PS is extremely powerful and only true masters of PS know all of its power and are able to compare. E.g., Gimp is a far cry from PS. That's why it has been so unlikely anything replaces PS anytime soon. This is what makes me excited about Affinity. The first time I see a serious attempt to match the complexity of PS over time.
C1 Pro would be an alternative to LR, not PS, I guess.
The real challenge is a PS competitor because PS is so complex. LR is fairly cheap to reprogram. What's exciting about Affinity is that they decided to compete with Adobe head to head, rather than escape their competition into a niche.
BTW, there is no standard for editing history. Therefore, you cannot decouple destruction-free editing from the archiving part. Well, a vendor could spread it across products, but you can't spread across vendors. Theoretically, you could use XMP sidecars or DNG. But that's Adobe then.
spontaneousservices: Can it do focus stacking? and "panorama" stitching?
Focus stacking and pano stitching is better left to specialist apps like Helicon and Kolor Autopano - even if one owns PS.
OLD NEWS FROM 2010
(as posted by "Just a Photographer" below)DPR should add a note to its article that Canon recycled 54 month old news at CP+.
light_bulb: What they did not tell is that this sensor has been designed on behalf of the NSA.
Good find, I repeat the comment higher up.
I gave the beta a try.I actually recommend all PS users to do the same.
This Affinity Photo actually is a clone attempt of Photoshop. It does lack a few features (3D, movie editing from the Extended version, I am not sure about scripts). But it comes close, with PS plugin support (however, I didn't have much luck yet with my plugins), layer effects, loadable brushes. It even has a content aware fill.
And the user interface looks very PS like, including shortcuts.
My impression is very good. Assuming the plugin problems were just mine or will be fixed, I guess photographers would need very little beyond this a a raw converter. Perfect companion to LR. Much more than Adobe's CC photo subscription.
falconeyes: @RishiI was surprised to see the AF modules placed physically differently enough one can see it with the naked eye. I assume a 1mm difference here.However, any change in optical path length cannot play a role here. The exact position is calibrated in firmware with about 50 micron precision (or better). This is 1/20 of the visible difference.
Therefore, the correlation between AF front focussing and AF placement is by pure accident (there was a 50% chance you found it this way rather than the other one).
you clearly marked it speculation and as such, it is a valid one.I just wanted to express that it is less likely than it may initially appear, because of the differences of scales involved. But it may still have some second order effect.
Really, AF modules shouldn't be placed diffently enough one can see it. That worries me. So yes, leave your speculation :)
The shutter and mirror is the source of many problems, like shutter blur. Now we learn the AF be better masked by a shield when the mirror is up (like D610 seems to do). But this will just add to mirror shock which is to be minimized otoh. Seems, SLR mechanics still isn't fully mature after 40 years of development;)
@RishiI was surprised to see the AF modules placed physically differently enough one can see it with the naked eye. I assume a 1mm difference here.However, any change in optical path length cannot play a role here. The exact position is calibrated in firmware with about 50 micron precision (or better). This is 1/20 of the visible difference.
Further reading about Phase Fresnel
(by Nikon themselves, incl. remarks about possible flare and how to treat it in their NX-D software)
That this is indeed an official press release says everything about the state of affairs Pentax is in ATM...
sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.
@BorisK1:> You put my name on top of HowaboutRAW's text. Why?
Boris, my sincere apologies. It was my mistake, was supposed to read "@HowaboutRAW" instead. Sorry, Falk
@BorisK>The D800 is famous for having a pretty steep DR drop above ISO 200ish. Whereas the D810 doesn't have this problem.
This claim by you is utterly nonsense. To a point I'll ignore further posts from you.
@HowaboutRAW What are you talking about? For ISO 200+, the D800 maintains DR over ISO exactly as good as physics allows for. And at ISO 100, it actually could be a tad better even. The upper limit for DR is proportional to 1/ISO. Of course, a camera can do worse for select values of ISO.