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.
@sporty the numbers (like 13.5) are in arbitrary units, please don't confuse them with stops of DR. Arbitrary units are such that twice the number means a stop better.
@BorisK1My formula allows to predict dynamic range assuming equal silicon technology and execution ability.
This assumption is reasonable for 645Z vs. D810 (same manufacturer and design team, i.e. Sony) but doesn't apply to CMOS vs. CCD (645D).
Image quality wise, I consider the 645Z to be on par, not better, than D810, because of the recent spectacular F1.4 lenses made available for it (Otus, Sigma Art) which have no peers for cropped medium format. The real value of the 645Z is the impression it can leave with a client.
As for DR of D810 vs. 645Z...
24*36 / 64 = 13.533x44 / 100 = 14.5 or 1/10 stop better.
I.e., DR should be considered equal until DxO comes up with full measurements.
nyer82: I knew this was possible... to have both sensor and optical stabilization and the camera decides how to implement them. It's really the best of all worlds. But whenever I brought it up, people screamed at me.
@straylightrunIf you have both systems, their combined effect cannot exceed that of the better of the two. You basically always switch off the worse of the two. If you would activate both dystems at full effect, they would actually perform slightly worse than no stabilization at all. I could explain all this in plenty detail but leave that as an exercise to you.
Of course, you can have both sensor and optical stabilization. But the sum of both effects must always be kept to 1, that's the nature of things technologically. So, if you have both, the camera must switch one of the two mechanisms off (the worse one if it has data for that to decide for a given shutter speed), of combine both with, e.g., half effect.
That's all pretty simple and basic stuff. I don't think people told you otherwise in the past.
Morten Rasmussen: Dpreview are Panasonic fanboys. You should consider this when you read their reviews.
What I mean is;
How come a camera that was launched so recently already gets a review and a very good one, when the Sony a5100, which, I may add, probably blows the LX100 out of the water, and is same size or smaller, doesn't get reviewed.
It's always the same when panasonic ships a new camera Dpreview is right there, but not so much with the other brands. One could get the impression that they benefit somehow.
The RX100/1-3 and now LX100 are reshaping the photo industry. How on earth can anybody think an a5100 is anywhere near as important? Moreover, it is MUCH BIGGER and worse with a 16-50 attached.
This P1 ugliness isn't it.
A mirrorless MF camera, e.g., with the 50MP 33x44mm CMS sensor found in the 645Z and sold for no more than what a D4s does cost, is a great idea though.
Job still listed as available at Hasselblad:http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/careers/design-engineer.aspx
Will probably become a chapter of donts in any design 101 book ...
Maybe, the article isn't the best introduction to what Mylio is about.
But still, I am wondering what could be the value proposition above, say SmugMug with its LR sync plugin and SmugView iOS app which is improving nicely recently. The latter is cheaper, with unlimited storage, very stable and trusted and much richer on features, yet easier to use.
Flat rate offers sound like a great thing, but somebody has to pay.
I'd rather like to see well executed offers with low TB per month prices, like a dollar or so.
falconeyes: DPR could have done a much better job when reporting this.
Let me fill in the missing facts:
1. 0.005 lux is -9 EV (almost exactly). The scene is pitch black dark indeed.
2. However, to judge the sensor, an EV figure w/o aperture and exposure time is meaningless.
3. According to Sony, it is F1.4, 1/60s exposure. -9 EV then requires ISO 6,000,000 to expose correctly. I.e., the image shown is ISO 6m.
4. That's 3.9 stop beyond e.g., the A7s highest iso level of 410k. But the image quality shown by Sony for a tiny 400x300 pixel image is terrible. While the A7s is still ok at 410k.
Therefore, no conclusion that this chip would be more sensitive than other sensors can be drawn from matrerial provided. Just marketing non info.
And btw, at quantum efficiencies already as high as 65% and read noise as low as 0.4 e- (A7s) rest assured that no miracles are left in this field if you cannot break the laws of nature.
@HowaboutRAW:I give up with you. Between you and people in the know, the gap is too large to communicate across if you don't try to learn.