I've started using my G1X II for casual travel shots where absolute image quality was not the highest priority. There is always a trade off, but there is less of a trade off with this camera than many point and shoots. I was at the EMP Museum in Seattle this weekend, and took some shots in very low light situations (No flash is allowed). I did not use raw, since I was just taking some snapshots. I'll be interested in seeing how they come out, a first look was encouraging, considering that some of the lighting was so low that I could not see details.
Kabalyero: Timer just reached zero...nothing happened. Am i missing something?
The timer is a simple thing, programmed by a kid at the ad agency. It does not take into account other time zones, so depending on the time zone, you see a different time. Poorly Done! I hope what they are advertising is better!!
In that Canon interview, here is what they say:
"Currently no Canon camera offers more than 22MP. Do your DSLR customers ask for higher resolution?
Yes. We know that many of our customers need more resolution and this is under consideration. In the very near future you can expect us to show something in terms of mirrorless and also a higher resolution sensor.
The very near future is only 13 hours and 22 minutes from now here on the West Coast."
///M: complete with ashtray
It was a financial hit for the airlines to allow smoking, but they were afraid of passenger reactions if they banned it. It was easier to wait and let the FAA do what they all wanted.
Air from the passenger cabin was circulated thru the electronics boxes to provide cooling. The innards of the boxes became coated with tar and debris that stuck to it so that it made repairs either very expensive, or impossible. Those electronic boxes are very expensive, so it was a big money saver when smoking went away. The entire airplane interior eventually became coated with the gunk and they installed new interiors periodically.
I worked at Boeing right across from Boeing Field when the first 747 came in, and got to see it frequently and go thru it extensively.
Then, many years later, RA001 was fired up again with a 777 engine replacing one of the regular engines to verify that there were no issues in real world flight, and to find them before the first 777 flight. That test had been demanded by Boeing and resisted by the engine maker who thought enough testing had been done. It turned out to be a good thing, because the engine surged on takeoff, which means it made a huge backfire, something completely unacceptable. The issue was determined, the engine beefed up around the fan, and the problem was fixed in time.
One goal was to have the 777 certified for ETOPS, which meant long trips over water far from land. With only two engines, they had to be ultra reliable, and went thru numerous torture tests.
David Hull: What is with that fold out screen? At least that is one thing that Canon does right.
My Canon G1X MK II has a similar fold out screen. It is definitely better than the kludge swing out screen on my G1X MK I and other older Canon bodies like the 70D. Its stronger and faster to use, and it can be made larger since it does not require so much supporting tsructure. I don't think the Nikon screen is quite as versatile, but its close.
Expect to see the swing up screens on more cameras. They really are bigger, better and stronger.
I stopped shipping from my small business to Canada long ago. There were too many packages that ended up disappearing. I could track them as far as Ontario then no more.
joeybob: Did Ian shoot that with a D800 or a 5DMKIII ?
Huh? What? - Film?
What the heck is that?!?
I was shooting about that time, and slide film was either ISO 5 or 10. It was a struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion. Amazing how we have selective memories.
I worked (For Boeing) right across the street from the Flight Center when it first flew down from Everett. Naturally, I made several trips across the street to look it over, inside and out.
I remember that they had built a ramp for the nose to run up on as it pulled into the B-52 Hangar. By raising the nose, it lowered the tail enough to be able to clear the hangar doors.
There was some black plastic pipe routed in the ceiling, that said "Sears Best" on it. It might have been added by flight test.
It had a lot of flight test equipment as well as ballast tanks so that water could be pumped around to shift the weight.
Electronic equipment was still less than reliable then. On one of the first flights, the New Inertial Navigation system shut down (all three systems) while out over the Olympic Peninsula, and the crew had to use the "Whisky Compass" which was a ordinary magnetic compass that folded down from over the windshield. Obviously, they found their way home to Everett.
So, can I patent using f/8 to take photos? How about all the other apertures?
I have my own product photography light table setup, maybe I'll file for a patent.
The precedent set is that we could have almost every aspect of photography lighting patented, since it does not seem to matter if its been done for 50 years, or 100, for that matter.
A certain patent examiner needs to find honest work.
Are any of them now tall enough to use without putting the center column up and losing most of the anti vibration effects needed in a tripod?
I guess that when all cameras have tilting lcd's, we won't need tall, but for now, I want something to bring my camera to eye level and still be stable enough to use for a long exposure.
I like the new scene, it gives me the option to compare so many parameters of the cameras.
For example, the colors and saturation of the Fujii X-M1 are darker except for the blues where they are lighter. I'd think this could be fixed in post processing, so its a question as to just how much correction of the image is done.
One of the sad things is the loss of high tech. Kodak had a wonderful research team that invented some very innovative things.
The problem was that management could not see their potential and the need to pull out all the stops to develop them, not believing that film sales would drop like a rock. Almost any photographer could have told them what was going to happen.
Another sad loss was Bell Labs, the patents, research, and inventions are now done in China.
My First Digital Camera was a Fujiifilm MX-700 that I bought in 1998. 2.2 mp, and for the time was among the best. We had a Olympus C-860L? A battery eater, but it was a great camera.
I replaced the Fujifilm with a Nikon CP-990, and later with the first Canon Rebel DSLR.
A few years ago, I bought a used Kodak DCS460D from 1995. Its original $35,000 price was out of ordinary mortal reach, but I paid $100.
There are a lot of Mirrorless Cameras hitting the market. Those with new lenses are a concern because a DSLR owner would have to keep two different but expensive lens systems.
This is going to cause some fallout. Companies are going to drop some models or even systems. The micro 4/3 systems have a nice advantage, lots of different lenses that fit cameras from different manufacturers, so even if a manufacturer drops micro 4/3, there are still makers in business.
Cannon has obviously been hurting with their "M" system, and have flooded the market with low priced deals in order to buy a share. We'll find out in a couple of years or sooner if that strategy works.
Photo-Wiz: I just tried ACDSEE Pro 6. It purports to be non-destructive of the original image. But when I did a Clone on one Jpeg, it made a permanent change to the original image. Is this non-destructive?
Yes, it saves the original in a sub folder, so you have twice the amount of disk space used. Not very efficient.
Fortunately, you can turn it off. I use ACDSEE for jpegs only when I am working on a quick and dirty image, like a craigslist photo and don't want the original version around.
I'm wondering if voters voted on a camera they own, or just on specifications. I've owned two of the three top contenders.
Opinions are fine, but sales would be a indication of people who actually vote by plunking down their hard earned dollars.
shaocaholica: Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?
When using phase detect, the camera body calculates the proper position for the lens to be in focus and tells it to go there. If the lens goes to some other point, there is front or back focus. Accurate AF depends on the lens moving to the focus point as directed. When they do not, its a problem.
I suspect that the reason for the narrow text column is due to those using a phone or other narrow mobile device to read it. It would be nice to have the option for a wider text column.
Many of the other posts have already hit on the high contrast. I changed mine to yellow, but its really the high contrast and not the color that gets me.
Scales USA: I am a bit concerned. Some of their conclusions regarding lenses just do not seem to be valid.
Like all others, they test lenses mounted to cameras, and then, only a small sample. The lens to lens variation and camera to camera variation leaves me wanting a real test of a lens. I am interested in seeing more information about their testing, but the single resolution figure for a lens on their site leavs me wondering.
I am hoping that they obtain the technology to first properly adjust a lens before testing it, as well as test a significant sampling. Otherwise, its just one data point, and not worth making a big deal out of it.
I'm certainly reserving any opinion until I have a chance to see a few reviews and compare the results with other lens testers. I'm glad to see that your widget will be used, and that DXO will be testing more than one sample - 10 or more from different lots would be nice, but, as long as samples are not from tha same production lot, its better than just one. Also happy that someone will provide expert commentary and a real world test of reasonableness. That is lacking in the current setup.