absentaneous: I am amazed people still fall for such tricks. when I was a teenager my favorite artist was dali. I thought his surreal art was pure genius. when I grew up I changed my mind. now I find his art childish, empty and boring.
It's nothing to do with what I think of you. You see not appreciating Dali as some kind of growth, but perhaps you have lost what you once had, rather than become more.
To quote someone about art "this is art, not math. there is no 2+2=4 formula. there is no doing it right or doing it wrong."
"now I find his art childish, empty and boring."
Perhaps that says more about you and less about Dali. You are now an empty and boring adult, and have lost the wonder of youth. It's sad when that happens.
Three things I notice from these samples are well exposed shots, clean shadows, and lots of detail in the highlights. As someone who often uses a compact camera, that isn't a common combination. RAW would presumably give you another stop or two of latitude (though that is a guess) either way, and the high ISO looks pretty clean too. Impressive.
I'd love it if we could get to - as an example - the rugged X100.
Peiasdf: At some point, I think street photography went from creepy to stupid.
Wow, you turned into a singularly rude piece of work pretty quick Manuel, you must of been practising for years.
Kirppu: I share the dpreview opinion."This makes for a pretty mouth-watering package that looks very close to the Olympus PEN E-P5 at a distinctly lower price point"
Obviously I mean X-M1 rather than E-M1. Oops.
@marike6 http://camerasize.com/compare/#466,285 (look at the top views and compare the size/volume/weight - lack of a viewfinder is more forgivable in the E-M1). The K-01 also did not have a flip screen, and had a lower quality and resolution screen than the E-M1. Means you can often get that extra point of contact and stability you described, bright sunlight shooting isn't as big an issue as with the K-01 and the disadvantages have been cancelled out by the features of the E-M1 that the K-01 doesn't have.
meanwhile: I understand all the CC/cloud/Death to Adobe hoohaa, but ... how well does the Camera Shake Reduction feature work?
Why do people who understand what something is for, and understand why something occasionally happens (and likely has happened to them multiple times), constantly feel the need to crap on anyone who might find something useful? It's just unnecessary, and poor behaviour.
Yeah, I was kind of hoping to hear from one of those real people.
I understand all the CC/cloud/Death to Adobe hoohaa, but ... how well does the Camera Shake Reduction feature work?
RobertSigmund: My utter respect. Where can I still get this camera?
Juck, it's too heavy!
Just a Photographer: The same can be done in Paintshop Pro - No need to use Photoshop for this.
While DPreview is a large community mainly focussing upon amateur photographers (and single professionals) I would like to ask DPReview's editors to start focussing upon different software now Adobe doesn't want to serve the amateur photographer or smaller professionals anymore!.
Meaby this question is good for another poll
"And no, I don't need to write an article in order to properly demonstrate that or to put my opinion into words."
But you do need to if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Want to facilitate change? Then help.
Gu-raphics. Not Ji-raphics. He's messing with us.
FrankMendonca: I'm a full time professional who has used Photoshop for over 20 years...still have the complete set of like-new printed manuals for version 2.5. I've faithfully upgraded with every single new release. I tried to like Lightroom...for a few months. Hated it. I DO NOT appreciate Adobe's newest arrogant, greedy, money-grabbing scheme. I own my home...I don't rent it. I own my vehicles...I don't rent them. I own my computers...I don't rent them. I own every single piece of software on my computers...I don't "rent" any of it. As long as I can still use my version of CS6 as is, Adobe will never get another penny from me. The answers from Adobe in your above interview are what one would expect from any politician skilled at "photoshopping" the truth and lying to his constituents. Mr. Hendrickson should be ashamed of himself.
I'm a young pup, only since 3.0 here. Completely agree.
Matt: I like to own what I pay for. Period
Yes, but it's a perpetual license. Not temporary.
In other words "Adobe realises that photographers are annoying a**h*les and we have to pretend to bend over backwards to make them happy. We'd like to be rid of them really, and one day we'll work out a way we can get their money and have our way too."
joseluismx: The iPhone5 looks great. I'm a Galaxy S3 owner and I'm biased towards Android, but the landscape photo looks so much better from the iPhone than the rest. Every detail is better. The S4 has a weird defect, it seems. If you look at the left part of the horizontal thing from the crane, it looks almost blurred out. The iPhone renders it perfectly. Even the mountains in the background look great in the iPhone. The S4 seems to use too much NR even at base ISO, so the details are gone.
In the Portraits (sunlight) and flash photos, the iPhone seems to be overexposed.
If I wanted a camera-phone, I'd go with the iPhone. For everything else, I'd go with Samsung's features.
Does the iPhone have controls for flash strength? If yes, that could just be turned down so it's not so overpowering.
Alphoid: Good first pass at a review. Things that are clear missing: * Proper specification table. At the very least, this should include sensor size, min/max ISO, modes available (PASM), and RAW support. * Action shot. The core reason to use a telephone and not a camera is because it is with you. Do I get blur? * Comparison at identical and reasonable sizes (e.g. 4 real megapixels -- the resolution of a 27-30" monitor so the most you'll practically use, or even lower). Sinc scale all images to 2-4MP, and allow us to view with that as an option. * Low-light shot where you're limited by handshake. * Low-light shot where the 250x188 crop is effected by low-light (as you'd post on the web). * Some semblance of a test of the optical image stabilization. Without IS included in the test, the Samsung clearly wins. With IS, HTC might win.
In an ideal case, I could also view the images double-blind. You scale to ~3MP. I rank by quality. I find out which came from where later.
Sounds good, go for it.
bobbarber: The Nikon A is too expensive, and not sharp in the corners. The GR seems to have solved both of those problems, awaiting further review.
The images look very nice.
Could the Nikon just have a lens problem with the particular camera? The top left seems corner seems to below par compared to the rest of the corners, with the Nikon bottom right looking better to me than Ricoh. Could the Nikon lens be decentered?