stoffer: Full frame?
DX, so APS-C.
RichRMA: I HATE the white background on most web pages. It strains the eyes. White text on black is better, I wish more websites used it.
Now we know what WWIII will be fought over.
Tons o Glass 0 Class: White text on black background, black text on white background - let's just meet in the middle with grey text on a grey background.
Many thanks to all of the DPR staff. I for one thoroughly enjoy this site. It's as if it's made just for me.
Everything is exposed to the right and you can pull the information from the shadows.
Lettermanian: For what it's worth, I thought it looked fine. Easy to read, straightforward layout, good for a general consumer-knowledge article. I wouldn't want to see the whole site remade like this (way too much scrolling with the large font), but if it's for feature articles, I'm fine with it.
Could you imagine if the entire site was built like this? Don't worry. It won't. :)
Henrik Herranen: Hmmh, 4K article with text size fit for 480p... :-)
Anyhow, I read page 1; found some errors:1) Blu-Ray, not Blue Ray.2) The first two duck images images are not even remotely to scale. 480p is demonstrated by an image 90 pixels high, while the 720p image is 240 pixels high. 480/90 = 5.3, and 720/240 = 3. Stopped reading there.
Thanks for pointing both of those out.
When I was doing the math for the duck shots it made sense but I was wrong. It's fixed now, 480p --> 720p = x2 horizontal resolution, 4:3 --> 16:9.
cactustweeter: I have always liked DP Review dark background. It's so much easier on the eyes. So no I do not like the light background especially when reading at night in a darkroom. The light background seems to be harder on my eyes.
Thanks for your feedback.
Greynerd: One computer I had contained a 386SX processor that was billed as 'future proof'. It was in fact just a bodge before the Pentium came out very quickly to render it utterly and instantly obsolete. You have to laugh at all this marketing hype.A good rule of thumb is if you see the word 'future proof' in any article beware, you are reading marketing puff.
Edit: Most marketing people have a tenuous enough grasp of reality in the modern world we live in let alone the future world.
Depends on what you plan to get out of future-proofing. If you buy a computer expecting to future-proof yourself at least for the next 6-12 months, then you're good. No one should go in with the expectation they'll never need to buy a new piece of technology ever again, especially at the rate technology is moving these days.
Alpha Photo: ".... Just imagine if you had continued to shoot in standard definition up until the moment that everyone finally had an HD television. Who would want to watch that crunchy, mushy low-resolution content today? ...."
That's where I stopped reading. ALL MOVIES PRIOR TO 2000 where shot on film at much lower resolution. And yes, I (and many other people) love watching that "mushy stuff" - cause it is CONTENT THAT COUNTS, not resolution.
There is nothing worse than un-editied, unstabilized amateur video. I shudder at the thought to watch my friends un-edited, un-shortened, shaky family vacation videos in full 4k, hahahahaha :)
Sure, that was the case when comparing 1080p and its predecessor. Nowadays no one except the big budget flicks are shooting film, so your options are either continue shooting in 2K or adopting 4K if you have the means (or 5K or 6K if you have access to that, though not the audience for this piece).
Unedited, unstabilized amateur video will still look better at 4K downsampled to 1080p vs straight up 1080p.
mxx: A question about white screen backgrounds: Doesn't it consume more power than a black background? Especially when screens keep on getting bigger?
Even if it did, it's negligible.
jkokich: 4K has nothing to do with the size of a picture, so why compare it to other standards by showing different sizes?
It's to demonstrate the relative amount of detail you'd see. The images could've been resized to the same size, but then the 480p image would be a pile of mush (not too far from reality on today's TVs though...).
surlezi: This long awaited review is already buried below 6 minor news (LR update, D5 possibility in an unknown future, G5X gallery...)...It doesn't even make the headline because it's occupied by roundups announcement.
Those pretending DPR favors Sony have noticed, of course.
Yup. Tin foil hats on!
But truthfully we try to highlight larger pieces of content like this for a few days after publication because as you saw, things get buried by the mundane and trivial (don't hate me, Nikon!). :P
It's featured on top at the moment...
fuesting: Could the model just have small hands?
Nope. It's big.
wootpile: Cudos to Sony for leading the way. I am positive it will render quite superb images. very silly however to have a extendable viewfinder. What a hassle on such an expensive body. If fuji can... why can't canon just pop in a fixed, usable viewfinder, right there on the left side?
Look at the back of the RX1R II. There's no room for a built-in viewfinder like the X100 series. The camera would have to be that much bigger and having used the two, the X100 series is noticeably bulkier in your hand (relative to the Sony).
eno2: I profoundly dislike the new photo gallery and above all the fact that your default images are converted from ACR. It's also very confusing that, the images on which you write RAW are actually jpg's from the camera.You should make a very simple gallery with in camera jpeg's and the possibility to download the raw's.
We've got an outstanding bug that needs to be fixed for Raw file association. You're right that the Raw files should be associated with the ACR conversions.
We convert the Raw files for easy comparison of what the camera produces and what the scene should have looked like / what the photographer intended for the scene to look like. Not everyone has time to download and play around with the Raw files and sometimes we're using unreleased versions of ACR so the public wouldn't be able to work with them anyways.
zzzxtreme: I reckon i can copy jpegs from other cameras into the Snap, and have it print?
Cause Snap is way cheaper than Instax, SP1 and LG printer
Sounds reasonable. From the looks of it you'll have to plan ahead as there's no LCD so how you choose which picture to print is unclear. Might be a print only the last image taken operation. :\
Marcelo Gejman: How do you get additional paper to be used with the camera?
You can purchase ZINK paper from places likes Amazon. Their latest price was ~$30 USD for 100 shots.
astorson: does it work like a regular printer to? (usb/bluetooth or wifi)
At least from the press release, it does not appear to. More of an in-the-moment kind of product.
Gollan: No mention of the cost of the ZINK paper, a rather important data point for consideration of this product. Outside of people who have fond memories of the Polaroid Instamatic cameras, I am trying to think of a target market for this device. If people want to share photos they can transfer them by email or NFC (near field communication). If people want prints, a decent quality wireless photo printer can be had for around the price of this camera (and I'm confident the per-print cost would be significantly lower).
@Gollan: The ZINK paper is already for purchase, unless they're using a different format from the rest of the 2x3" printers out there. A quick search on Amazon.com has 100 sheets for $30. Not terribly expensive (not cheap either, of course).
GothamMutt: Umm ... just upgraded to 7.5 I don't see this "format icon" Instagram speaks of. What did I miss?
Probably a staggered rollout, just in case something goes wrong. Standard operating procedure when you're rolling features out to hundreds of millions of users.