TrojMacReady: Some hefty vertical banding in sunset shot #14, especially considering this was already downsampled a lot.
Exactly, so surprising. And the number 5? It shows the same quality as an 2008 phone camera.
Nice captures, but horrible photo quality. My Oly XZ-2 takes better pictures, really. I'm surprised, how's that possible??
This one is seriously sharp, especially for wide open.
This is very good, love the DR in this one!
Yes, with base ISO being 100 the 1/4000 sec limit is not a major problem. It's actually the same as with 1/8000 sec of D700 since it had a base ISO of 200.
I think that this is great for a SOC jpeg!
JaimeA: Reading the specifications we found out that this camera has NO image stabilization. Totally nuts if you like closeups, interior and night shots.
One of the best things about x100s was that I was able to shoot 1/10 sec hand held, shake free. No mirror slap to worry about, ability to use soft release buttons...
I would call this D650, not D750 ;) The shutter is coming from D610, I have no problem with sync time, expected durability or 1/4000 minimum, but I wonder whether the mirror mechanism is similar to D6xx or to D8xx (lag, blackout time). Good that the AF was upgraded and the weight is kept low despite of the solid build (better than D6xx). I will be waiting for a possibility to handle this camera.
Under The Sun: Not that I'm expecting much but I wonder how much improved the video quality is for this camera.
I was actually impressed by the video quality of x100s, of course I've used it only casually and my reference points were NikonD90 and a smartphone, that probably explains it.Moiré was not an issue, at least not bigger than it was with stills. And for stills it was horrid at times.
Roadrunner123: Quit crying about the battery and buy a spare or 4. They're really cheap. What I want to know is have they sorted the focus out? That's the most annoying point.
Yeah, there is no need to complain about battery if you have an assistant who will swap them every 3 to 4 hours in the charger at night.Same can be said about AF - first: it works, second: you can focus manually, so quit crying ;)
Sebit: 'T' as in Third time's the charm? I don't think so.
I had five batteries for my x100s ;) Yes, film was 36 shots a pack, but there was no need to recharge every roll for three hours before use ;) And I was getting between 70 and 150 shots from one charge. Coming from D700 1.5-2.5k shots from one charge... that added a lot to my frustration with Fuji.EyeFi was something I've planned and was trying to use daily, so it was an important feature for me... Disagree on the RAW problem being solved in Adobe Raw, too. That's not my opinion.
Yes, flash sync is a great feature (although I don't use flash), the silent operation, size and lens quality (with the flare handling seen as a lens signature, not flaw)... there is nothing on the market that can compare to x100 for me.
If the battery and speed issue has been improved somehow (as reported by early testers) then I'll be tempted to try again if Fuji will work for me...
theprehistorian: I find this disappointing. I liked the styling and general concept of the X100S, but the output from that weird 16MP sensor is an acquired taste to put it mildly, and the lens desperately needed improving to sort out its flare issues. This is a dreary, lazy update.
I would like them to go the X-E1/X-A1 way with the X100 line (X100T-A perhaps?). But I'm afraid it's not going to happen.
Fuji improved something like 70 things going from x100 to x100s, but it was still left with slow operation (slow start up time, problems with waking from sleep, shot to shot time too long, lens adjustments during AF taking too long, and for example it took two seconds to go from power off to Q menu change for example), mediocre battery life, rear command dial working erratically, power switch that was too loose - constantly switching the camera on while it was in my bag, support for EyeFi was highly disappointing, RAW support disappointing (since I'm not an Mac user and the Irident seems to be the only reasonable option, Lightroom makes X100s a blur/artefact machine), RAWs being too big (since they are uncompressed), etc.These are lovely cameras, and I really love the concept behind them (one of my all time favourites was Konica Hexar AF, film camera similar to x100), but the implementation is still far from being ok. At least for someone used to full frame SLRs.
'T' as in Third time's the charm? I don't think so.
zeyno44: Hi Everyone, Either I am losing my mind or just hallucinating things. Please help me here. I have (thought) seen a film camera made by Olympus not the 35mm film, but an APS (Advantix) film camera which had an LCD, that allows you to pre-order the number of prints from the LCD menu. I've seen it somewhere in Miami (Doral area, October 2001~) at a local camera shop. Just once. Never went there again.Has anyone else seen something like this, or do you know what I am talking about?Or was this just my imagination? P.S. I am not crazy (yet)
This was a basic feature of APS cameras, achieved through the use of IX system storing basic information for each frame on the magnetic strip. This information included time and date, format (each frame was recorded in full format on film, but prints had the correct format, chosen by the photographer prior to exposure - C, H, P), number of prints, light level etc. I've had a Canon Ixus camera with such function.
cjcampbell: As someone who has spent much of his life in volunteer disaster relief (and has the trashed camera equipment to prove it) I can sympathize with the point of this ad campaign. I was in the Philippines when Typhoon Damrey rolled right over the top of us, but news of the disaster was completely eclipsed by coverage of Hurricane Katrina which hit on the same day. Photographing damage at a farmer's market, someone shouted at me, "Take one for the BBC!" Of course, the BBC (and every other news organization) was uninterested despite the fact that Damrey was actually the more serious storm.
Would a few "likes" have helped? I doubt it. When you are standing up to your neck in water and the roof of your house is gone and your daughter just gave birth prematurely because of the stress, it is easy to feel bitter about the millions who "liked" but did nothing.
Clicking "like" salves your conscience for a few moments, making you feel good about yourself for having done nothing.
I don't really get the point of "like salving a conscience". What an immature concept. Likes help to spread information and raise the awareness. That's all. Feeling bitter about "likes"? What a waste of emotion. What about the news viewers? Billions of them bored with yet another disaster news, flicking through channels to find something merrier.
balios: How many people did those photos and the ad campaign help? How many people did this article on DPreview help? None directly. But it raised awareness of the issues, just like "liking" a Facebook page does. Not everyone has the time, money, or desire to help every good cause in the world. But by helping to spread the word then maybe somebody who does will get the message.
@JaFOIf you think that the only people in need are on the other end of the world, try looking around you. Ask your neighbour, co-worker, fellow commuter. I suppose you're in for a great surprise. And these are people you can actually help. If you don't have time to speak to them from time to time, get them to tell you what they truly need and often fear to ask, try to look at the requests your fb "friends"/"friends of friends" are posting or liking. You'll find many requests for help which you can actually deliver. If you think that you are able to help someone on the other end of the world directly, arrange that and make it happen, then see what is more rational and effective - helping a friends friend, or helping someone on the other end of the world. Then you'll be wiser about spreading the word.
Digitall: Great campaign. Indeed. This shows how cynical are social networks. The social has nothing, or very little. Social networks have become commercial networks. Unfortunately.
How untrue. Owners do it for the money, perhaps users are cynical, but the idea of a social network isn't. Fb made me aware of a number of people requesting for help. Lliking is a part of the process of spreading the news on social nets. The actions we can potentially take to actually help may differ, from donating to participating, depending on our abilities. I've looked for help, too, finding volunteers ready to donate blood for my father. It was possible partly because many, not able to help personally, "liked" my post which asked for donation, making it visible for a wider audience. This campaign is a failure, because it's being widely misinterpreted as condemning the mechanism of "liking", while the true intent probably was to make people aware they should aim to take real action more frequently. The statement "Liking Isn't Helping" just isn't true. It helps spread the word, thus "liking" is helping completely independently from any real actions taken, and that's a proven fact.
danny006: I think they try to stop the illegal download of photoshop, a smart move I must say.
Quote from Q&A with Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, Winston Hendrickson (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc):
Q: Is a subscription model less prone to piracy?
A: While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products. (...)
Octane: None of the options truly express how I feel about it. And none of the three articles on Adobe's move are in any way critical or reflect how users feel. But I'm not surprised. Let's just be honest here, DPReview isn't a journalistic based news source, it is a marketing tool for a very large reseller (Amazon). It's purpose is to generate traffic and get people interested in buying products. Negative reporting doesn't get people in the mood to buy things. Don't expect to see actual journalism here, don't expect hard questions or truly critical articles. This site doesn't serve users, it serves Amazon.
Then why not express your feelings, instead of bashing the site which gives you a chance to give your opinion on the matter?