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!
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?
Nice to see Nikon's attempt at APS-C compact, hope the next iteration will be something for me, because this clearly is not:
1. @28mm it's wider than I would prefer for single focal length camera. And being 18.5/2.8 it's equivalent of 28/4, which takes away some of the DOF advantage of the APS-C sensor.
2. No Hybrid AF, just contrast detect (it's typical seeing the press release not even mentioning AF - clearly nothing for the marketing department there ;) ).
3. It's small, but still bigger than NEX cameras. NEX-5R & 20/2.8 is $899 (bought separately), and it is probably smaller. With PDAF, and optional OVF (~$100) or EVF (~$230) AND interchangeable lenses.
4. They've decided that a piece of metal with glass inside is worth almost half the price of a camera, that's ridiculous.
Given the price, and the Coolpix brand used, I'm not sure what they think they are doing. However, Nikon J1 was Japan's highest selling camera in 2012. Perhaps Nikon is not doomed ;)
A D5100 + 28mm 1.8G costs less, for 2 extra stops of light ! This makes it a perfect street photog combo, a 18.5mm 2.8 is nice but way to wide, even on DX !
I bet we'd need to wait 2 more years for it to integrate a bright zoom lens
NEX-5R & 20/2.8 is $899 (bought separately, I'm sure Sony will make a new bundle just for the laughs), and it is probably smaller. With PDAF, and optional OVF (~$100) or EVF (~$230) AND interchangeable lenses.
Spectro: 4.37 x 2.52 x 1.57″ maybe the smallest aps-c camera body out there. Wonder if it is pocket-able. Too expensive now, maybe when it is 40-50% off in a few years.
NEX-3N and NEX-5R are smaller.
ogl: Relax, guys! DPREVIEW is not independent reviewer for many years already. They just help to sell camera of their owners. It's business and nothing else.Dpreview is sold to Amazon on 2007.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune".
Yeah, Fuji is paying DPreview a small fortune, monthly, but they feel so bad about it, that they've mentioned lock-ups no one else is experiencing, pointed out all possible defects this camera has (slow AF, inconsistent framerate, etc.), and they've made worst possible soft studio samples just to demonstrate they just won't obey these filthy money-throwing Fuji swines. Then they slapped it with the golden award, just to make sure it's only the most intelligent and penetrating reader that will see through that they're indeed paid by the horrid Japanese.