snapa: Great, the the percentage of people who own the LX100 or Sony A7 II is .01% of people who own cameras. The people who have DxO OpticsPro v10.2 software is .001%. This article should pertain to maybe .005% of people on earth that own cameras. Great article DPR, very interesting stuff :/
How about doing more reviews on cameras and lenses, like you used to do, which if what made this site so interesting?
"Otherwise, I would rather read reviews of cameras or lenses or software I may actually like to buy someday." ....so what makes DXO10 a software you'd NOT like to buy someday?
sweet. improved IBIS.the only (and just slightly) eyebrow raiser for me was the 7II's IBIS performance being somewhat less than Oly's mirror-less offerings.
WOW!!! well done Michael Reichmann.
Maklike Tier: RichRMA, have you seen the MTF values of the new 40-150? It's as good as the best primes, weather sealed, AND significantly cheaper than the older four-thirds glass.
ok but tell him (the professional Zeiss employee of 30+ years) that i guess.
there is a blogger/youtube interview of a professional Zeiss lens-tester-something-or-other (he has a proper/fitting/impressive title i just can't remember it) anyhoo he states 'because of coatings some zooms can be sharper than primes...but only at some FLs'.
Valiant Thor: My company stopped shipping products through Canadian Post some time ago because of packages going missing frequently. The Canadian Postal System, Customs Department and Health Canada have the same honesty and integrity as the Nigerian and Gambia governments, maybe worse.
yep!!!if you can not afford it...steal it, it's just soooo easy!!!why should 'you' do without when "it's" right there for the picking and there *are no repercussions.*my family has had several COMPLETELY UNRESOLVED THEFT ISSUE with CP. how many times has CP personelle said the following..."Well Sir, did you actually see your letter carrier take the item Sir?"."All right then, if you did not actually see the letter carrier take the item then there is nothing 'we' can (will) do about it."
the bulk of today's letter carriers in my area DO NOT come from Canada!!!they are recent arrivals.
Thanks for the heads up DPR.This usefull reporting information will surely come in handy the next time I wish to review digital photography.
Paul Auclair: outstanding and amazing work here...a great big thank you to the DPR staff member(s) whom decided these "Portraits" were deserving to grace your website.clearly these molotov cocktail 'portraits' are in every manner superior to those taken by all other "photographers" whom have not visited(revisited) a politically volatile area. i do hope the exif information is intact for further study.Please do post more of this 'work'.
Bravo!!! Well Done Sir!!!0MitchAG, Your web site "Reply" skills are second to none.Thank You Sir for Replying to my Reply and adding all of your super duper insight.I can only imagine/hope/dream what I might learn from you.Paul
outstanding and amazing work here...a great big thank you to the DPR staff member(s) whom decided these "Portraits" were deserving to grace your website.clearly these molotov cocktail 'portraits' are in every manner superior to those taken by all other "photographers" whom have not visited(revisited) a politically volatile area. i do hope the exif information is intact for further study.Please do post more of this 'work'.
i don't see any difference between his robo-camera images and from my C5050. jk
SaltLakeGuy: There's that all too familiar mottling (noise) in the sky portion of the shot along with the classic crunching of distant detail due to noise reduction and loss of detail, which caused me to recently divest myself of all my micro 4/3rd gear. I'm sure for many it's not a big deal. For me it was........
SLG...i've been shooting (E-M1 and E-M5) RAW/JPEG lately and using only Olympus Viewer to convert/view the ORFs. Even in low ISO (below 400) i could regularly see some goopy type "noise/artifacts"...kinda like little globs of clear gelatin splattered around.i just demo'd DXO9 and the issue is long gone. even at default settings DXO9 gives the best ORF files i've seen in my life (starting with E1 in 2003).Oly has got to (or i have to learn Viewer better) to better with it's RAW converter/viewer.
how come when i clicked on the "I own it" button from one of the items listed the total dropped by 1?
DPR...Is the EM-1's ISO 100 setting the base ISO setting and not like the E5's ISO 100 which is not it's "Recommended" setting?Also did you (R U) guy going to try out the time lapse photography settings?Thanks,Paul
congratulations are in order for Abobe's competitors!!!holy cow!!! are the competitors going to be able to count the cash that is going to be coming in?
wow!!! surprise, surprise!!!another image of dead child/children from a war torn area wins another 'Grand Prize'.way to capture the "money shot" and thanks also so much for posting it front page. Very refreshing!!!!
"WilliamJBy WilliamJ (19 hours ago)
Well, I think the point is for Mr. Klamar then, as he has surely sold and resold worldwide these "bad photos" so many haters have given a so wide advertisement. Thank you for Mr Klamar to make him more famous, more rich... and without knowing it having proved you were wrong."
you honestly think, using your best reckoning, that any/all images currently littering the internet are bought and paid for? I wonder how much DPR paid Mr. Klamar to "post" the image above?you honestly believe Mr. Klamar received, or will receive, one red cent for his "work" regarding the US athletes?really...honestly....???? Yes, surely these latest 'wonderfully non-mainstream' images of Mr Klamar's will make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. Surely Mr. Klamar has no regrets whatsoever that his latest genius 'work' is what it is.
am i mistaken? is the Olympics no longer a profit driven cash cow event?PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT... right down to the small stuff like key chains, hats, mugs, t-shirts, and, finally (to the point of this post) POSTERS, images of your "favorite" athletes, big and small. you folks whom claim that you 'like/love/understand/respect' this latest "work"(if you will) of Mr. Klamar's... was Klamar not supposed to 'capture' (or show that he is able to capture) sale-able images for the event? how many Art Klamar posters will be available for sale at the event or after? how many vendors/kiosk/shops will have his images for sale?how many of you will seeking his "work" to hang on your walls?how many of the athletes he shot will be asking Mr. Kamar for a 'print'?. calling Mr.Klamar's work artsy/outside the box/fresh/modern/intentional (i love that one...intentionally not good),etc., etc., is also slapping him in the face because the work surely is not what it is supposed to be. SALE-ABLE.
whom is the client and/or intended viewing audience for the images? will the images likely meet with satisfaction/approval with client and/or intended viewing audiences? are these not general questions/guidelines a professional portrait photographer has in mind when "at work"?does and/or should a photographer always have the right to be as artsy/outside of the box as he/she wishes at any moment in any/all given situations? should a photographer not use any sense of judgment when considering to exercise that right to any extreme? was shooting US Olympic athletes the appropriate time/situation to "think out side the box" if you want to call "it" that? Yes, the images in question are "picked up"/ "published" "everywhere" so I guess they certainly must be good solid work and the photog surely worked his plan admirably.