mpgxsvcd: Crack! Did you hear that? That was Sony hitting a home run off of Canon's washed up pitcher.
Nikon wasn't even in the game and Olympus and Panasonic were playing against each-other on the Pee-wee field.
Hasselbad was in the stands cheering on Sony and Pentax was absolutely dominating a game of tether-ball that no one cared to watch.
Fuji was artistically creating a master piece at a beautiful pond nearby. However, their brush broke and they spilled the paint everywhere which just made a huge mess.
That crack was the sound of the breaking backs of the accountants carrying the billions of dollars of negative reciepts for sony.
Ybor: This has to be the single dumbest Comment section related to a DPR article since the inception of the site. And, after reading through most of the comments I want to puke so I think I will. I am not a fan of DPR forums or articles but they provide occasional entertainment.
Thanks to talk radio, Fox News, other regular people on the internet and forums, we have entered an era where masses are learning true history and getting real news.
SundanceXY: Well, in the EOS 1D-X preview from November 2011 until today there were over 400 comments (before you started deleting some) and I guess about 90% of them were asking just one simple question: Will there ever be a full review of this camera? You could at least have had the courtesy to tell all those who have taken the time to register and post here that there never will be a full review. But there was never any kind of response from your side.
I would like to read it too, and I would never justify buying one. Truth is though, flagship reviews are traditionally the longest most involved reviews done. And then of course, the D4, which came out first, would have to be reviewed along side. I wish they would review everything, but I understand why they don't. And they don't review many PS anymore either.
Purchasers of $8500.00 cameras do not come to DPR for purchasing info. Nor would purchasers of .0001 percent of dslr cameras sold make much difference. web space better spent on what consumers who come here care about.
odoketa: There exist places where commenting provides a valuable service, providing context or additional examples or helpful feedback.
With my apologies for contributing to the negativity already present on this post, dpreview is not one of those places.
I'm not sure how so many angry, mean people ended up in one place, but they did. And changing that culture will take a lot. It's especially funny when I compare it to some of the photography groups I belong to, where members are generally supportive, even if the group is completely internet based.
So, for me, on this site, I'm with @typicalarmchairphotographycritic - comments are punishment for scrolling too far down.
Its just not here, and just not now. I have seen this in video card BB's way back in the 80's. It's a community thing. You think its bad here, try hanging out on a pick up truck forum. Anonimity breeds bravery and contempt.
GeorgeD200: This, I hate. The fact that these photos would be printed in B&W was a central compositional factor to most of the photographers at the time. Adding color is disingenuous to their original work. It cheapens the photo and the artist that colorized them.
Many of these photos were designed to document a particular event, and color composition wasn't part of the equation. To add color to photos like "Migrant Mother" suggests information that is artificial. We don't know what color blouse she wore, and to suggest a color would be dishonest, unless properly identified as an artists interpretation, like colorized drawings of dinosaurs.
Thats your opinion. I like them. And it brings the original shooters images to the forefront for discussion and viewing. I personally doubt they would as disturbed as most of the snooty responses on DPR.
They are well done and detract absolutely nothing from the originals, which believe it or not, are still BW, and still available for purchase. An interesting and sucessful experiment.
Looks good, I'd say the equal of the D7100 IQ, improved in shadows, and a groundbreaking AF. Kudos Canon, lots of happy users updating. Oh, like the D7100, a bigger buffer would be better. How much would a couple of gig of internal memory add?
Pikme: A bit infuriating to read this. Those of us who have known for years that there are small cameras 'good enough' for most purposes have been fighting an uphill battle to get reviewers to stop mindlessly tanking cameras for their 'tiny sensors' or fixed lenses. Now that you (that's a generic 'you') have seen the light, you have all sorts of rationalizations as to why these cameras are suddenly good enough 'now'. Yes, the technology has improved, but stubborn mindsets have improved even more.
Just depends if you want to settle for "good enough". Many time thats all you need. But many times I don't want to settle for "good enough".
This is an enthusiast site that says DSLR on the masthead. Which is why the majority probably come here. Now when the small cameras as a rule are "just as Good" or "better", I'll show more interest.
To everything there is a season..I love my D600, and to my eye, it has one of the finer sensors ever made, it just loves the light. But when I don't want to carry it, my smart phone usually suffices. But I usually want to carry my D600 and 35.
And then theres DOF and LL. If you want FF dslr quality in low light, options are quickly limited. And to me, thats where I say show me the money. Superb shots in LL. And thats what we pay for, without the smearing NR or grainy shots. In good to fair light almots any camera is capable of getting a quality shot.
The new AF tech sounds amazing. Kudos Canon. It will be interesting to see the impact of this in future models.
photo perzon: Ray Sachs wrote:
"The bigger deal is that, even with the use of the proper updated ACR color profiles, the Ricoh doesn’t handle colors as well as the Nikon IMHO, but creates files that are better than the Nikon for B&W conversions. Ming Thein raised this in his review and I initially doubted it and figured a lot of it was down to the color profile being updated. But the more I work with both cameras, the more I think he was on to something. The Nikon colors are just dead on. The Ricoh colors don’t have anything like the red issues that they had without the ACR profile, but the blues and greens still seem off to me. On some shots I can get them right with a fairly simple WB adjustment, but sometimes I’m left scratching my head and on some back to back landscapes, just couldn’t come close to getting the Ricoh raw files to my liking."
Lots of posts in the Ricoh forum fixing blues & greens with extensive PP, with many tries.
Even Ricoh fans conclude Ricoh is for B/W and Nikon for color.
Thom Hogan writes excellent reviews, and he has forgotton more about accuracy than you will ever know. And he knows more about cameras than you can ever hope to. Sheer ignorance.
adr23: Another expensive failed attempt by Nikon. Just the word 'coopix' makes me shiver in disgust. Is this suppose to compete with x100s, or am I missing something here?
Failure in your eys. It got Silver which means its good, and it says Nikon on it, which means it will outsell the xpro and x100 combined.
HubertChen: Inconsistent Pros List in conclusions of K5 and D7100
The following features are listed as Pros in 7100 and not in K5, but should have been listed there as well:* Effective auto white balance in a variety of lighting conditions (*1)* In-camera raw processing (*1)* Manual audio recording levels (*1)* 3.5 mm Stereo mic and headphone inputs* Ability to output uncompressed HD video to an external recorder (*1)
(*1) marked features I am not 100 % sure, someone who actually has a K5 would need to confirm. The auto white balance on my K30 sure has been impressive. It has manual audio levels, albeit with no VU meter. If the 7100 has a VU meter, than it is fair to list this one on 7100 and not on K5. ...
1 yes2 yes, plus it takes into account the FL of the lens on the camera3 I don't know
Nikon Auto ISO in manual mode and the front and rear dials do the same thing as TAV.
mckracken88: that said, the RAW noise is a bit better than the D600 - a camera that costs 2x times as much.
Yeah, not so much.
MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....
I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.
mark25: sadly, another camera review with horrible sample photos... i'm afraid no one pays attention to the samples anymore here on dpreview.com... back in the day, when most reviews were done by Phil Askey, the samples were so much better in terms of content and composition...
Actually, Phils reviews were never known for artistic shooting. Workman and useful come to mind. Todays images have more than enough useful information to make a informed purchasing descision, as well as some good shots.
sdribetahi: Anyone else chuckle when they mention that by the time the review is out, the price has now dropped by 33%, which now makes it a great deal! I guess we Pentax users can look at this as a positive, as those unfortunate Canikons that get reviewed the week the things hit store shelves get reviewed at their launch price.
It is a great deal. Whats unfortunate is that it is marketed so poorly that the price has dropped to a point where there cannot be much profit in it for Pentax. I've always like Pentax cameras, a shooters camera and incredible build at the price point. Unfortunately, Pentax can't sell them.
G1Houston: Most camera manufacturers include a RAW editor and/or converter with their cameras. Some of these bundled and FREE software, such as the Olympus View, is quite comprehensive. It seems that in the best interest of the consumers, it is more important to evaluate whether these free converters can do a very good job on the RAW files generated by the cameras with which they intend to work. It seems a big waste of money not to use these free softwares and spend hundreds of dollars buying these other programs that may not work well with one or more RAW formats.
ViewNX2, convert tab, select output as jpg or 8 or 16 bit tif.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review