virtualkyr: The Surface Pro 4 is slated to be announced next week I believe.
That would probably be a more reasonable solution for those looking to run full blown Adobe CC apps in a more travel friendly package, if size and weight are a concern.
Otherwise, of course a laptop is a better option, if nothing else for the ability to get a 15-17" screen size.
MeganV: It looks tantalizingly close, to me.
Unfortunately, Apple's persistent need to stupefy and sandbox everything throws a few critical, structural roadblocks in the way.
(1) Screen color / brightness calibration still isn't possible, unless you duck back-and-forth into apps like Spyder gallery. How can you edit (or create), seriously, if you can't trust your screen? It's crazy that they'd put all that work into the feel and precision of the "pencil" and then *not* offer a way to calibrate color. Is it a real artist's tool or not?
(2) We need access to the file system. I've never understood why siloing files away in individual app repositories is "easier" than allowing *me* to organize them in folders of *my* choosing. "Real artists ship"--i.e., they create *a lot* of files that they need to organize.
(3) Until the iCloud (or Dropbox or Google Drive) is as fast as a connected SSD, we need a way to mount a real drive. Disallowing it seems so arbitrary!
> Samsung NX500
More people would have bought the camera if it had the EVF. The NX500 does literally everything right, except the elephant in the room. As such, I do not want it even for free...
Samsung's marketing team is not half bad.
Sony still lags in AF. That's not news. But since it is "PDAF" then OMG it must be better than CDAF, because PDAF is just like DSLR!!
P.S. It is funny and full of irony (described in a number of user posts over years here on the forums) when a m43 camera in AF-S mode gives more hits than a Sony in AF-C.
Joel Benford: I've been waiting patiently for this camera announcement. And do you know what day it is? It's my birthday.
Buy it then! YOLO.
PhotoKhan: How close must the devices be?
If very close, as far as I am concerned, this is a clear case of a newly proposed solution to a problem that has been better solved years ago.
I've been using the Eye-Fi card for over 4 years now and there are 2 specific ways I use it most:
(1) Intermittent, when-available but fully automated transmission of the simultaneous Jpegs I am getting with the Raw files during a day's shooting into the tablet that is riding in my backpack, for end-of-the-day or in-car-while-traveling review.
(2) immediate viewing by 3rd parties at events or productions, while I am shooting.
For these 2 applications a requirement for the card to be very close to the device would render it useless.
"For these 2 applications a requirement for the card to be very close to the device would render it useless."
You forget important part of equation: for how long the devices have to be close to one another.
Eye-Fi, from all the tests I've seen so far, provides transfer rates of 1MB/s (10MB image == 10 seconds to transfer).
TransferJet (from the vendor data) provides transfer rates of more than 40MB/s (10MB image == 1/4 of a second).
In one minute, Eye-Fi would transfer 60s/10 = 6 images, TransferJet - 60s/(1/4) = 240 images.
Will have to wait for the independent tests, of course. But so far, I'd say TransferJet would be more practical than the Eye-Fi, because Eye-Fi is so damn slow.
Lassoni: wireless cards? when it should be camera bodys that should be wireless? what
After reading about the TransferJet, I do not want the Wi-Fi anymore.
And since the TransferJet is only a short-distance tech, the regulation burden should be much much lower than that of Wi-Fi.
tangbunna: don't be surprise. wireless SD card was exist since early 2000s remember it was eye-fi sd card started at 64mb storage.
The difference is the transfer rate.
> Upload time for a 6MP JPEG with the Eye-Fi card was approximately 6 seconds.
1MB/s for the Wi-Fi cards vs 48MB/s for the TransferJet.
Even though working distance is in centimeters.
>10GB can be moved in just three and a half minutes.
10GB / 210s = 48MB/s. Quite respectable speed.
"Why are we not funding this!?"
ThePhilips: > switch their sensor read-out from 14 bits to 12 bits in certain modes
And the people keep telling me that more megapixels doesn't harm...
a7S is probably simply conforming to the current Sony's standard. Every camera having its own unique RAW file format is simply unreasonable.
Otherwise, purely technically, compression of any form exists solely to reduce the amount of data.
If you do not have much data to begin with (lower res sensor) then there is simply no reason to even bother implement the compression.
Requirements for the high res + higher fps are directly responsible for the Sony's decision to implement the compression.
peteygas: It has the DOF of a 3.4 BUT light gathering of 1.7
My sensor is longer than yours.
> switch their sensor read-out from 14 bits to 12 bits in certain modes
Seattle Myck: Wow, you guys are fast. Sept 3rd article - you must be using UTC time.
Do you know that Earth is a rotating sphere? It's not flat at all!! [... skip ...] TL;DR there is such thing called time zone.
You comment is ~5 hours old. In Europe it has been the Sep 3rd 8-10 hours. In Asia - e.g. Japan - 16 hours.
P.S. Now you know why Europe and Asia are always ahead of time compared to the USA. We are actually ahead of your time.
Pana, why no faster-and-quiter-AF-ing 1.7/20mm?
kadardr: A real world recension of A7RII, with some musing why is this such a camera you have to buy:http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/25/the-sony-a7r-ii-a7rii/
In short: a typical Sony camera.
I have impression that they rush camera to the market, and never really finish polishing them. And now, after so many releases, they have basically stopped trying to really finish them, since marketing is on the roll and keeping Sony in the news is more important than the rest of it. A dangerous gamble IMO.
zodiacfml: Now give the A7s the BSI technology so that it's less pixels with less noise.
At the moment of the announcement, all videographers of the world would org@sm simultaneously.
Quite well controlled aliasing on Sonys.
I still do not like the weak AA filter, but the situation got much better since the first days of the AA-filter-less cameras.
photo perzon: So whoopee doo a silver review. Enough Golds around to bury it.
> Speaking of not useful [...]
Nothing is really useful. Just give up on your life. Hold your breath and count to ten. This is the end.
Jefftan: In 2015 can u really sell a mid range camera without 4K and with old sensor?almost 400 gram is heavy in my opinion for a small sensor camera without weather sealing. Remember GM1/5 with the same sensor is only 200 gram and that is with magnesium alloy frame which EM10 II is not
The only interesting feature this camera has is 5 axis, even this is rate lower than EM5 II (5 stop vs 4 stop)not interesting or exciting
> I own a GM1.
Off-topic. Imagine a weather-sealed GM1. Wouldn't that be sweet?