SammyToronto: A 4K screen on a 5" phone is of no practical purpose whatsoever and is only used as a marketing lure to those simple-minded customers who think bigger is always better. Unless you have a built-in microscope in your eyes, you won't be able to discern the increase in sharpness compared to a Quad HD screen (which is already too much) or even an FHD screen.
@SammyT It's me that stands corrected, on second thought I see you're right. Anyway, I couldn't agree more with your original point about 4K res on a 5.5" panel...
Just trying to clarify, SammyT:· Base-level HD: an 16:9 array of 1280 columns x 720 lines, or about 1 megapixel· Full HD: 1080 x 1920, or ≈ 2 Mp, aka 1080 (image height), aka "2K" (width)· Quad HD: 2560 x 1440, or 2x base HD linearly or 4x the area, hence the "quad".· 4K: 3840 x 2160 (from the width)Finally, the 'p' in "# of lines p" usually stands for progressive scan, as opposed to "i"nterlaced...
Cipher: I still have my Casio CFX-200 calculator watch from high school! It even works!
hooray!not to to mention my casio databank DBC-610 nerdy watch (or faux-chic? it's a silver finish/steel bracelet version) from the 80's which still ticks on, within, believe it or not, ±5 sec/mo!
Mark Banas: Life decisions via The Clash.
"Should I stay or should I go now? | If I go there will be trouble | And if I stay it'll be double | So com'on'n'let me know . . . OOH!'
Anyway, I'm still longing to see 'The Only Band That Really Matters!' thru Leigh Brewer's vision . . .
Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?
@ VladPlease stop spreading misinformation! You know pretty well sound doesn't propagate through ether, so it follows that the buzz you hear comes from inside our hollow earth.
fedway: I'm from the Seattle area too. Where did you go to get those Northern Lights shots?
Nothing personal, but I wonder why every now and then do some people seem to be unwilling to read earlier comments *before* commenting themselves?a) for the sake of redundancy; b) short attention span; c) little belief in others having the same idea or question first; d) . . . ?
MayaTlab0: The orientating grip is interesting. I have no idea if that is a thing that will prove beneficial in practice (well at least it's better than the immobile camera body-like grip and doesn't force users to change their hand's position when going from head-level shooting to waist-level shooting like most barrel-shaped video cameras), but I wonder : If you want to shoot from above or below, I suppose you'll most often want to change the orientation of both the grip and the rear LCD (or "EVF" attached to the LCD). Right now, on the XC10, it seems like it's going to be a two steps process (change the grip's orientation, + change the LCD's orientation). Would it be possible, and more importantly useful, to create a mechanism to synchronise both movements (Basically, rotating the grip would rotate the LCD at the same time) ? Or totally useless ?
FYI, moving the LCD and the grip together is not only perfectly doable, but it's been done a number of times in the late 90's / early aughts.Check these swiveling body designs:www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/3
Tonkotsu Ramen: t6i/t6s, but no EOS-M3?
barry,on a somewhat personal note, I thank you for showing me how much I was thinking INside the box. It simply hasn't occurred to me that "it isn't just a matter of the raw encoding format; differences in the CFA colours [too]". BTW, this would be a hot topic, methinks, in these 6-figure-ISO days when camera makers apparently try harder than ever to balance sensor sensitivity vs color fidelity by tweaking CFA "transparency".
barry, sometimes the raw encoding doesn’t change at all between successive camera generations and it's only the value of the "model" string in the exif header that changes. (I've seen that along incarnations of fuji exr-sensor travel zooms; I used to fool LR3 into digesting some newer RAFs by first opening the file in a binary editor and replacing the string with an older value.)
edu T: Slog3 curve > cubic > "3D LUT"?This Marketese language never ceases to amaze me... :-)
pgbThanks for clarifying.
Slog3 curve > cubic > "3D LUT"?This Marketese language never ceases to amaze me... :-)
Just Ed: 1,3,6 and 7 seem the best to me. 8 makes no sense as a fine photograph...possibly I am missing something
I guess the author's intention was to depict a stark contrast by sandwiching the gorgeous garden patch between both human-made "forced" colors and asphalt gray.
ChuckTa: I looked at the full size photo of the Japanese man in outdoor and I see a greenish outline to the right side of the face down to the neck and suit. Is that CA but green colored?
What if we put "pretty wide range" in perspective?We're looking at a 7,360-pixel _w_i_d_e_ sample, mind you... (a whole 36Mp a7r shot)
Please take a 2nd look, it's the regular longitudinal CA we all know and abhor. The purple component is right there, only much less conspicuous; look at (his) left side of the hair, above the glasses.Wouldn't you say it's a relatively well-controlled CA, though?
"...Canon has reverted to using a *sensible* + on top, - below' labeling for this [exposure compensation] dial after confusing us thoroughly..."To me it's just the OPPOSITE as I tend to associate it with a volume control, so it's rather counter-intuitive to turn it COUNTER-clock wise to INcrease exposure. OK, maybe I should start associating it with an old-fashioned rotary faucet...
PerL: Is the image on top a fake? Othwerwise it looks very compact - very interesting. Imagine a FF DSLR the size of a 70s SLR.
"an FF dslr the size of a 70's slr"... like their own 1976 pentax ME, wow!!
nerd2: One fun fact - guess who made the first FF DSLR? It's Contax.
Another fun fact: the first autofocus interchangeable lens *SLR* was by Pentax, 1981. A bit of history here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_ME_F(The futuristic 1972 Polaroid SX70 was a fixed-lens SLR.)
RichRMA: Is this constructed using CCD's and not CMOS? I seem to remember someone saying that CMOS lacked "Something" which is why they don't use them in most science projects.
Probably a broader spectral response, near-IR to UV considered. Just a hunch.