Massive yawn - can DPReview's articles get any less inspired?
Honestly - this has to be absolutely the lamest front page article I've ever seen.
Rachotilko: Do we have any English or Latin linguists around here ? I am neither (not even a native speaker), so I am confused:
"Compact" surely implies "holding together". Does it also necessarily mean "small" ?
One of many meanings/definitions of 'compact' is 'taking little space' - which is the same as saying that something is 'relatively small'. So in the context that it is used here, it does essentially mean 'small'.
Jirka-: The reason Rolleiflex and later medium format SLRs had square format was not an aesthetic preference. It was just because a camera with a reflex viewfinder without a pentaprism is not suitable for flipping into the portrait orientation. A square print was simply the uncropped capture. Since no square sensors exist, a square digital picture is always a crop, just like an unusually elongated image.
'Jirka' is absolutely correct. The older mirror-only reflex cameras had square formats because if you had to turn the camera 90 degrees to get portrait orientation the screen image would not only be upside-down, you'd also have to stand and view the screen whilst facing sideways w.r.t. the subject. The square format was simply to obviate the need to rotate the camera between landscape/portrait - as it was wholly impractical to do so, because of the waist level right angle finder, and the screen image's left-right reversal.
That said, there were film formats such as 126 film-cartridge, and Polaroid, that were predominantly 'square format' - possibly for similar, but less obvious, reasons (probably just for the 'simplicity' of use).
Nevertheless, 'square format' is greatly neglected/under-used - all too often people seem to squeeze images awkwardly into the default camera aspect ratio when it would be better to frame/crop to suit to the subject, and not just to fit the camera format.
Dan: After experiencing the thumbs up and down system, I just realized something that could improve the overall user experience. You could make it visible who up or down-rates a post (similar to how you can see who "likes" a Facebook post). This way we can see if the same people doing the rating. This would resolve a lot of childish fights and make people think twice about rating a post.
I think this is a very, very, bad idea.
Revealing who' likes', and in particular who 'dislikes', messages is just 'pouring fuel on the fire' of already quite appalling amounts of forum trolling and abuse.
It is far more likely to discourage people from rating posts altogether, which completely defeats its purpose.
In an election, there is a good reason why voters choices are kept secret.
busch: 1. Of what use are the votes? One can even vote for their own post!2. When replying with quote and clipping the original quote, hitting retrun to start a new line will freeze the program.
My browser keeps crashing irretrievably in the middle of typing/editing whilst replying to messages using the 'Reply with quote'. It's incredibly frustrating!!!!!
I'm using IE8 on Win XP
HSway: Blacks in the centre and on the sides.
What causes the extra eye strain compared to the previous version is darkening the central post’s column making it pure black and lightening the sides. It’s not a wise move as the contrast increases exactly where the point of interest is. The text has got more contrast and it contrasts even more on the fully saturated blacks now.
The previous version had this in reverse order (light central column and the dark sides). This makes the colour composition based on this set uncomfortable and it also looks inferior. As if a bug one gets when a page is not loaded fully. got some time to put my finger on it. I definitely recommend changing it or giving an option of choice.Hynek
I said just the same thing yesterday...
Carbon111: *Very* hard on the eyes regardless of the blue or yellow color choice. :(
Richard - the problem is caused by the background now being [0,0,0] black (it was previously [51,51,51] grey), and this is making the "exact same yellow" jump out very in an overly harsh contrast.
Mark H: Complaint...
We seem to have lost the ability to filter-out threads with images?!!
We really need to have a third starting category of thread, e.g...
1. 'New Discussion'
2. 'Ask a 'Question'
3. 'Share Photo(s)'
...and most importantly, we need the ability to 'filter in/out' what we are not interested in (which in my case, is - not interested in peoples threads full of holiday/family snaps and bird photos etc!!!)
Paul - sure, but the 'branded/manufacturer' forums are primarily meant to be for 'Discussing Cameras' - and not for sharing photos purely for the sake of it.
99% of photos could just as well have been taken with any brand or type of camera - it's incredibly silly just to exhibit photos just to people that happen to be interested in one 'brand' of camera - mostly it just amounts to narrow/misguided 'fan-boy'ism.
Dan Ortego: The explanation of Community Moderation is unclear to me. However, I do believe that the forum needs Moderators or if they do exist, they most certainly need to do more to keep out the trash.
As to the new forum layout, it seems fine by me.
Not only do they exist, but they are now 'marked' by a [MOD] icon next to their user names in message threads!
I'm really not sure that's a good idea.
Threads started by 'Ignored' users are no longer dropped to the bottom of the page - now they are now scattered all throughout the message listing - this is a bad/backward change.
Heavily indented 'Threaded views' now very quickly loe their indentation, and text is spilling over the right side boundary, across those all important advertisements (joke) etc.
At the moment it's possible to rate one's own messages, and also to 'LIKE' one's own comments.
This really needs to be disabled, or at least made a little less easy (there are obvious ways around).
Mark H: One huge problem, completely omitted here, but that really needs to be dealt with...
The 'camera' forums are meant to be the place to go to discuss 'cameras' - but they are absolutely plagued with posts by people simply sharing their latest photos, holiday snaps, birds, etc, and people using the forums like some kind of social networking/facebook facility.
Unfortunately, the new/easier 'direct upload of images into forum posts', whilst welcome for 'camera/technical' discussions, is likely to only encourage even greater amounts of 'look at my latest snaps' type posts.
There desperately needs to be a separate/parallel set of brand based 'photo-sharing' forums - so the 'camera' forums can be rid of people's nauseating holiday snaps, pets, etc.
I'd be very interested to see how many agree with me - so please click the 'LIKE' on this message if you do.
Ed - you appear to have missed my P.S. (above) re the option 'View>Exclude... images'. It's an ineffective solution, because it also blocks all the 'camera/technical' threads that also have images.
P.S. Using the current option 'View>Exclude threads with images' isn't a solution - because many legitimate camera/technical discussions have images/graphics in them, and these then get excluded along with all the photo-sharing.
One huge problem, completely omitted here, but that really needs to be dealt with...
Mark H: Ranking users by number of posts, even though just initially, is a terrible idea.
Apart from the old adage of 'quality not quantity' - some of the most prolific forum posters are quite often those who are the biggest and most objectionable nuisances on these forums, and such a ranking basis will only encourage them even more.
P.S. Of course - don't forget to 'LIKE' my comment. ;)
Ranking users by number of posts, even though just initially, is a terrible idea.
Mark H: As has been said earlier, the firmware update appears to affect the 'Auto-EXR' mode only, by raising ISO and/or DR values in 'Auto-EXR'.
This was confirmed and demonstrated two weeks ago in a forum message by 'mightycam', see the first two test images here... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=40572378 ...where the X10 selects ISO-400 at 12MP before the firmware update, but then selects ISO-1250 at 6MP after the update.
As is often the case, DPR testers are rather late to the party, and also with an incomplete account.
Thanks 'BB', for reading my message above, and updating your report.
P.S. It's also worth noting Fujifilm's own wording re the update... "Blooming (White disk) phenomena, which can be observed in EXR AUTO mode, is reduced" ...it's not very clear, but I 'interpret' their statement as implying that they have only altered things in 'EXR-AUTO' mode, and not having altered any other mode.
As has been said earlier, the firmware update appears to affect the 'Auto-EXR' mode only, by raising ISO and/or DR values in 'Auto-EXR'.