Impulses

Lives in Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Works as a student
Joined on Apr 7, 2013

Comments

Total: 3266, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Impulses: Simply adding DNG as an option a la Pentax is the ideal compromise, they can keep licensing whatever crappy RAW processing software they currently license if it's cheaper but it gives users an option... Though it's still added development for something people are apparently not clamoring for in droves.

What's up with comment replies getting tossed out of place/sequence into the main comments pile? Ugh...

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

And yet they still have their own format and some of the quirkiest behavior around it in camera, go figure.

Simply adding DNG as an option a la Pentax is the ideal compromise, they can keep licensing whatever crappy RAW processing software they currently license if it's cheaper but it gives users an option... Though it's still added development for something people are apparently not clamoring for in droves.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 05:18 UTC

Simply adding DNG as an option a la Pentax is the ideal compromise, they can keep licensing whatever crappy RAW processing software they currently license if it's cheaper but it gives users an option... Though it's still added development for something people are apparently not clamoring for in droves.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 23:06 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

No manufacturer is gonna bundle Rawtherapee tho (not that Silky or it's ilk are any better, but still), even if they went that way they'd want their own camera and lens profiles used, not a random user created database... So they'd still have to invest in further development, in addition to whatever development cost is incurred by adding DNG into the bodies.

I'm not saying I think this investment wouldn't be worthwhile as a user, but I can see why manufacturers don't really see much upside, maybe if photographers were less complacent or reviewers more aggressive it'd be a different story.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

Yeah, the counter argument to that would be "well you can use somebody else's converter", sure, but then you have to pay somebody else to write that... You'd really need to offer a DNG compatible LR alternative, OR keep supporting the propietary format as well, and at that point the ROI might simply not be worth it for a user convenience.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

Impulses: " From the DNG Wikipedia article: "

Did you read the references tho? It's Adobe's license, they can choose to change it at any time, the can choose to mess with the DNG workflow in the future or stop supporting it altogether. The big players aren't simply gonna hitch their wagon to Adobe like that.

The salient point from a manufacturer's point of view is that even if DNG is free and unencumbered from Adobe (still a big *if* IMO), they'd still need to reinvest in new software development... They can't just tell people "hey why not use LR?". Whether tasking someone with writing something that works with DNGs rather than using the existing formats and software is worth the investment is up for debate I guess. It's not a decision to take lightly for the larger players tho....

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: A little expensive, but reasonable.

Well, APS-C would be their budget play, but they're focused on FF; and Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji already offer quite a few crop/smaller-sensor budget options.

Canon already has *some* APS-C ML options, but they'll likely treat it the same as Sony has or the same as they've treated APS-C DSLRs in the past. You might see more budget bodies once they dive into ML in full, but lenses will likely be mostly designed for FF.

Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji don't have a FF option to protect or segment, so they're more motivated to cover more of the budget spectrum of the price ladder...

I don't see that changing unless a few more of those players drop off, which is still a very real possibility.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

I meant that comment from the POV of a company actually choosing a format (e.g. Canon evaluating whether to adopt DNG or continue developing their own RAW format), not an end user. My entire argument is from that side of the equation really, as an end user I'd have 0 issues with a camera that outputs DNG and I'd welcome it as an option... I was simply trying to rationalize why the manufacturer of a camera might not be on board.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

It's still Adobe's license terms, they're not beholden to anyone and it's not law or a group of different brands agreeing to all honor said license, it's basically trusting their word with your camera's output.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:51 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

At the end of the day they're still the gatekeepers of the format and aren't beholden to anyone regardless of what they currently claim, and that's probably why CaNikom or anyone approaching their stature wouldn't fully commit to DNG regardless of whether it's more convenient or not.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

" From the DNG Wikipedia article: "

Did you read the references tho? It's Adobe's license, they can choose to change it at any time, the can choose to mess with the DNG workflow in the future or stop supporting it altogether. The big players aren't simply gonna hitch their wagon to Adobe like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:06 UTC

Blah, stupid comment system bugging out...

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:05 UTC as 9th comment

" From the DNG Wikipedia article: "

Did you read the references tho? It's Adobe's license, they can choose to change it at any time, the can choose to mess with the DNG workflow in the future or stop supporting it altogether. The big players aren't simply gonna hitch their wagon to Adobe like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:05 UTC as 10th comment | 13 replies

" From the DNG Wikipedia article: "

Did you read the references tho? It's Adobe's license, they can choose to change it at any time, the can choose to mess with the DNG workflow in the future or stop supporting it altogether. The big players aren't simply gonna hitch their wagon to Adobe like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:05 UTC as 11th comment

" From the DNG Wikipedia article: "

Did you read the references tho? It's Adobe's license, they can choose to change it at any time, the can choose to mess with the DNG workflow in the future or stop supporting it altogether. The big players aren't simply gonna hitch their wagon to Adobe like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 05:05 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

anticipation_of: The fact that all cameras don't simply record straight to DNG is lunacy. Who are the people who think this a good idea, and why? Just record to DNG, and stop it with the terrible in-house image processing software that nobody likes. It has to be actually costing these companies money to perpetuate their proprietary formats. I've literally never heard anyone make a case for this bloody-minded insistence on proprietary RAW files, even an unconvincing one. It's emblematic of the blinkered, hidebound thinking that plagues camera manufacturers.

OTOH, it would also cost time and money to get together and agree on a standard, they probably don't wanna simply use DNG because Adobe. DNG may be open/free in theory, but AFAIK it's not released under any open source license or standard, so Adobe could pull the rug from under everyone or try to leverage it somehow in the long run.

I agree with you tho, this is one of the many many trends in this niche market that live on out of habit as much as anything else, because camera companies are too resistant to change.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 02:13 UTC
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sion H: I'm still not convinced. Those sensor reflections in the initial gallery published on this site were a complete deal breaker.

It's possible the much higher density of OSPDAF masked pixels has something to do with it... Dunno.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 19:43 UTC
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Jessop: "Another hesitation in recommending the well-priced a7 III is the present lack of well-priced autofocusing glass available for it."

The 28/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 are all reasonably priced, and deliver more than adequate quality for the sensor. The f/1.4 primes are nice, but really are not priced that differently to Nikon's own AF-S f/1.4 primes.

This trio of lenses is part of what has got me interested in the Sony system, and for me it is a question of whether they are good enough for the A7R III. I want to print large, but I shoot stopped down 99% of the time so I am fairly sure they will be good enough.

Sony has some pretty good UWAs, and I don't think they're much more expensive than CaNikon's... But 1st party UWAs by their nature are pretty expensive. An UWA and a couple primes would take precedence for me, but I imagine it's quite the opposite for the mass market.

I'd like to see more/nice f4 or slower compact zooms tbh... Shoot, I'd like to see more f2.8 primes for that matter, that might actually make me reconsider Sony FF vs a smaller sensor system. The Tamron 28-75 looks interesting, maybe it'll have a snowball effect.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

Newton Leonardo: No matter how good such article like this was, people will keep buying phone for as best camera as they can get from the price they paid, no matter its an entry level or high end phones.
It's now in almost in everyone's gene.

And after a while, people with new-found hobby of mobilephone photography starts to realise they need real camera, and start reading review of dslr or mirrorless.

I think it may actually differ by generation... Older ones may think younger ones don't care about dedicated cameras at all, and in general they might be right, but it's possible they're rediscovering why a dedicated camera makes sense at all. I think they very poor PR by camera companies has made this a very slow process...

I'm in my 30s FWIW, and jumped on digital P&S fairly early on (2000), I had a string of about half a dozen of 'em that were seeing less and less use (until WiFi on the last one made sharing a little more immediate) in favor of my phones... But purely by chance I discovered what ILC and mirrorless were capable a few years ago.

I now have two bodies (and have gone thru 4 total) and about a dozen lenses. My sister, younger by 4 years, followed a similar trajectory and now has an A7R II and several lenses. My friends have shown interest in the camera I'm using... Pretty much none of us has been exposed to any sort of effective marketing by the big players.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

Newton Leonardo: No matter how good such article like this was, people will keep buying phone for as best camera as they can get from the price they paid, no matter its an entry level or high end phones.
It's now in almost in everyone's gene.

And after a while, people with new-found hobby of mobilephone photography starts to realise they need real camera, and start reading review of dslr or mirrorless.

Yup.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 02:17 UTC
Total: 3266, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »