Doug Frost
Lives in
Chicago, IL, United States
Joined on
Apr 3, 2002
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Pileated Woodpecker in Flight by Fotorequest from A Big Year - Birds 2022 | Bursting with Joy by TaoVerit from Montage | The inspiration for the Reverend Awdry's Isle of Sodor by cjf2 from My Best Photo of the Fortnight | Into the night by TokyoRohan from Streets of the World - with People! | Purple Evening Hues by punman from Velvia Landscapes | Z62_3868_2-DeNoiseAI-clear by archerscreek from Rabbits and Hares Unlimited |
You'd think Sony would have learned their lesson after the failure of their proprietary Memory Stick card. But apparently not.
DiffractionLtd: They've had radio-controlled toy aircraft for what, 60 years? Why all of a sudden are they deemed such a threat?
Now there's a dumb question for you. Forget 60 years, an RC model aircraft from only 20 years ago can't hover outside your home and shoot 4K video through your bedroom window. The drone your neighbor's kid got for his birthday can.
Doug Frost: A few thoughts:
I assume the lens is going to be killer. I've always loved Zeiss optics and I'd be very surprised if the one in the ZX1 isn't awesome.
Judging from Zeiss's promotional video, the ZX1 seems larger than I'd like. I was hoping for something about the size of the Sony RX1R II, which in some ways this is its descendant.
I'd rather have a memory card slot instead of 512GB of internal storage.
Built-in Lightroom CC does nothing for me. I sometimes share photos directly from my phone, but I'm not going to do it from my camera.
The lack of IBIS is a huge downside for me, possibly a dealbreaker.
I'm skeptical that Zeiss can design a state-of-the-art FF sensor on their first try. I'll be very interested to see how it performs with regard to dynamic range, high-ISO noise and Moire.
The sensor is being manufactured by Sony. But my point is that design is Zeiss's. Sony is making Zeiss's sensor for them according to Zeiss's specifications. There are lots of things we don't know about the sensor, such as is it BSI? Does it have an anti-aliasing filter? How does it perform in low light? So it remains to be seen how good it is.
Doug Frost: A few thoughts:
I assume the lens is going to be killer. I've always loved Zeiss optics and I'd be very surprised if the one in the ZX1 isn't awesome.
Judging from Zeiss's promotional video, the ZX1 seems larger than I'd like. I was hoping for something about the size of the Sony RX1R II, which in some ways this is its descendant.
I'd rather have a memory card slot instead of 512GB of internal storage.
Built-in Lightroom CC does nothing for me. I sometimes share photos directly from my phone, but I'm not going to do it from my camera.
The lack of IBIS is a huge downside for me, possibly a dealbreaker.
I'm skeptical that Zeiss can design a state-of-the-art FF sensor on their first try. I'll be very interested to see how it performs with regard to dynamic range, high-ISO noise and Moire.
The ZX1 uses Sony electronics, except for the sensor, which Zeiss claims was designed by them.
A few thoughts:
I assume the lens is going to be killer. I've always loved Zeiss optics and I'd be very surprised if the one in the ZX1 isn't awesome.
Judging from Zeiss's promotional video, the ZX1 seems larger than I'd like. I was hoping for something about the size of the Sony RX1R II, which in some ways this is its descendant.
I'd rather have a memory card slot instead of 512GB of internal storage.
Built-in Lightroom CC does nothing for me. I sometimes share photos directly from my phone, but I'm not going to do it from my camera.
The lack of IBIS is a huge downside for me, possibly a dealbreaker.
I'm skeptical that Zeiss can design a state-of-the-art FF sensor on their first try. I'll be very interested to see how it performs with regard to dynamic range, high-ISO noise and Moire.
Penguin Joe: I meet all of the qualifications except experience. I have over 30 years of professional software and team leading experience. Also proficient in all of the required computer languages.
Also I am retired so I am not actually looking for work :P
LOL
voronspb: Adobe definitely doesn't want our money. Now we shall be able to legally use the "old" versions of Adobe CC software for free.
@voronspb - Older versions of software don't magically lose their copyright simply because the developer has come out with with a new version for current operating systems. The copyright term lasts 95 years from date of release. Even Photoshop 1.0 is still protected by copyright. But don't take my word for it. Ask any copyright lawyer. Better still, call Adobe and ask them.
Doug Frost: The addition of raw conversions in this gallery is a huge improvement over the JPEGs. It's night and day. I'm beginning to think the Z7 might have some potential.
@kreislauf - It's more than color correction. The dynamic range was noticeably improved. The images look overall much better. But the final judgement has to wait until we see what the actual production version can do. That's where "potential" comes into play.
Doug Frost: The addition of raw conversions in this gallery is a huge improvement over the JPEGs. It's night and day. I'm beginning to think the Z7 might have some potential.
@dtibi - The answer is simple. It's all about image quality. At first, the gallery showed only OOC JPEGs, and they were terrible. The raw conversions look much better to me. That's all. You can make all the assumptions you like about the sensor and whatever. I'm only interested in seeing how the camera performs in the real world.
The addition of raw conversions in this gallery is a huge improvement over the JPEGs. It's night and day. I'm beginning to think the Z7 might have some potential.
voronspb: Adobe definitely doesn't want our money. Now we shall be able to legally use the "old" versions of Adobe CC software for free.
What makes you think pirating copyrighted software is legal?
voronspb: Adobe definitely doesn't want our money. Now we shall be able to legally use the "old" versions of Adobe CC software for free.
LOL tell that to the judge when Adobe's lawyers haul you into court.
Doug Frost: I'll wait for the gallery from the production camera. This gallery is awful. Blown highlights. Washed out color. No pop. My phone takes better looking photos.
It has nothing to do with my talents as a photographer. The simple fact is that the photos coming out of my phone look better than the photos in this gallery, which suck. Now, I'm willing to give Nikon the benefit of the doubt, seeing as they were taken with a pre-production camera. But still, I wouldn't expect Nikon to loan out a pre-production camera for a first look article if it didn't perform close to a production model. We'll see. But this first gallery is not good sign.
I'll wait for the gallery from the production camera. This gallery is awful. Blown highlights. Washed out color. No pop. My phone takes better looking photos.
Andrew Butterfield: I'd still be interested if I could get it for under a grand. Just reading a partial test at the Les Numériques website. They think it's pretty decent, but point out that the minimum focusing distance is a poor 8cm at the wide end, and a whole metre at the long end! They were a bit disappointed by the IS too, which they said gave just two stops advantage. Lens sharpness up to f/8 looks 'good enough' though, even at 200mm equiv. The lack of an ND filter is a great pity even given the dimmer lens compared to the M5, but nothing I've read so far is a total dealbreaker, just things the M7 can put right.
@Andrew Butterfield Sure you can get it for under a grand. Just wait a year.
Doug Frost: No surprise here. It was a tantalizing concept, but it never lived up to the hype.
@HowaboutRAW
I have no doubt if you ruled the world you would require everyone to buy one of Lytro's crappy cameras just so you could pretend how popular they were. But the simple fact is no one wanted them. And yes, banding was very definitely a problem. But delusional jackasses such as yourself will always live in their own little dreamworld.
Doug Frost: No surprise here. It was a tantalizing concept, but it never lived up to the hype.
@HowaboutRAW
The marketplace obviously disagrees with you. Nobody wanted their worthless junk. Lytro failed utterly, completely, totally.
Hopefully the 9th Circuit Court's ruling will drive the last nail into the coffin of this frivolous lawsuit. PETA deserves to have its ass handed to them.
Doug Frost: No surprise here. It was a tantalizing concept, but it never lived up to the hype.
@HowaboutRAW
It worked well? On what planet? Call me old fashioned, but an overpriced camera with terrible ergonomics that produces unsharp, low resolution images plagued by banding and lousy dynamic range is not working "quite well". Of course they went under. Their products were a massive fail.
Doug Frost: No surprise here. It was a tantalizing concept, but it never lived up to the hype.
@HowaboutRAW
It worked, but not very well. At the end of the day it was a disappointing niche product in search of people who wanted what it promised. Perhaps one day someone will produce a light field camera that delivers on that promise. And just as importantly there may someday be enough people who care about it enough to support a market for it.