|
SRT201
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Mar 8, 2010
|
Comments
 |  |
| Not so hot by babujayan from Macro - Food | Sheepscape by Birddogman from Thirty-five Alive |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
2463FeatureWhat is equivalence?
SRT201: Oh that's just precious isn't it! Adobe is finally noticing that their heavy-handed licensing and general disdain for the user is effecting their bottom line. Well now we can be sure that they are well and truly interested in giving users what they have been asking for.
Yeah right!
Adobe's arrogance has provided the opportunity for a number of good RAW development alternatives to emerge and some of them are excellent and MUCH faster than Adobe products. I've moved away from Adobe as have so many others.
Arrogance eventually comes back to bite the arrogant. Enjoy the rewards Adobe!
That's overall revenue. Could be they are seeing slower adoption rates or falling subscription numbers for Lightroom.
Or, I'm just wrong. :-)
Check out ON1 Photo Raw as well. I'm quite pleased with the results. Not missing Adobe at all.
Oh that's just precious isn't it! Adobe is finally noticing that their heavy-handed licensing and general disdain for the user is effecting their bottom line. Well now we can be sure that they are well and truly interested in giving users what they have been asking for.
Yeah right!
Adobe's arrogance has provided the opportunity for a number of good RAW development alternatives to emerge and some of them are excellent and MUCH faster than Adobe products. I've moved away from Adobe as have so many others.
Arrogance eventually comes back to bite the arrogant. Enjoy the rewards Adobe!
Really unfortunate. I could always count on Lexar for quality and speed. Sandisk... not so much.
I think this is just admitting the obvious. The package has not been updated since it went free. They were done with it at that point.
The current downloads are the same versions that have been available for quite a while now. That being said, it really is a great package with top-notch editing and some very unique approaches in certain areas. I use stuff like Nik and ON1 because, like so many, I have become completely disgusted with Adobe in recent years. Fortunately there are currently many great options allowing photographers to be Adobe-free. Adobe decided to get heavy-handed with their subscriptions and other companies were happy to fill the void.
jhinkey: I suspect the GoPro DID NOT save his life, as just about any high velocity round would go directly through a GoPro and still kill the person on the other side. Though hard to tell from the video, this was likely a very near miss that just took out the GoPro.
Scary nonetheless.
Yup, looked the sniper misjudged his windage and the bullet passed right in front of the guy - fortunately. He might not have even been scratched had it not been for the exploding GoPro.
Richard Kwon: Nothing but respect to all the armed forces and the journalists who served in the pass, present and future! Also to the fallen soldier and journalist, too. We are functioning as a society thanks to all of you guys.
Petak, War indeed is a horrible thing. But deeply immoral? Sometimes it surely is, but at other times history makes it pretty clear that to stand idly by and watch despots like Hitler is the immoral choice. Waging war against them is the only sane, moral choice. It's rather hard to miss the similarities between the Nazi vision of the 1000 year Reich and the insane world-dominating caliphate envisioned by these ISIS morons.
katastrofa: "At about the 0:33 point in the clip, the English-speaking individual filming asks where the bullet came from (caution, strong language)."
LOL at the prudishness of the person who wrote this.
Or maybe Dan was just being considerate of those who might have little kids nearby. Duh!
SRT201: The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!
IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.
THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.
So, to correct the article, the use of SPP is NO LONGER mandatory.
SRT201: The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!
IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.
THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.
I should also note that Sigma supports their cameras like just about no other company. Constantly fine tuning and even adding features. Just within the last few days all the Quattro's have been updated to have DNG support and the new Super Fine Detail exposure mode.
The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!
IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.
THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.
Looks like an amazing machine albeit out of the price range of most - but that's normal for PRO equipment.
Kudos to Sony for continuing to fine-tune their in-body stabilization born out of their cooperation with Olympus. Here's to the death of needlessly complex, fragile and expensive "stabilized" lenses. Canon and Nikon need to give up on that route as well and just admit in-body stabilization is the way to go. I wish my a6000 had in-body stabilization.
I didn't see the max "mechanical" shutter speed listed. I'm assuming 1/8000.
Also no mention of cross-type AF sensors. A ton of AF sensors is great, but still limiting if they are all single-direction like the a6000, RX100, etc.
Now, if Sony could finally make a menu system that didn't suck... that would be the icing on the cake. :-)
Uh... can you guess what my first actual camera was? :-)
What an awesome machine it was. Designed to be dragged through the jungle and take photos with no power necessary.
I am not counting some of the crappy 110 and 126 compacts that came before my Minolta.
Triplet Perar: Third party lenses are always a double-edged sword; you may think you get a reasonable value for reasonable money, but the issues start adding up quickly, because the lens design and tech was not made exclusively for the best benefit of one mount only, or even some cameras within that mount, and third party manufacturer certainly has no information about the planned advancement of any of the mounts or camera tech specific to that mount. Whilst at the same time, camera manufacturers know all that vital information in advance.
There are too many variables to control, and I do not see how that ends up being either cheaper or better in the long run, because manufacturers like Sigma must compromise somewhere, and very much serve heated up, generic optical designs.
That view was true about a decade ago but things have changed in large part due to Sigma. There is no reason to believe that you are compromising anymore and as they have shown they can give the OEM's a run for their money. The belief in the OEM lens special sauce has only allowed companies like Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. to keep their lens prices artificially high. It's just like paying way too much for a Mercedes and in that case you're not even getting a better car. More competition will be good for the market and the consumers.
Great shot, just the right DOF and wonderful diffuse Winter lighting. Great overall palette. You also got a real smile out of your model.
In all honesty though, you owe some percentage of your votes to the fact that she is a total stunner! Oh my! :-)
Peter von Reichenberg: Well...one would excpect little more, right? Especially from Leica with its price tag and reputation. OK, let's see if reddotted fanclub will buy enough of them. Instead of being a trendsetter Leica just hardly tries to compete to Sony...disappointing. On the other hand - whatta shame for CaNikon losing a chance to bring second full frame mirrorless after Sony. I don't see anything special in these pictures many other cameras can't do. For me the biggest WOW goes to Fuji GFX 50S.
Richard,
What's unfair about the comment? Leica is charging, as usual, many times the cost of cameras that can do more/better and in your own words it boils down to an unusual interface with good specs. It only compares well to other Leica's which are often well behind the rest of the industry in all but the claims of of mythical image quality.
marike6: Review is much too short for a Leica camera, and the snarky "Conclusion" section, the bit about "if you have your heart set on a camera with a red dot on it" is kind of obnoxious.
Actually it seems a completely rational analysis of the often irrational reason for buying a camera with a red dot - simply because it has a red dot. As the article points out, it doesn't really do anything distinctly better than other cameras. Why should it be given some special reverence and afforded a review length befitting a Leica? Just the comment conveys a certain conceit for Leica. The deference paid to Leica is often baffling especially when they produce products that aren't even on par. It's refreshing to see a Leica reviewed on its merits alone.
It doesn't appear that Leica is leading the field in any particular way with this camera? I'm sure it's a very nice camera albeit wildly overpriced. If you simply must have a camera with a red dot though that doesn't really matter does it.
SRT201: This is just supposition on my part, but I think part of this may be due to the notion that charge time should be a selling feature for phones, tablets, etc.
First, it's important to understand that Lithium batteries are subject to a phenomena called "thermal runaway". Simply put, once the battery reaches a critical temperature it will continue on the path to it's destruction. In order to stop Lithium cells from reaching thermal runaway, their chemistry is tamed and you end up with Lithium Ion or Lithium Polymer batteries. These batteries have reduced energy density, but they are safer.
...
See part 2 below
?
SRT201: This is just supposition on my part, but I think part of this may be due to the notion that charge time should be a selling feature for phones, tablets, etc.
First, it's important to understand that Lithium batteries are subject to a phenomena called "thermal runaway". Simply put, once the battery reaches a critical temperature it will continue on the path to it's destruction. In order to stop Lithium cells from reaching thermal runaway, their chemistry is tamed and you end up with Lithium Ion or Lithium Polymer batteries. These batteries have reduced energy density, but they are safer.
...
See part 2 below
I would agree, residual heating would be very unlikely as a culprit.
I just spent time on the charging issue because that is a scenario where the battery is purposely pushed closer to critical limits. You can also push your battery by simply running CPU hungry apps like games that heat up the main CPU cores and the GPU thus pulling heavier current loads through the battery and heating it up in an environment that is now already heated up due to the chipset activity.
SRT201: This is just supposition on my part, but I think part of this may be due to the notion that charge time should be a selling feature for phones, tablets, etc.
First, it's important to understand that Lithium batteries are subject to a phenomena called "thermal runaway". Simply put, once the battery reaches a critical temperature it will continue on the path to it's destruction. In order to stop Lithium cells from reaching thermal runaway, their chemistry is tamed and you end up with Lithium Ion or Lithium Polymer batteries. These batteries have reduced energy density, but they are safer.
...
See part 2 below
Yes, these are my opinions, but skepticism and concern over some of these new techniques is shared by others.
http://lifehacker.com/google-engineer-warns-against-phones-with-both-usb-c-an-1772442622
I can tell you that after witnessing just how hot my new HTC phone got with it's "Quick Charge" charger I decided to NEVER AGAIN use the factory charger. I went back to a good quality 5V, 2A charger that charges the battery in a reasonable time and at a much cooler temperature.
Did pushed battery chemistry or fast charge rates have anything to do with the Note 7 disaster? Only Samsung can say. I'm just using my EE background to form a hypothesis. Regardless, I can tell you that I do not and will not use the new fast charge systems on my devices. I want them to charge safely and I want maximum battery life-span out of them.
One last point, taking this and other events into account my advice is to NEVER EVER leave a lithium battery charging unattended.