D200_4me: Glad to hear that, regarding the Fuji profiles. Looking forward to it. I love the Olympus profiles for my E-M1.
I swear I'm always baffled by people that complain about the price of updating Lightroom to the newest version. Seriously? They'll spend thousands on gear but can't fork over $79 to upgrade an excellent editing tool every year or so? Amazing.
It's not just that, it's also that many of these photographers will spend many more hours in their software than behind the camera, and yet somehow the software is completely devalued as an essential tool. How good of a lens can anyone get for $79?
Zigmont: "it opens up discussions about technology, globalization, migration, poverty, desperation, alienation, humanity."
Huh? If they didn't tell me it was of people in Djibouti, I'd have never guessed. Looks like people holding up cigarette lighters for a concert at the beach in L.A. or something. Or maybe getting ready to go midnight smelt fishing. If this is the best press photo of 2013, no wonder why newspapers are failing.
So basically you just like photos that are obvious and literal.
jorden mosley: "Shut up and take my money!"
This is my dream camera. I never thought I see the day that a manufacturer would make such a thing, but by god they did it. Everything on my most wildest and unrealistic wishlist my imagination could come up with, this camera has and more.
Welp, Panasonic, you pulled me back in. I should have never left you for Sony. "Please take me back baby, I can change!" lol.
jkoch2 said "Wake up. You don't have a 4k display..." Well, guess what. Most digital cameras today shoot still pics with more pixels than your monitor can display at once. Why then are *you* shooting that many pixels? The answer is the same as it the answer you are looking for with 4K video. (Many actual video pros keep trying to tell the newbs that 4K is useful for zooming in post, compatibility with better output like theatrical, etc.)
The Photo Ninja: Tech question: after reading the specs, it seems like 1080p will offer higher resolution (i.e. high bitrate). So if the ultimate goal is to output to 1080p. Are you better to shoot 4K so you can crop or just shoot 1080p at 200Mbps?
Bit rate does equal resolution, but it isn't spatial resolution, it's temporal resolution.
You guys need to realize that the word "resolution" is often used by techies with contexts that are only implied.
Video has multiple types of resolution. Spatial resolution (pixel dimensions), multiple types of temporal resolution (frames per second AND bits per second for both video and audio), color and audio resolution (bit depth), etc.
In essence, being digital means everything has a resolution.
Digitall: That DMW-YAGH Grip is is frighteningly large.
The grip is probably designed for the type of user who will add a video rig big enough that the camera and "large" grip will basically disappear inside it.
Shamael: In simple words, we had until now photo cameras that could make video, and from now on, we have video cameras that can make photos. What the heck is that good for? And, then, 2000$ for a body that contains things I never use. When do camera manufacturers start doing again cameras for photographers? Now, stop talking about Nikon DF low resolution cripple and it's fantasy pricing?The world is definitely upside down.
There was a good article somewhere that pointed out how adding video has *improved* the experience for a still photographer. The challenges of video have brought about very useful still photography improvements like live view, faster autofocus, focus peaking, improved data pipeline/faster readout times, and the list goes on.
If you can't take a good still picture with the still photography feature set of the GH4, the problem is not with the camera...it is behind the camera.
Musicjohn: So when are manufacturers going to design a photo-camera which excells in taking photographs (just as the word PHOTO-camera implements) instead of concentrating on video features? If I want to make superior video images, I'll buy a video camera instead.
icexe: I'm not sure I understand the need for 3D printing support in an image editing program?
One way it's been explained is that not all 3D programs have the greatest tools for painting and finishing up a 3D model. But Photoshop has really powerful painting tools. So you bring in your model to finish it up in a way that you couldn't in a 3D program, then you print it.
brycesteiner: Didn't we already have perspective warp back in CS2? I seem to have been using something similar for years. I really don't care for the 3d printing, but good for them for adding it for people who do.
Free Transform could only do one plane at a time, so it can't do what the new feature can.
disasterpiece: Dual core Core i5 at 1.3 GHz and just 4 GiB of RAM (for the standard configuration) sound to me a bit shabby for serious photo processing.
What photographer would buy the standard configuration of anything? The standard configuration of any PC or Mac is for Microsoft Office, email, and web browsing.
I have used MacBook Pros for years, but looking at the specs of an upgraded MacBook Air 13", I might switch to that as my next laptop. It would have an i7 and 8GB RAM at least.
SergioSpain: Yet more free advertising for Apple, and they need it cause let's face it, they're a poor struggling company.
I agree with you SergioSpain, and to be fully consistent with your opinion, I am many times angrier about the far higher amount of free advertising that Microsoft Windows PCs have gotten in the last 20 years in magazines and web sites.
brycesteiner: This laptop is fantastic! I've been doing the same thing with mine. This really is a Photographer/journalist computer. I upgraded the SSD. I wish I would have upgraded the ram when I bought it. Everything works great even with the lower RAM.One comment people always make is it has an Intel graphics chip and how bad it is. To be honest, it's the faster than my NVidia and ATI in my other macs. I use it to run windows in virtualbox with 3d games and it's perfectly smooth.There are really no laptops that come close in battery life and size/weight. Sony has something reasonable, but to get the battery life you have to carry a separate accessory. And the Sony isn't built of metal, just cheap materials.
Mercury isn't CUDA-dependentb now. Newer versions can use OpenCL. But the question still is when Apple laptop graphics that will support that.
Frank C.: I wish DPR would spend more time reviewing cameras and lenses rather than worry about satisfying/plugging their sponsors, I miss the DPR of old with Phil Askey running the site... oh well I
"Satisfying their sponsors?" I don't remember ever seeing an Apple ad on DPReview.
fredphotog: Well, I can agree with one thing for sure:'and I remember the original Velvia from 1990 being like crack cocaine to landscape photographers. '
The funny thing about that, is you can probably easily find a serious landscape photographer who will criticize the smartphone generation's tendency to slap a filter on a picture to give it a "look" instead of processing it themselves.
Yet this is nothing new. It is a little like back in the film days when people chose which film to use. Because we didn't have enough control over the color process from shot to print, we chose film as the primary rendering interpretation of the scene.
In the digital era you can't use film formulations as a crutch. You can use raw develop presets which are the next closest thing. It's almost a more pure form of photography than when your vision is intermediated by a specific film or paper.
I might be called a heretic for saying this, but back in the film days, choosing your film like Velvia was that era's version of picking your Instagram filter or Nik preset. You had to use it to get your "look."
jcmarfilph: Even a 50$ P&S can trounce iPhone5s so I am not sure why even bother with that phone?
G16, X20, P7800 and many more pocketable premium cam will match or trounce Nokia 1020 and put the iPhone 5s back to children's toy bin.
The article was very fair in saying that a phone can sometimes produce a result that a DSLR cannot. "Trounce" is a relative term.
I have sometimes used my phone instead of my expensive Canon SLR because there are a few things phone modes and apps can do that are not available on my SLR, like an auto-stitched panorama. If you are not shooting for National Geographic, you may not need to shoot 36-megapixel frames with a $2500 camera. Sometimes a phone is the better solution. There seem to be a lot of posters here who still don't recognize that.
FencerPTS: One of the intangibles that frustrate me with phone shooting is response time. The time it takes for a phone to settle on an image and actually take a picture can be several seconds. Even accessing the camera function adds several seconds more. For the actual cameras, going from off to on to shot involves much less of a wait. I wonder, could you could replicate the "spontaneous photo scenario" somehow?
This is not only a problem to blame on phones, because it can happen with lenses or SLRs that take longer to lock focus or auto-expose in low light. One solution works for both: Pre-expose and pre-focus to the distance you expect to be working with and lock it down, so when you hit the shutter it fires immediately.
Of course, for most phones you will need to use an app that lets you lock focus and exposure, but that is certainly possible.
Kenri Basar: Sony is ranking in... Interesting how it is becoming an important name in the Photography world.
Interesting but not totally surprising. While some of the big names of the film era are thriving in digital like Canon and Nikon, most fell by the wayside like Contax, Konica, and Minolta.
The digital revolution opened the doors for electronics companies to dominate photography who had never had a name in photography before, like Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony.
(unknown member): Very disappointing. No performance improvements and no additional features or improvements to existing tools that I that I can see.
Surely you're not suggesting a free dot update should only impress if it's got new features?
Seems like any company should be praised for bug-fixing updates. Also, if I'm not mistaken they did work on performance in 5.1/5.2
cinemascope: RAW is nice, but what about something in between, say PNG?
The world needs to stop producing content exclusively and directly to a crappy lossy format such as JPEG.JPEG is for distribution... Internet... Sharing... That's it.JPEG is not for content production... Not for saving treasured memories...
I know phones are used for sharing, but many of its images do get stored for future appreciation too.How many new born babies these days have their first photo taken by a phone?Just create the crappy JPEG at the moment of sharing... Done!And keep the proper copy. Duh?
Sure RAW might be too complicated and overkill to most phone users... Not everyone will care to change WB later, or to keep the original bayer info intact.But it makes sense to use a proper demosaiced, non-lossy format for creation and storage.We are in the HD era, it's not 1990 anymore, why we keep recording to a crappy distribution format?
It's like recording a feature film directly to DVD or VHS...
PNG is not going to help because it gives you none of the advantages of raw while also giving you none of the compressibility of JPG. Lose / lose!
utomo99: Little bit too late but still OK. I hope Google can add something to the current raw standard which can help making better picture/ easier processing and other good things
Unless you're talking about open DNG, there is no "current raw standard." The raw bits coming off of every camera are in their own format, which is why software continually has to be updated to understand the raw files of new cameras.
Google should just save to DNG, like some Pentax and Leica cameras can. Then any of the raw processors that support DNG will be able to open it without needing an upgrade.