Lenscraft: Every time I read comments on DPReview, I'm struck by how negative and angry that they seem. This doesn't only apply to the Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony etc comments. As a response to this rather lovely scenic, I'm reading things like this:
"Always seemed blurry to me"
"Horrible image. To avoid as background at all costs."
"Proof, if it were needed, that even a good photographer can produce an utterly uninspiring image that looks fake."
Why are folks so negative? It's a pretty picture. Not my personal style, but that doesn't mean that I tear it down. Remember, there is a human being, a photographer like you, behind that image.
Most of the complainers would have probably submitted an over-baked HDR image with Saturation turned up too high...
dmanthree: Luckily, Windows 7 and 8 offer some really nice photos to use as wallpaper. Huge improvement over "Bliss." Then again, don't we all use our own photos as wallpaper? :-)
Because of the widespread use of Windows in locked-down corporate desktops where nothing can be changed without the approval of IT, millions of Windows office drones probably don't have permission to use their own desktop wallpaper.
AbrasiveReducer: I thought this was a group photo of all the people who never had problems with Windows.
reminds me of that fake Bill Gates quote "If I had a nickel for everyone who complained about Windows...oh wait, I do."
fortwodriver: <sarcasm>Great, now we have a camera that takes photos in practical darkness. Here come the thousands and thousands of flickr entries showing dark rooms, dark corners, and general darkness without any attention to lighting technique. Why? Because you can now do that, and it will be good because those photographers will call themselves "pro".</sarcasm>
But you haven't really proven your cutting-edge cred until you've taken an ISO 409,600 shot at night from a mirrorless camera...mounted on a drone.
daddyo: This is actually quite impressive. Just a few years back, no one would have imagined these kinds of ISO settings, nor this kind of image quality at such settings.That said, crappy light is still crappy light, and just because you can shoot in this light and get a discernible image is no reason to become obsessed with shooting in crummy light anymore than is absolutely necessary.Shooting in these lighting conditions is like trying to see how many pots of coffee you can brew using the same grounds -- after a while it becomes a bad joke.
That comment points to a red herring. It isn't the low light level that makes it crappy light. What high ISO makes possible is non-crappy light with low level (and very affordable) light sources.
Back in the film or even early digital days, it would be thought of as insane to use ordinary household light bulbs as primary portrait light. But I've seen multiple pro photographers demonstrate how good a portrait can look if you put a light bulb into cheap Japanese paper lanterns and place them near the subject. This is only possible because the ISO 800-3200 output from DSLRs is now perfectly acceptable.
Similarly, cinema has been revolutionized by the ability to use affordable prosumer gear to shoot night scenes outdoors and not have to light up the whole city with your own gear because the camera can handle the ambient light.
If your knee-jerk reaction is that low light = crappy light, you've excluded yourself from all the possibilities that high ISO shooting is giving photographers.
Retzius: Folks will gripe and moan about a developer charging $40 a year to give them a web based app with seamless photo editing integration across platforms but then go out for dinner and blow $50 for a couple burgers and beers and think nothing of it...
You might not even have to export anything. Even the free Preview app on my Mac can open PSDs and TIFFs, and innumerable other programs can open the RAWs.
rrr_hhh: So I thought I'would look in the Adobe Forums to get some more insight and perhaps a solution to my updating problem with LR ...
They are out of service, undergoing maintainance.. What a bad company Adobe has become.
It's not maintenance, it's an upgrade. Also, they aren't leaving you in the lurch, it says right on the error page that you can get support on Twitter.
lambert4: Looks like they are opening the door to Aperture if they update the Software and maybe launch an iOS application to work in conjunction?
The door has been open to Aperture for years and years. Apple has a very good handle on photos, Mac OS, and iOS, and should have plugged this hole a long time ago. They could have slam dunked this before anyone else did.
Instead Apple has let iOS/OS X integration languish and they have been lapped by solutions from Mosaic, Photosmith, and now Adobe, none of which are ideal at the moment.
The fact that Apple has not done anything about this should be a clue to what Apple's attitude is toward photographers right now.
I dislike subscriptions, but it is definitely interesting that folks who will happily pay $7.99/mo just to watch TV on Netflix will balk at $9.99/mo for serious pro level photo tools.
And then spend $10 on a cocktail that lasts for a few minutes, at the bar down the road.
D 503: Why did she not have a gun ?
It's your gun against his AK-47. Good luck
Geekapoo: I ain't buying the OMG...I'm an athiest LOLOLOLOLOLOL
"oh my goodness" works too
joyclick: Apple likes to put its name on everything under the sun and make money from it.Android is the answer.
You're kidding...right? Android is hardly the answer, and ironically, the reasons are exactly the ones you listed.
Apple files patents the same way Microsoft, Google, etc. do. Samsung probably does as well.
But if you are trying to argue that it is companies who put their name on everything under the sun who are evil, Samsung, not Apple, is your target.
Apple associates its name with specific product lines and areas. Apple isn't going to build refrigerators, baby monitors, or televisions.
But Samsung really does put its name on everything under the sun. I searched on Amazon and Samsung was under 35 categories. Because Samsung will put their name on a washing machine. Apple will not.
Finally, Android is Samsung. If you take Samsung out of Android, Android has practically no market share.
janvanbogaert: This patent application was already published on June 28, 2012US2012162465 (A1) - ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH TWO IMAGE SENSORS The granted patent was published 2 days ago.
Another related one was published on August 20,2009: US2009207272 (A1) - ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH TWO IMAGE SENSORS
You can them when you search with these numers on http://worldwide.espacenet.com
All this excitement comes a bit late ...
Those patents could be completely irrelevant to this one unless you show they are for the same purpose. Some dual-sensor implementations are for better dynamic range, others for depth of field, others for noise reduction...you can't just point at any old two-sensor patent and cry "Prior art!!"
Everybody's jumping to conclusions about "not new" and "prior art" and such but there are aspects of this that seem atypical for your usual camera remote: Like: "... The PMD can send the captured still images and recorded video to the accessory for preview and receive instructions from the accessory on disposition of the still images and the video."
Most remotes cannot exchange images with the controlled camera.
macky patalinghug: Oh, the days before the selfie :)
Self-portraits, both formal and casual, have been with us since the beginning of photography.
The only problem today is insecure photographers who seem to think that the word "selfie" somehow threatens the Holy Sanctity of Photography, which is such a silly thing to get hung up on.
I guess for those whose protests weren't able to stop the film to digital transition, railing against "selfies" is the next false nostalgia crusade to jump on.
thomas2279f: They should do a joint venture like joining up with Nikon = sell for both company...
Apple may not want to work with Nikon after evaluating the Nikon 1 V3's potential for extending Nikon's presence in that market.
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.