Zeisschen: Wow, that eagle flight is impressive! What a speed!
But what's up with that 12.000$ Canon lens falling apart in the middle after someone just fell on it? Is that the almighty famous L lens built quality?? LOL
Uh..."someone" wasn't just anyone.
Do you expect any lens to withstand impact from a fully armored but out-of-control 200lb football player?
AbrasiveReducer: If I were a camera manufacturer my worry wouldn't be about lack of innovations or not enough solutions looking for problems. My worry would be that all these cameras and most of their predecessors are completely adequate for most people's needs. There is little reason to upgrade and far less to switch.
Furthermore, the real advances are happening far from the Canikons of the world. The traditional companies want hundreds of extra dollars for wireless capabilities, remote viewing, remote tethering, high frame rate video, etc. while the mirrorless, action cam, and smartphone camera segments build all that in and let you do things like use your smartphone or tablet as a remote viewfinder and for wireless capture storage.
The traditional camera manufacturers are desperately fishing for where their next big sale is coming from, while all the other companies are zooming past them in innovation.
AksCT: This article does not claim to be a "comprehensive and technical review" of the camera. It contains a lot of subjective and personal views of the author. Clearly, as posted in these comments, others have broad and differing personal views.However, it is quite disappointing to see unrelated and inappropriate comments.
Oh gee, Ontario Gone thinks opinions don't count, now I don't know who to believe...the "objective" reviews done by bloggers who do all their testing in their bedroom (note: not referring to DPR there), or the "opinion" of a veteran photojournalist who encounters a wide range of challenging conditions and is asked to shoot NFL games from the sidelines...
Tomrood: Anyone using the words hate or puke in a review does not really sound like a professional. And to top it off she wrote 25% about a ridicules feature that no camera in existence has. And if u ask me no pro cam wil ever have this... can u imagine how it would look if all the photographers during a sports game where talking to their camera..hilarious!
I really don't understand why DPR even published this..
I have seen this photographer's byline long before this story, before seeing a photo of the photographer, and I respected the work as professional work.
I think she has earned the right to say whatever she wants about photography. And furthermore, I will go as far as saying that no one would have cared that those words were used if the picture of the photographer showed a male, middle-aged white graybeard.
Photato: Any reason why Apple is still using a 4:3 Aspect Ratio sensor in a 16:9 world?All the pictures are shown top/botton cropped on the iPhone 16:9 screen or with side bars when zoomed out, same for HDTVs.As for Video, most of the sensor's pixels are wasted into a 16:9 crop. Here the lens behaves more like narrower 38mm eqv.I am scratching my head wondering about Apple's famous attention for detail. LOL
It is a 16:9 world unless you are posting to Instagram which is a 1:1 world, and all of a sudden Apple's 4:3 sensor makes a lot more sense.
Gregm61: Better than the crappy Kodak Instamatic mom and dad used in the early 70's, but not something I'd use to shoot my vacation pics today. Great for recording the sign in the airport parking garage though so I remember where I parked.
It's a realistic perspective. I started with an instamatic too, so I am very familiar with the potential image quality of an Instamatic and 126 film.
Most good smartphones can beat an Instamatic 126 combo. In low light, smartphones and especially the iPhone will utterly dominate an old Instamatic with 126. It is actually possible to get a sharp low light shot with an iPhone, where a cheap film P&S won't be able to hike up the ISO, won't be able to optically or digitally stabilize, and won't be able to reduce noise.
I've scanned a lot of my old 126 film and you'd be surprised how blurry that stuff was, for all of the above reasons.
That sensor is so sensitive, you have to be careful what you say around it.
Petrogel: Unfortunately, Apple stays Internet depended, Thunderbolt remain useless, usb 3 is not an option (on iPads, as far as i know) and the useless 5k is the main feature for iMacs,
Well, that just means the 5K monitor is useless to you, not useless. Reports are that there seems to be no performance penalty using the 5K monitor, so the question changes from "why have it" to "why not have it" and then, "why do you specifically hate it so very much?"
This is a photography site, how is a 5K monitor "useless?" 5K means you can show and edit an entire 14-megapixel photo at 1:1 scale! The reduction in having to zoom and pan around your photo is potentially a great productivity enhancer.
steve_hoge: Does that orange case help you find the drive after it's fallen overboard? Or is it just screaming "steal me"?
I don't own one, but since it's built for travel, the orange is not a bad thing. It beats trying to find a black box in a black bag that's full of black gear, during a night shoot in the field...
Almeida: Honest question: what about android? The app needs to be updated or already has this?
@markie1977 the reasons are, iOS is said to be a better place as a starting point and to refine the design of an app before branching out to the other OSs, iOS is not nearly as fragmented as Android, in submarkets like photography iOS may actually have more share (similar to how Mac market share in creative is significantly higher than in general). And finally, iOS users are more likely to pay for apps. As an example:https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/481978101920849921
Developers consistently report that iOS Average Revenue Per User is four times higher than Android.
Hipstamatic may be losing money, but for all the usual business reasons, adding an Android version is not a guaranteed way to save the company. And if they are as poorly managed as you say, supporting a new platform could even sink the company.
The real test, of course, is to see how many of the "I miss film, digital ruined photography" crowd actually buys enough product to keep ventures like this and The Impossible Project alive.
If you don't, then it doesn't matter what is posted on message boards, you chose digital through your actions regardless of your words.
Nothing to do with hipness, just the usual business reasons why Android isn't always the best platform for develop for first. Nothing personal about it...and market share is not a good enough reason.
Joseph Black: http://opensignal.com/reports/2014/android-fragmentation/This is why developers hate making apps for Android-based phones.
"Consdering how cheap some Android phones are Apple should, by all rights, be completely out of business by now."
No, it is the opposite. Apple knows what they are doing. Every sane businessman knows that low prices don't keep a company going, margins do. That's why Apple doesn't care what happens in the low end of the PC or smartphone market. Apple is the most profitable PC vendor, the vendor with the highest market share in PCs over $1000, and one of the few PC makers consistency experiencing growth.
In the smartphone market, Apple doesn't care about the Race to the Bottom there either. Samsung just issued a financial warning that their operating profits will be down 60 percent. Why? They are getting hammered at the high end by Apple and slaughtered at the low end by Xiaomi and other low-cost Chinese phone makers.
Apple wants customers who can afford to pay for apps. Developers follow the money. It isn't Apple who is paying companies to develop apps for iOS. It's the customers.
justnuaces: For whom is asking if Apple is paying Adobe for develop the softwares for iOS (and cutting out Android)…
The answer is "yes", at least partially.
Some Adobe softwares are in the Apple App Store, and probably the delay for Android is part of the agreement.Probably Adobe had to wait for the Android version in order to spare money (i.e. lowering the fee to Apple for staying in the App Store).
I've no proof, and this is my personal opinion, but it seems likely to me.a_
It is probably not payments or anything like that. It is probably just business.
Everybody has their own pet conspiracy theory and they all sound wrong when you take a bigger look. The Android users believe it is a payoff because they don't get Android apps. But the Mac users, who still believe (erroneously I think) that Adobe hates Apple, noticed that this morning the Microsoft CEO came on stage with the Adobe CEO to help push Adobe apps on the Surface Pro 3. And so it continues, Mac users think Adobe is anti-Apple while Android users believe Adobe is pro-Apple, and Adobe just goes about their business.
Bruce Clarke: More features for iThings, and still nothing for Android. It's been a very long wait.
Android is the most used smartphone software, but that does not mean it is the most used by the market Adobe is interested in.
HowaboutRAW: So no Samsung NX1, or Panasonic LX100, or Canon G7X--all kind of interesting cameras--and IR has already posted some raws from the Canon.
Also Leica uses DNG, so unless the newest Leicas only use a very very new version of DNG, older versions of ACR should work with say the S2(type 700), so this Leica V-Lus seems odd.
if you know the history of raw developing, you know that the issue of who is responsible was obvious long ago. All software companies, Apple, Adobe, etc. have to take the time to reverse-engineer the raw files because most camera companies are unwilling to share the formats even when asked. The software companies would be more than willing to provide immediate support if only the camera companies were not so restrictive and proprietary.
There are some enlightened companies like Pentax and Hasselblad who have cameras that can output DNG. Their formats do not need raw updates from Apple or Adobe.
SAERIN: Real-World Samples.
That are almost/preface to a review of a camera.
Certainly, they are not artistic.
Just mundane images.
Please have your photographers staff post some creative work.
The purpose of the gallery is to show examples under various technical scenarios. It already takes long enough for them to finish reviews. If you are to subject the sample images to some arbitrary subjective aesthetic criteria, then it will take even longer for them to finish their reviews for no good reason.
RStyga: JPEG only? What's the point?
What would be the point of raw, since by definition the way the raw look is up to the combination of software and operator. Raw would be less useful for why this gallery exists, which is to compare to other cameras at factory settings for final output. That is a consistent baseline that you can compare to other cameras.
tbcass: What good is in camera RAW processing. Isn't JPG from a camera a RAW image converted to JPG. I just don't get it because it seems completely useless.
I should have added on...if I shoot raw for development so an in-camera JPEG would not look good, but I need a good JPEG to send immediately, and I don't have a computer on me, it would be useful to use the camera to adjust the raw and then generate a JPEG that looks good.
But that is assuming that you do have the opportunity to adjust the color and tone before generating the JPEG in camera. I don't know if that's true but if it is then it's useful, if not then I wouldn't have any use for it.
I agree that the feature is probably rarely needed by most people.