p1726: Is this really a hands-on?
I see your point: we haven't included any images of the camera in our hands. All the images you see are shot by us, in our studio (we have had our hands on it).
audiobomber: Hopefully the K-3 II review will be written by Dan Bracaglia and Rishi Sanyal. They did a great job on the A77 II review, especially the focus testing. The K-3 was sabotaged by all the wrong settings for the AF-C test.
You're absolutely right, I'm not a regular user of Pentax (or any brand), so there's always the possibility of us not discovering the optimal settings.
However, I have reviewed several Pentax camera (which involves using them for extended periods), we did experiment with settings (there are AF Hold on and off examples included in the review, for instance), and discuss with Ricoh to ensure we didn't get it *totally* wrong.
That's never going to be a substitute for the >year of experience that you've now built up, but we put in a lot of work to try to get the best out of the system and I'm confident that we got it broadly right.
One of the problems with AF testing is that you can't model all possible shooting situations (BIF for instance), but I can assure you that we didn't just run outside, take a couple of pictures of a cyclist and then draw our conclusions from that.
With the work Rishi's doing, we should be able to be more certain in our findings, this time round.
The K-3 review doesn't give full details of every test conducted, nor of every setting tested. The examples given may be of a cyclist riding towards the camera but that isn't the full extent of the tests. This included several tests that, while not rigorous by scientific standards, were consistent enough with the way we tested other cameras that the results go a long way beyond 'guessing.'
Is there room for improvement? absolutely. This is something acknowledged in the K-3 review text and something Rishi is working very hard to address. However, words like 'sabotage' and 'guessing' are disingenuous at best.
Apparently history has been changed since I last checked.
The K-3 was tested extensively with a range of lenses and a range of settings, conducted in discussion with Ricoh to ensure we were getting the best out if it.
Brooks11: Lightroom update is listed as 5.7 - which would seem to indicate that its a free update to users that have version 5. apparently not so - what's up ?
Lightroom 5.7 appears to date from [November 2014](http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/11/lightroom-5-7-now-available.html).
Lightroom 6 is a whole version upgrade, so you'll need to try to make sense of your local Adobe website and find the (paid) upgrade option to get it.
LincolnB: I'd like it if focus distance could be stored in EXIF. That would be a huge boon in forensic analysis, among other uses. It would help answer the question of "How far away WAS I when I took that shot?"
It is, for some systems (I forget which). I think it's pretty approximate, but it does exist.
alpha604: Regarding the DR & RAW comparison at the end of the review... whille the compressed raw files warrant review, the DPReview test is also flawed by not using the base ISO values for each CMOS sensor.
The higher exposure latitude or dynamic range possible will be available while utilizing the image sensors at their native base setting. For the A7R it is somewhere between 100-160, while the A7S is 3200. If you aren't flexing the A7S at 3200 you are crippling the range it will be able to reproduce. In the interest of squeezing the most in terms of DR from these cameras proper respect is also needed for how the components are designed.
We often assume that the lowest ISO (native) is best, and it generally is. However the test images were shot at ISO100. You wouldn't seriously test cameras for comparison via extended ISO settings would you? Use the accurate native ISO of the image sensors or else you are comparing apples to oranges.
Photato: If anything, we concluded ISO 100 is base based on DR and it's a noise analysis that might make you conclude that ISO 400 is base (since the lower ISOs are producing so much signal that it essentially overwhelms the Raw file, leading to quantisation error and noise at lower ISO).
Our testing and real-world shooting both appear to concur with DxO's conclusion that ISO 100 offers considerably greater DR than ISO 400.
I think Rishi has been waiting over a month for someone to explain why they'd conclude that ISO 400 is base. I'm sure he'd be delighted to discuss it with you.
Xharlie: I have two simple questions: What is Adobe's update policy for their standalone Lightroom version and is it possible to use the filter brushes WITHOUT a radial or linear-gradient filter?
With relevance to the first - Adobe do appear to publish updates here http://www.adobe.com/uk/downloads/updates.html so, once you've bought lightroom 6, can you just always download the newest version as long as it is still major version 6?
On the second one, is is possible to just create a mask using only brush-painting?
Masking with brushes has been a feature since something like version 2, I seem to remember.
Lee Jay: "What's more, the output is a 16-bit DNG file"
Richard. I think it's quite important that you mention that this is a 16 bit *floating point* DNG file. A 16 bit linear file can hold around 16 stops of DR. A 16 bit floating point file can hold about 30 stops of DR due to the inherent logarithmic encoding of floating point format.
Thanks Lee Jay: I've updated the story.
The briefing we had was a little vague on this, so I didn't want to over-promise.
AbrasiveReducer: Whether by design or lack of other options, it seems Adobe is making Photoshop less and less necessary. Of course, with a subscription, you have to pay for PS anyway.
Adobe has always said that Lightroom was about offering Photographers the key tools (including workflow) that they need, rather than making everyone learn Photoshop which hasn't been particularly 'photo' focused for a very, very long time.
But yes, the contradiction in then only allowing *subscription* to LR if you also subscribe to PS is noticeable.
ijm5012: Any word about discounted pricing for upgrading perpetual license users?
As BaldCol says, it's $79 in the US. Add Lightroom 6 to your 'Cart' on the Adobe site, then choose 'Edit' on the view cart page, change 'Version' from 'Full' to 'Upgrade' and select the version you currently have.
mantra: hiare you sure there 2 version ?cc and v6when can we download the trial version ?thanks
I'm 100% sure there are two versions.
There's a link at the bottom right of [this page](https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html?promoid=KLXLX) to add LR 6 to your cart, from which point there's the option to buy or upgrade.
I don't know whether there's a trial version.
Pascal Parvex: Well, Amazon.com now has it, so where is the review? :)
leica f64: Why would DxO's supposed bias have any impact on our editorial decisions? (Answer: they wouldn't/don't).
Also, where does the fact that we weren't able to conduct a full Nikon D4s review sit with your conspiracy theory about the decision being brand-based (which it wasn't), rather than complexity/resource based?
maxnimo: Why do they call it a 1" sensor when not even the diagonal is even close to 1" in length?
maxnimo: it's both. Four Thirds type sensors are both 4/3"-type, using the ridiculous standard terminology and are 4:3 aspect ratio.
regordyoll: Why a 1" sensor when a Sony A7 has a full frame sensor or a Sony A6000 has an APS-C sensor? I'd like to understand the reason. Thanks!
@ColdViking. It's not so much 'absolute nonsense' as 'demonstrably true.'
The 'with a 27-270mm equiv zoom' part of the statement is important.
Even with equivalent apertures, a GH4 with 13.5-135mm lens would be larger and heavier than this, while an a7S with a 27-270mm lens will be larger and heavier still.
The URSA Mini is also a cool product but it wasn't publicly known when this article was written. It's certainly more capable but it's also larger and twice the price (suggesting it's aimed at a slightly different audience).
Nukunukoo: Just trying to do the math. Most anamorphic lenses would turn a 4:3 ratio into the more conventional 16:9-ish ratio. I may be wrong, that means that if I want cinema aspect, my SLR Magic 1.33x won't do. I need a 2x for that.
I think the SLR Magic 1.33x was specifically designed to squeeze a *roughly* 'Scope ratio down onto 16:9. (16*1.33)/9=2.36, so it's 1:2.36. Consequently it's not so useful on 4:3 (as you point out, that would only give you 15.96:9).
However, 2x on 4:3 would give you 8:3, which is 2.66:1
DGrinb: No in-body image stabilization, proprietary lenses....how come it's good??
@DGrinb - That's true, but not necessarily the only outcome. Canon's EF mount is, to the best of my knowledge, a closed, proprietary system.
FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
Lou P Dargent, our statements agree with one another.
I agree entirely that the elegance (and value) of the f-number system is that, with the same F-number, any two lenses will project the same amount of light for any given subject in the scene. Light per-unit-area on the sensor is the same.
My point is then that, with equal light-per-unit area, the sensor with the largest area receives more light. Nothing I've said disputes your most recent statement.
Exposure as it's used in photography (and I'm not suggesting abandoning it) is based on F-numbers, which tells you about light-per-unit-area. Clearly, at this point, the amount of area available for light capture then plays an important role.
However, the ISO standard then requires whatever amplification and digital pushes are necessary to cancel-out the sensor size difference and provide a consistent light intensity-to-output brightness, which obscures these differences.
And yet most people recognise these differences: smaller sensors have a narrower field of view, noisier images and less shallow depth-of-field, when using the same lens.
The oddity (to me) is that most people are happy to accept the first of those (equivalent focal lengths) but are reluctant to examine the effects of the exposure system we all use, to recognise the reason for the other effects of sensor size that they see.
And, if you could open the APS-C lens up to F2.67 (so that you had a 37.5mm entrance pupil diameter for both lenses), then you'd get more light on the APS-C sensor.
The crucial thing is that (with the same shutter speed), you'd get more light per-unit-area on the small sensor in exact proportion to how much smaller the sensor is, than the full frame camera.
At which point, you'd get a better pixel-level performance on the APS-C camera and the two images would look extremely similar (I won't claim identical) when scaled to the same output size.