Photo_Joe: I try to use this...
Only Microsoft Vista or newer supported (and Mac ):
"Cloud Drive Desktop is only compatible with PC computers running Windows Vista and above."
So, with Microsoft XP and 2003 Server you cannot use this service... you can only use the web interface what is limited and not comfortable...
And about RAW files:
"RAW photo files are proprietary file formats developed by each camera manufacturer. Many RAW photo files are identified by Amazon Cloud Drive as photos and will not count against your storage limit if you're a Prime member. "
Who is a "Prime member"? It's a default Amazon account?
Supported RAW files:
Nikon (NEF files) Nikon D1, Nikon D1X, Nikon D4, Nikon Coolpix A, Nikon E5700, Nikon AW1, Nikon D800, Nikon D50, Nikon D610
Canon (CR2 Files) Canon 5D, Canon 1D, Canon 1D MarkIIN, Canon Rebel SL1, Canon 60D, Canon 5D MarkIII, Canon 1D MarkIV
Sony (ARW files) Sony A7, Sony A7R, Sony A6000, Sony NEX-5T, Sony NEX-3N, Sony NEX-6
Fair enough for Adobe to only support operating systems that Microsoft supports!
RichRMA: You know what would be interesting? If someone made one of these "fast" pro zoom lenses f/2.0 instead of f/2.8. Like Samsung does and Olympus once did.
If only Sigma would just make theirs in an MFT mount! But otherwise there is already that option for most APS-C brands out there...
TheDevil: In the last three years I have seen only 2 mirrorless cameras out in the wild. A Sony A6000 and Sony Nex 5, that's it.
I rarely see people with mirrorless cameras, but at a Nordic ski race I was at this weekend, the official photographer was using a Sony A99 (not exactly a mirrorless, I know), and I spotted an Oly EM-5, Sony A6000, a Fuji, plus my own Oly EM-1. On the Ferry ride over someone commented on my 'nice lens' (Oly 75mm) and another person mentioned the new 40MP option on the new Oly EM-5 Mk II in passing. I've never seen the likes!
Aaron801: I can't claim to understand the specifics of copyright law. Still, it seems to me that one image influenced another and if you want to use that idea of "influence" as a yardstick for copyright violation then there's going to be a whole lot more of it. It isn't a direct copy of the image or even a tracing of said image. They're both in slightly different poses anyway (with the original having a bent leg). It's not only a different original shot but the silhouette/logo treatment that's done with it is an entirely different presentation than a straight up photo. If we were to apply this standard to music then rather than having grounds to sue over unauthorized sampling or directly copying a melody, the Beatles could sue thousands of musicians who they've obviously influenced.
I'm with DStudio - if it was a just regular jump shot then it would be a totally different story... It wasn't the idea of a silhouette that they went forward with, it was the whole concept including the contrived pose itself.
Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.
If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.
I've owned Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon, Canon, Panasonic and Olympus lenses. So far I've sent in a Canon to repair a broken IS part (17-55 f/2.8), and an Olympus (17mm f/1.8) that failed to focus out of the box, plus my Sigma zoom ring broke when I dropped it (hard to fault the lens in that case). I also have a Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 that the aperture is stuck at f/1.8 on. Not to say they aren't better built than Tamron, but just an example of how one bad experience doesn't say much about quality control :)
GoneMirrorless: So the new goal is to make cameras an easy/quick extension for smartphones with seemless integration.
Take better quality selfies and post on social media.
Everyone is right I think. Younger camera buyers are not accustom to using a VF. Just like they prefer tablets to laptops and touch-screens to a mouse, they prefer LCDs to VFs.I wonder, does it fit in a pocket like the GM1?
I have an E-M1 and a recently acquired used GX1 and when I handed the GX1 to my 7 year old to take a photo he raised it to his eye and asked me where you look in :) I don't think it is true that kids think touch screens are superior - they just are a bit more open to favoring the easier-to-use interface...in some cases that is the touchscreen. But while my kids had fun with the touch screen shutter for a few seconds, they still prefer to use the regular shutter button and EVF outdoors as it is so much easier to see! Indoors, different story...
Saffron_Blaze: Wonder how they are going to deal with Personality Rights and Model Releases. Flickr is essentially a re-user by selling these images and it is their responsibility to ensure consent is obtained where required. For the type of commercial use they are engaging in here they would normally need them. I guess they are hoping those identifiable people never find out they have been sold by Flickr.
Not to mention that there is no guarantee that the 'photographer' who uploaded the image took it in the first place... This seems like a legal nightmare! It seems to me that Flickr needs to start curating the images like an agency, if they are going to earn revenue selling them as prints.
I'm all for improvements in technology and image quality over time, but still waiting to see an article with the title "Skilled photographer upgrades to new camera and others notice dramatic improvement!"
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Maybe he is arguing in his spare time ;)
Stephan Def: Just out of curiosity, what cameras do have sound recording per image?
I think its a very important function that has very many uses, to capture the atmosphere of some situation its very important. Technically it seems like a no brainer to me. So what is it about marketing departments that are intentionally crippling functions in Cameras?
Not that it is a sports camera by any stretch of the imagination...but even the Olympus E-PL1 has audio recording per image!
Skip Bastrisky: Well, I guess I'm mixed up with all the 7D confusion !!! I'am a professional photographer who shoots action auto racing. I have press credentials with NASCAR. I shoot with three, I repeat three Canon 7 D's and all my lens from 18mm to 400 are Canon "glass" lens. I produce wonderful and colorful prints up 16X20 and have good bokah,clarity and not much "noise" in them!!!! I shoot three to four thousand photos a race weekend and I don't seem to need voice recordings. And I guess I'm deaf because I don't hear any rational noise in the "shutter" department.They look as good or better than what you posted of"Seattle". I think it's all in the preference of where you want to put your money !!!! I use the three different 7D's so that I don't miss a shot by having to change lens!!! I have about $30,000 tied up in my equipment. The only problem between me and her is that I don't have a big corporation to buy my cameras and glass !!!! I had a couple of "pennies" laying around, so I used them !!!
I doubt anyone has ever complained about the shutter noise from a camera at a NASCAR race :)
lorenzo de medici: Very helpful review and commentary. Someone who earns their living by their photographs is an authority, period. Her being a Canon user but generally biased against this particular model contributed to a nice balance of praise and criticism. I also wonder, what cameras do have the voice caption feature? My Nikon D810 does not. There's really only one thing that I find less than helpful about this review. As a working newspaper photographer, she gets credentials to stand on the sideline where the action is. So she doesn't really need the extra reach of a smaller sensor on a telephoto. Neither do I, since I can crop out of my 36MP image to get the same result. But many people, who don't get to stand on the sideline, do find the 1.5 focal length multiplier to be helpful in sports photography. Not an issue for her, so she downplays that advantage that this camera has.
Olympus E-PL5, E-M1 and E-M5 do, as well as others in the line... They allow a 30s voice note to be recorded with an image. This is an interesting point that doesn't get much mention in reviews - and why an opinion piece like this is interesting to me. I don't understand why some people (in other comments) seem to think every opinion piece should result in recommendations that make sense for every potential buyer of this camera. The PJ has a specific niche/use of this body, and her comments reflect that. For me this adds to the discussion of how working photographers use cameras, rather than being a buy/don't buy recommendation for everyone.
bcalkins: A lot of progress has been made in compact cameras - at least 3 of these cameras on the lens chart have wider effective apertures than most dSLRs with a kit 18-55mm zoom. It also shows the value of lens choice - a kit with a couple of inexpensive f/1.8 primes would be off the bottom of the chart (page 1 of the review) whether MFT (just), APS-C or Full Frame.
They should add an APS-C dSLR with kit zoom to give you an idea of how much depth of field control you do get with these much smaller cameras!
In whose hands, though? I doubt the majority of buyer of an inexpensive dSLR kit push the limits enough to notice a difference... Little difference in online, or small prints. Or at least I see little difference between my friends who have Rx100 or Canon G series versus the Rebels and D3100's... Except that the ones with the compact cameras take them with them :)
A lot of progress has been made in compact cameras - at least 3 of these cameras on the lens chart have wider effective apertures than most dSLRs with a kit 18-55mm zoom. It also shows the value of lens choice - a kit with a couple of inexpensive f/1.8 primes would be off the bottom of the chart (page 1 of the review) whether MFT (just), APS-C or Full Frame.
Simon97: Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".
Except that the LX100 also bests the G1X Mk II, in my opinion. I'm surprised how much better the LX100 looks in this studio scene (which is not necessarily indicative of how it will fare in real scenes with more DR, AF, etc.) than the G1X, RX100 and so on, especially at higher ISOs. The RAW files are a lot closer, but still...Panasonic is doing something right with its out of camera jpgs these days when it comes to NR.
buybuybuy: What an absurd presentation of images!
I would imagine that any reasonable person would look to such a gallery for information on how a particular camera performs. Yet, is this possible here (or for that matter, in any of your camera review galleries)?
ISO? F-stop? No way to select/sort...If I want to browse images at leisure, I'd visit Flickr. Here, however, I expect the presentation to better reflect its context--a review of a camera--a technical item--on a gear-oriented site. And, in this regard, it performs quite dismally.
note: translated from German by my assistant Carsten.
Did you try the slideshow option? It presents an easy way to browse images with the EXIF info overlay and an option to download the full res image. Saying nothing about the quality or artistic merit of the images, I can agree that the gallery used by DPReview is frustrating to use. The EXIF Info below cannot be seen (on my laptop) at the same time as the image without scrolling, and I can't go from image to image without repositioning my mouse. But the slideshow option improves things a lot, so try that if you haven't...
"you have to go to the $1600/£1200 Nocticron to find clicky apertures on an AF lens " - doesn't the 17mm Panny f/1.7 prime have this as well, for a much lower price?
I think you have touched on a very interesting point - and it is the difference between when one *might* do with a camera and how one actually uses it in practice. A lot of people purchase a dSLR with kit lens and never buy another lens. The LX100 is the kind of camera they should really buy - since they get the benefit of the much faster lens and the creative options that offers with a smaller size to boot.
Personally I find the LX100 to be an attractive option as a second body, as well. I own an EM-1 and recently purchased a GX1 as a small carry anywhere option. The reality is that I'll never take the GX1 with a 12-40mm or 50-200mm lens. As soon as I start taking more than one lens I have 'room' for my EM-1. So practically, a fixed lens on the LX100 would make no difference (other than having a faster lens!).
There is a reason these aren't made for Canon/Nikon, and conversely why they exist for Fuji/Samsung/MFT (natively) - Canon and Nikon support a larger sensor size. When you get into a telephoto lens, how many people want to spend $1600+ for less reach? And by going with a crop specific model you give up the option to use the lens on a full frame body later (with full coverage). Whether people upgrade not not I think most people think they will at some point. When I used to shoot with a 70-200mm F/4 Canon on APS-C it was a wonderful lens, and I don't recall wishing I had a bit more range on the wide end - that end has plenty of choices that overlap. But I frequently wanted more range on the telephoto end.
Now, with an MFT system I use a 50-200mm zoom - so in many ways I've gone the other way, taking advantage of the smaller system to get MORE reach in a similar size, rather than matching the reach on a full frame sensor in a smaller package.