Samuel Dilworth: Paving the path to subscription-only Lightroom, as feared …
I long for the old days of selling something the customer wants at a fair price. Why is this model so untenable?
@Samuel, it's because the pace of innovation has slowed to a crawl but shareholder demands for earnings growth remains. Adobe understands there is no value-based rationalization for users to upgrade PS/LR, outside of support for newer camera models. Their strategy response for this fully-matured software market was to lock people into forced upgrade cycles.
That 4K screen grab looks awesome - I wonder how well the 4K grabs would hold up with interframe compression on moving subjects. Also nice to hear it focuses faster than the RX10, which in my experience focuses a bit slowly. Shame about the plastic-feeling body though.
falconeyes: 18 hours ago, David Jacobowitz made an argument that this article should cite work which helped evolve the concept of equivalence (or how I call it, the equivalence theoreme).
To this end, I observed that the concept was missing in internet discussions dated 2007, Jan 11. At that time, Daniel Buck in http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/544062/ described the Brenizer method on the Fred Miranda forum (actually before Ryan Brenizer "invented" it; he did not). The effect is easily understood using equivalence (stitching effectively creates a larger sensor). Yet, the fredmiranda discussion fails to recognize this relation and does a poor job explaining the effect or compute its effective aperture.
Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that the equivalence theoreme was discovered after 2007 January. Moreover, this is a nice example how useful the equivalence theoreme actually is ...
@JACS, many of the best inventions seem trivial in retrospect but still required a clever mind to discover and elucidate.
This is like apologizing to a child for being out of broccoli at dinner time, out of soap at bath time, and out of toothpaste at night time.
David Jacobowitz: Important article, but that no credit or mention given to Joseph James is sincerely Not Cool.
He was arguing and explaining equivalence on these very forums years ago, and has had a very comprehensive essay on the subject (more so than this piece) for as long.
I find it highly unlikely that Richard Butler did not even look at that piece:
@Richard, it's difficult to persuasively argue that your article isn't at least in part based on Joseph's work, esp. when the article's title is a term Joseph himself appears to have coined. While you may not have consulted his work directly in your immediate research, it's clear to anyone who has followed the subject that a significant portion of the information available online both here and elsewhere has a provenance which leads directly to Joseph. Prudence dictates that his work is deserving of attribution in your article.
Many times my FF photos are equivalent to my m4/3's photos - poorly conceived, poorly composed, and poorly executed :)
Interesting development when you consider that Microsoft is rumored to earn upwards of $2B/year in patent royalties from companies in the Android ecosystem. Cameras represent a sizable chunk of the utility in smartphones/tablets and so I imagine this licensing deal is of strategic defensive interest to Microsoft.
These niche cameras are the last bastion of high-margin profitability and even they are coming under competitive price pressure. Tough industry.
The FZ is sharper than the RX10 @ 200mm but looks significantly softer at the wide end.
" I was surprised by how many images were in focus considering I was shooting fast moving, unpredictable subjects on a mirrorless camera."
Can you please quantify this more precisely? Each of us probably has different expectations regarding the in-focus rate.
jackf00: Strange that small upgrades makes 4 articles in 2 days for Nikon, when huge changes on Panasonic GH3 to GH4 (including 4K video) made only a short half-page quick summary article at annoucement and then NOTHING more after 5 month !
Shame on DPR for being so partial, that's NOT PROFESSIONAL at all !
@snooked123, rational logic has no place in this comment section.
"With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture"
I don't see how these two statements are even remotely related or causal. Companies like Apple and Adobe must think people turn off their brains whenever the word 'cloud' is used.
viking79: Go price how much OLPF glass costs, and quickly see Nikon is saving tons of money not including any AA filter at all. Rough guess is a full frame filter is going to cost $100 US +/-.
Seems like a small upgrade, Nikon must be feeling a lot of pressure from the competition to push it out so soon.
The D800 is a much more mature and feature-rich camera than the A7r. And I own an A7r.
solarider: The low ISO ability at 64 and 32 should be terrific for landscape, to name just one use.
@DuxX - it's not just about a longer shutter time. A lower ISO means lower noise and higher dynamic range.
MrMojo: I wouldn't touch this new camera until the sacrificial early adopters discover whatever design problems Nikon gives us this time...
Agreed. Nikon is not the best system for early adopters.
wherearemyshorts: With no optical low-pass filter, is there a cover over the sensor?
If no cover how careful must one be to clean the sensor?
Or did I miss something?
Yes, there is likely still cover glass and IR filters.
nunatak: DxO has previously verified* that Sony partially cooks their RAW data for noise reduction purposes — so rendered files "appear" to have less noise and better performance characteristics.
quote: "If reducing noise is so easy, why is it not always applied? Well, there is a price to pay: averaging pixels increases SNR, but introduces some correlation between pixels. This creates a grainy aspect to the image which is often as annoying as noise itself. Moreover, if pixels are blindly averaged, fine details may simply be erased."
a similar high ISO benefit could be achieved in post using non-sony sensors, with the exception that the photographer selects which regions and compromises are applied. as DxOmark hasn't broken out how different RAW files from different sensors are treated, comparisons of this kind appear much like RAW batter to cooked fudge. while fudge tastes great, i'm not sure DxO's recipe is absolute.
This was on much older Sony sensors, like the A900. DxO tests every camera for signs of raw noise reduction and reports it as an open circle on the SNR/DR charts when found. Based on the charts they did not detect noise reduction on the A7s. Interestingly they did on the Canon 1DX.
www_zeeshan_de: Watching in the RAW File... in all DARK AREAS i can see DEFINETLY more details in the A7S images. At the same time on the top left and top right DARK SKY i can CLEARLY see more noise and blotching blue-noise on the A7R. Therefor the A7S CLEARLY plays in a higher league than the A7R.A list of pixel density can be seen from:http://www.zeeshan.de/fotografie/0_pixeldichte.htm
One should use ONLYdcraw -v -h -w -T -W if you are into comparing sensors and their noise cosdcraw -v -h -w -T -W does NOT APPLY ANY noise reduction OR FURTHER MANIPULATIONS at all.Id recommend you to use dcraw zero mod to squeeze TRUE native RGB resolution images out of RAW usingdcraw -v -h -w -T -W
And for all who say the A7R image looks same or better than the A7S: Get yourself some new glasses or a new screen...
It's not a question of what the image looks like at 1:1 between a higher MP sensor vs lower - those perceptual differences are a given. Again it's a matter of a faster shutter speed required to accommodate the higher sampling rate offered by a higher density sensor. Do you believe a 36MP A7r can achieve its highest sampling rate at the same shutter speed as the minimum shutter speed required for a 12MP A7s? If you do then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
JACS - do you believe a shot @ 100mm does not require a faster shutter speed than 85mm? Because there's no difference between that and higher-density sensors in terms pixels per angle of view and motion blur.
Rishi - A higher density sensor image will never be worse than a lower-density sensor image when viewed at the same normalized output size, but achieving a higher MTF vs the lower-density sensor does in fact require a faster shutter speed due the higher relative magnification of the image. It's the same reason a faster shutter speed is required at longer focal lengths. Otherwise you're just oversampling motion blur.