Pages

 

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

9 comments

1 Skip Intro  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 8:52:59am

Not sure what “in body RAW processing” means, but it is an attractive camera, although a little bit pricey for the market it’s aimed at.

2 Political Atheist  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 9:14:30am

re: #1 Skip Intro

RAW files have all the color data. Think of it as the digital negative. That is then processed either in the camera to send to a printer or onto the display or for export. Processed means serious adjustments to contrast and color. Or you could just grab the RAW file and process it yourself with PS or whatever.

3 Skip Intro  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 9:30:06am

re: #2 Political Atheist

RAW files have all the color data.

I understand that. I was wondering if the RAW file was available separately, or if the article was saying the file would be converted to a jpeg or Tiff and then discarded.

I don’t know why they would do that, but I’ve seen stranger things from camera manufacturers.

4 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 11:49:58am

Not even an evf? Thanks but no thanks. I’ve tried that “composing on the screen” thing; I can get better shots from the meniscus lens on a 50 year old instamatic.

Seriously, I can only use those things on a tripod like it’s the ground glass on on of my LF cameras. OTOH, my little & already outdated E-PL1 with it’s add on finder is at least useful as a real camera to me.

Combine that with a fixed 28mm equivalent lens (sorry, I learned on a 50 & the 2 foot zoom. That’s just too wide for a walk around lens for me) and the too high of a price tag (cut it to 1/3 of that & you might have something worth buying) and all I can say is I’m definitely not the target market.

5 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:22:27pm

does it have remote?

6 RealityBasedSteve  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:30:12pm

re: #4 William Barnett-Lewis

Not even an evf? Thanks but no thanks. I’ve tried that “composing on the screen” thing; I can get better shots from the meniscus lens on a 50 year old instamatic.

Seriously, I can only use those things on a tripod like it’s the ground glass on on of my LF cameras. OTOH, my little & already outdated E-PL1 with it’s add on finder is at least useful as a real camera to me.

Combine that with a fixed 28mm equivalent lens (sorry, I learned on a 50 & the 2 foot zoom. That’s just too wide for a walk around lens for me) and the too high of a price tag (cut it to 1/3 of that & you might have something worth buying) and all I can say is I’m definitely not the target market.

I’m with you. A 28mm prime is a great lens, but hardly a ‘do-it-all’ FL. It’s hard to figure just who the primary users for this would be. There are some pretty darn strong zoom Point n Shoots out there that let you have a lot of creative control, so no sales there. If I want interchangable lenses in a smaller form factor, that the realm of Mirco Four Thirds cams. This seems to me to be almost a product in search of a market. I don’t see one in my bag in the future.

RBS
Who has to admit wanting to try an old 4x5 field camera some weekend

7 Political Atheist  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:54:16pm

re: #3 Skip Intro

I understand that. I was wondering if the RAW file was available separately, or if the article was saying the file would be converted to a jpeg or Tiff and then discarded.

I don’t know why they would do that, but I’ve seen stranger things from camera manufacturers.

As I understand it, you get the raw files and or processed jpeg.

8 steve_davis  Wed, Apr 17, 2013 3:46:40pm

re: #1 Skip Intro

Not sure what “in body RAW processing” means, but it is an attractive camera, although a little bit pricey for the market it’s aimed at.

Sounds like a sales gimmick that basically boils down to it making RAW images. I’ve certainly managed to make decent photos with a point-and-shoot, but I’m not really sure what the point is here. If they want to allow for really decent images, just spread 8 million bigger pixels across their larger sensor, and they’ll get a camera that is much better at dealing with noise from low-light shots, as well as making resolution and color much better than in a standard point-and-shoot.

9 mr.JA  Thu, Apr 18, 2013 1:10:27am

re: #6 RealityBasedSteve

RBS
Who has to admit wanting to try an old 4x5 field camera some weekend

Most definitely!
Looks like a nice cam, but in this category, I think I’d prefer the Fuji x100s… I still have a big-and-bulky DSLR for more serious work, but these compacts-with good sensors are tempting.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 82 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0