NFC? Why? I guess so I can "bump" my phone/tablet up to the camera to transfer an image? Seems like something that could be covered by WiFi. Feature creep?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad
If you get no where with yn. Call your credit card company
That's assuming this format gets adopted. I doubt it.
I'm not sure that there is a way to _not_ adopt this. It's not a new format. It's the latest version of the standard libjpeg. Now, software that works with jpg might choose to ignore the new features, even if they use the latest version of the library, which would be equivalent to not adopting it, but that sounds a little lame from a marketing perspective.
If say lightroom does not allow you to save 12bit jpeg two years from now, wouldn't that be a great selling point for all the competitors? Look, we can do something that lightroom can't and we are even standard compliant!
I see it with good eyes. If you think about it, after processing the RAW file, the result is almost always JPEG (TIFF eventually). So have a JPEG with higher bit depth, and lossless is great. We must remember that in the future, the software may not be compatible with current RAW. Imagine a futuristic scenario where Sony went bankrupt and disappeared from the map. In this scenario, users with Sony RAW files are fu-ked. You can say that it will never happen, but remember Kodacrome, and imagine if someone told 10 years ago that Kodak would disappear from the market and the wonderful kodacrome could not be revealed anywhere on the planet. Say that you are a lunatic, but it happened and now kokacrome is dead. Nothing prevents some 10 years from now disappears, and with it the compatibility of your RAW files. So I loved the idea of a high-quality JPEG.
Is the fact that the T3 does "only" 720p while the iPhone does 1080p the reason you label the iPhone's video capabilities as "vastly superior"? If so, that's a load of rubbish. 1080p video off a cell phone is so massively compressed it's NOWHERE near as good as what you get from even an entry level DSLR. I've seen the 1080p video out of an iPhone. It's good, but it's blown away from the 720p and 1080p I get from my DSLRs (and even P&Ss). And that's in good light. Drop the light and any smartphone's video will be a mess of compression artefacts and digital noise from having such a small sensor.
The iphone has a much more capable processor inside of it, which is why it does higher frame rates than the 100D, let alone t3. Apple also doesn't to worry about nerfing the IQ in order to maintain product differentiation.
To sum up, iPhone has better screen, better audio, and better at handling low light noise. And I'm pretty sure that was comparing to iPhone 5.
For the record. I'm not an Apple fan at all. I have a windows phone!
Below the 100D? You mean the market segment that doesn't exist because it's IQ is indistinguishable from iPhones? Get a clue Canon.
You mean the iPhone produces the same image quality as the T3/1100D 12 MP APS-C sensor? Get a clue HurtinMinorKey.
In the hands of the people who would actually buy something on par with the T3, yes. Also, the iphone has vastly superior video.
I understand that some photos have a magnetism that directs our eyes to a certain body part. But after carefully observe the image for a long time, I would like to see the face of the owner of that body. Sorry to get away from the topic bikini, but we try to look at the face of Brazilian singer Anitta.
70-200 f2.8 IS IIBeautiful model, but the lighting does not allow to see details of the face. There seems to be off-camera flash but the reflection of the sun on the water is so strong that it is difficult to tame. Maybe a CPL filter help?
I know this thread has been exclusively about the 50mm, but I had a question about the 18-200. Why in the world do third party manufacturers go to 6.3 on the long end? Not being able to AF after 5.6 seems like a deal killer for anyone in the target market. What am I missing?