This. I've a Nikon D800 with a sensor that's many,,many multiples of that area (as it's a full size dSLR sensor) with "only" 32 megapixels....
according to Nokia the correct way to use your 32MP sensor D800 is to put on a wide angle prime lens set to wide open aperture (all the time, its not adjustable) and crop your shot if you want to telephoto. For shots which you don't want to crop, automatically set the image size to "small" with sharping set to Max.
This is in essence how you mimic Nokia's breakthrough "PureView" technology on your D800, as I understand it.
Someone correct me if I misrepresented the PureView technology incorrectly, somehow.
Everyday Nokias take image enhanced filtered photos
:P That's what's it seems like to me. I could be wrong tho...
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
No, I don't. I have 3GS in drawer. I have some 2 or 3 Nokia phones, one Sony and some Panasonic in the same. Why would anyone care about that?
Most important, I do not see any relevance in comparing iPhone 4 with new Nokia. There are almost 3 huge mobile technology years of difference between them...Especially camera comparison shows foul intentions...
OK, if you say so. I'm under impression that people usually reply because they do care - one way or another. But I'll accept I might be wrong here.
I think you'll find that "talking to another person on a phone" usage of smartphones is not the primary use. It still may have been when the iPhone was introduced, but not anymore. Texting, Tweeting Facebook, Photos, Web Surfing, Apps, etc. (in no particular order) are all used more than the phone itself. And with the zillions of photos taken each day, photo quality is important. I don't think you'd be making the statement you made if it had been Apple that had improved the camera.
As for Canon and Nikon, they're both in deep trouble because DSLR and Mirrorless sales are declining somewhat and point-and-shoot camera sales are declining rapidly. I don't have my numbers with me, but I believe p-and-s sales are down 30% this year and that's primarily due to smartphones (of all brands). Pentax is practically a non-player and Hasselblad is an esoteric fringe player.
I don't necessarily agree that a high pixel count small sensor is the answer to achieving quality (since noise levels will be high at that photosite density, especially at low ISOs), but the manufacturers who are trying to compete with Apple by appearing to improve the camera are smart. It simply gives a certain segment of people another reason to look at a smartphone that's not Apple. And in the long run, it's good for Apple users because while Apple won't necessarily respond to every "improvement" the competition comes up with, they'll have to respond to at least some, making future Apple phones better.
I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.
From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.
Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.
3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.
Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.
I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount.
My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.
amazing how there still aren'T any important apps, despite of the fact that Nokia was actually buying apps from so-called independent 3rd party developers for years now....apps that no one used, no one cared about.
it'S pretty much same here: no one cares about you loving 920 and trolling about putting iPhone 4 in the drawer. who cares.
I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.
I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.
But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Your name makes me think you're a designer... your misspelling of something so common in design makes me question that assumption: BOKEH.
What was smart phone percentage in 2007 and 2008 compared to 2012 and 2013 in total phone sales? Where was iPhone sold at the time? Through which and how many carriers in how many lands? Do you understand what you are talking about? Would you congratulate Apple for outselling Altair with Apple II?
The fact is there are 2 companies that should be important players in the mobile market today, 2 former flagship companies. But they are not, because they never understood the business they got lucky with. They may make a good phone, even a very good one, but they won't make a second break, because they did not understand the first one...
Make no mistake, I am not happy with it.
There is usually the other side of everything.
iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.
Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.
Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.
For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.
In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.
I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount.
My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.
Any reason why not simply just sell the iPhone 4. Its worth money you know. I sell my iPhones when I am due for an upgrade. I end up getting enough to pay for the new iPhone upgrade.
Maybe you can do the same with the Nokia 920 to pay for your 1020 upgrade for free when you are eligible for an upgrade. Right?
Good point. I am not sure why I keep it. But on the other hand I still have a Nokia 3320 sitting in a drawer too. I have been downloading the ios 7 betas just to check it out. I have hope that Apple will someday listen to those of us who want a bigger screen and make a great large screen iPhone (around 4.5-5.0 inches) I am not happy with the look of ios7 so far but it is still very functional for the most part. As you can see I am not loyal to any manufacturer. I buy whatever suits my needs the best at the time and never wear blinders when discussing technology.
I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.
From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.
Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.
3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.
Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.
Just as some people replace their iPhones (or whatever) whenever Apple comes out with a new model, many people replace their DLSRs when a replacement model is issued. Certainly not everybody, but if you check the photo forums, many people do. Back in the film days, there weren't so many reasons to do so, because it was the lens that made the biggest difference to any picture. Any camera could make an accurate exposure based on manual settings. Better cameras might have a shutter that vibrated less and the shutter might have lasted longer, but essentially, you could get the same image from a cheaper camera as you could from the top-of-the-line body. That's not true today because the sensor and the associated processing software matters as much as the lens.
I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200. And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.) I did skip the D300 and D700. But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for. Is it for personal or professional use? Do you shoot outdoors or indoors? One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash. So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.
I think there's a long way to go before sensors have reached peak performance and the technology is going to improve every few years. I think the camera makers are also going to completely re-do the way they do auto-focusing. Canon has started this process with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF that they just introduced, which will allow better continuous focusing when shooting video and better Live View focusing when shooting stills. The D800 pretty much sucks at video continuous focusing. And the future, even for "pro-DSLRs" may be mirrorless. So I think a lot of changes are coming, but it's going to be relatively slow because Nikon and Canon have less money for R&D.
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
actually compressed vs uncompressed has nothing to do with it. RAW means just that. A recording of what the camera sensor recorded WITHOUT any in camera post processing. Think of it like the digital equivalent of the negative BEFORE it has been developed. JPEG is a post processed file that also compressed as well.. However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. Its simple. One pixel, 16,24, or 32 values for each primary color plus alpha used to compose the final color and transparency of the pixel. The JPEG can be thought of having instructions inside the file which represent color values for ranges of pixels A to pixel B and then a variance. Its all lot more complex then what I state.. lets just say it uses lots of descriptive patterns and mappings to try to avoid describing each pixel individually. For example, a linear cool blend operation if that is what is a good approximation of what happens. In ether case, you can think of post processed files as digital equivalent of the final print. It not really designed to be altered after you create it. You can but, it has a lot more limits in what you do to the image then the RAW file.
Both the iPhone and Nokia 1020 require in camera post processing as far as I know. If I am wrong about Nokia I am sure someone will correct me.
Anyhow, the levels of post processing of the photo vs as seen by the camera sensor seem to differ substantially between iPhone and Nokia 1020. Nokia appears to be doing a lot more aggressive post processing then the iPhone. Its debatable if its to its benefit or not. Levels of post processing is very subjective. Nokia sure appears to be working a lot harder at trying to make the photo look better then what is actually coming out of the native sensor then the iPhone. Other than color saturation, iPhone images looks a lot less "mucked with" with than the Nokia to me.
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)
• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.
• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.
I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.
you mad bro? dont let it get to ya. you already made your point.
I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.
But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)
no worries.. I'm a terrible speller and also bad at proof reading. when I type I have to always edit later because I see words that are not really typed.
to be technical, isolation via DOF control and BOKEH are two separate effects. It just happens the BOKEH effect occurs when you have a short DOF. The quality and the pattern of the BOKEH is based on the physical design of the lens and not purely function of DOF. right?
• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)
• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.
• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.
exactly! much more concise then my attempt to explain. Bravo!
iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.
Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.
Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.
For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.
In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.
I have a lot of respect for Nokia HW and engineering. They just seem to suffer from a management problem. They will need to be creative to survive and continue to find ways to stand out. I am glad they are not trying to compete by design low quality HW and copy IP. They are innovating and have a loyal following. I hope its just not too little to late. Apple needs competitors like Nokia.
I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200. And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.) I did skip the D300 and D700. But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for. Is it for personal or professional use? Do you shoot outdoors or indoors? One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash. So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.
The D800 is a significant upgrade from the D200, but costly when you factor in replacing your DX lenses to take advantage of the FX sensor.
However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . .
While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)
TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.
RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)
Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least 1.5 to 2 times as much useful image information.
However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . .
While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)
TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.
RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)
Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least twice as much useful image information.
That doesn't sound quite right if the images are of similar pixel dimension. The main reason that TIFF is larger than RAW is that RAW generally uses lossless compression, whereas basic TIFF is uncompressed. Am I missing what you meant?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
This. I've a Nikon D800 with a sensor that's many,,many multiples of that area (as it's a full size dSLR sensor) with "only" 32 megapixels....
according to Nokia the correct way to use your 32MP sensor D800 is to put on a wide angle prime lens set to wide open aperture (all the time, its not adjustable) and crop your shot if you want to telephoto. For shots which you don't want to crop, automatically set the image size to "small" with sharping set to Max.
This is in essence how you mimic Nokia's breakthrough "PureView" technology on your D800, as I understand it.
Someone correct me if I misrepresented the PureView technology incorrectly, somehow.
Everyday Nokias take image enhanced filtered photos
:P That's what's it seems like to me. I could be wrong tho...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits
Everyday iPhones take RAW photos
Everyday Nokias take image enhanced filtered photos
:P That's what's it seems like to me. I could be wrong tho...
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
OK, if you say so. I'm under impression that people usually reply because they do care - one way or another. But I'll accept I might be wrong here.
I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.
From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.
Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.
3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.
Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi
Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter
I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount.
My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.
amazing how there still aren'T any important apps, despite of the fact that Nokia was actually buying apps from so-called independent 3rd party developers for years now....apps that no one used, no one cared about.
it'S pretty much same here: no one cares about you loving 920 and trolling about putting iPhone 4 in the drawer. who cares.
I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.
I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.
But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Your name makes me think you're a designer... your misspelling of something so common in design makes me question that assumption: BOKEH.
There is usually the other side of everything.
iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.
Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.
Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.
For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.
In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter
I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount.
My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.
Any reason why not simply just sell the iPhone 4. Its worth money you know. I sell my iPhones when I am due for an upgrade. I end up getting enough to pay for the new iPhone upgrade.
Maybe you can do the same with the Nokia 920 to pay for your 1020 upgrade for free when you are eligible for an upgrade. Right?
Good point. I am not sure why I keep it. But on the other hand I still have a Nokia 3320 sitting in a drawer too. I have been downloading the ios 7 betas just to check it out. I have hope that Apple will someday listen to those of us who want a bigger screen and make a great large screen iPhone (around 4.5-5.0 inches) I am not happy with the look of ios7 so far but it is still very functional for the most part. As you can see I am not loyal to any manufacturer. I buy whatever suits my needs the best at the time and never wear blinders when discussing technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.
From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.
Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.
3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.
Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.
Just as some people replace their iPhones (or whatever) whenever Apple comes out with a new model, many people replace their DLSRs when a replacement model is issued. Certainly not everybody, but if you check the photo forums, many people do. Back in the film days, there weren't so many reasons to do so, because it was the lens that made the biggest difference to any picture. Any camera could make an accurate exposure based on manual settings. Better cameras might have a shutter that vibrated less and the shutter might have lasted longer, but essentially, you could get the same image from a cheaper camera as you could from the top-of-the-line body. That's not true today because the sensor and the associated processing software matters as much as the lens.
I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200. And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.) I did skip the D300 and D700. But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for. Is it for personal or professional use? Do you shoot outdoors or indoors? One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash. So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.
I think there's a long way to go before sensors have reached peak performance and the technology is going to improve every few years. I think the camera makers are also going to completely re-do the way they do auto-focusing. Canon has started this process with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF that they just introduced, which will allow better continuous focusing when shooting video and better Live View focusing when shooting stills. The D800 pretty much sucks at video continuous focusing. And the future, even for "pro-DSLRs" may be mirrorless. So I think a lot of changes are coming, but it's going to be relatively slow because Nikon and Canon have less money for R&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
actually compressed vs uncompressed has nothing to do with it. RAW means just that. A recording of what the camera sensor recorded WITHOUT any in camera post processing. Think of it like the digital equivalent of the negative BEFORE it has been developed. JPEG is a post processed file that also compressed as well.. However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. Its simple. One pixel, 16,24, or 32 values for each primary color plus alpha used to compose the final color and transparency of the pixel. The JPEG can be thought of having instructions inside the file which represent color values for ranges of pixels A to pixel B and then a variance. Its all lot more complex then what I state.. lets just say it uses lots of descriptive patterns and mappings to try to avoid describing each pixel individually. For example, a linear cool blend operation if that is what is a good approximation of what happens. In ether case, you can think of post processed files as digital equivalent of the final print. It not really designed to be altered after you create it. You can but, it has a lot more limits in what you do to the image then the RAW file.
Both the iPhone and Nokia 1020 require in camera post processing as far as I know. If I am wrong about Nokia I am sure someone will correct me.
Anyhow, the levels of post processing of the photo vs as seen by the camera sensor seem to differ substantially between iPhone and Nokia 1020. Nokia appears to be doing a lot more aggressive post processing then the iPhone. Its debatable if its to its benefit or not. Levels of post processing is very subjective. Nokia sure appears to be working a lot harder at trying to make the photo look better then what is actually coming out of the native sensor then the iPhone. Other than color saturation, iPhone images looks a lot less "mucked with" with than the Nokia to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
You are wrong. RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed. Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats. Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't. Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.
Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.
• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)
• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.
• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter
I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.
you mad bro? dont let it get to ya. you already made your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.
But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)
no worries.. I'm a terrible speller and also bad at proof reading. when I type I have to always edit later because I see words that are not really typed.
to be technical, isolation via DOF control and BOKEH are two separate effects. It just happens the BOKEH effect occurs when you have a short DOF. The quality and the pattern of the BOKEH is based on the physical design of the lens and not purely function of DOF. right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)
• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.
• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.
exactly! much more concise then my attempt to explain. Bravo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
There is usually the other side of everything.
iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.
Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.
Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.
For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.
In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.
I have a lot of respect for Nokia HW and engineering. They just seem to suffer from a management problem. They will need to be creative to survive and continue to find ways to stand out. I am glad they are not trying to compete by design low quality HW and copy IP. They are innovating and have a loyal following. I hope its just not too little to late. Apple needs competitors like Nokia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200. And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.) I did skip the D300 and D700. But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for. Is it for personal or professional use? Do you shoot outdoors or indoors? One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash. So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.
The D800 is a significant upgrade from the D200, but costly when you factor in replacing your DX lenses to take advantage of the FX sensor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . .
While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)
TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.
RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)
Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least 1.5 to 2 times as much useful image information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
exactly! much more concise then my attempt to explain. Bravo!
Thanks. Conciseness has its price though. It took me much longer to compose my concise answer than it took you to write a similar longer one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . .
While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)
TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.
RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)
Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least twice as much useful image information.
That doesn't sound quite right if the images are of similar pixel dimension. The main reason that TIFF is larger than RAW is that RAW generally uses lossless compression, whereas basic TIFF is uncompressed. Am I missing what you meant?