DSLR sales static, mirrorless heavy growth?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >Check out the graph on the second slide.
    >
    >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live




    That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    But it may be right. The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >
    > >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >
    > That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    > manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.
    >
    > But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    > offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.


    The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though. The years after are
    extrapolations.
    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >>
    >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >>
    >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.
    >>
    >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >
    >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though. The years after are
    >extrapolations.



    Hopeful guesses. I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    off Panasonic's DSLM.
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 20, 8:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >
    > >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >
    > >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    > >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    >
    > >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    > >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >
    > >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though.  The years after are
    > >extrapolations.

    >
    > Hopeful guesses.  I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    > off Panasonic's DSLM.


    Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company. Too bad Nikon dropped
    the ball with their meagre offering. I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.
    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:16:28 -0700, RichA wrote:

    > Check out the graph on the second slide.
    >
    > http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live


    As the new owner of a Panasonic G3 (having run through all the reviews
    and other information I could find) I see the major handicap for
    mirrorless cameras being the relative dearth of models with a viewfinder.
    ray, Jul 20, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jul 20, 8:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >>
    >> >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >>
    >> >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    >> >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    >>
    >> >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    >> >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >>
    >> >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though.  The years after are
    >> >extrapolations.

    >>
    >> Hopeful guesses.  I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    >> off Panasonic's DSLM.

    >
    >Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company. Too bad Nikon dropped
    >the ball with their meagre offering. I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    >history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.



    After a slow start, the Nikon J1 and V1 are selling reasonably well.
    The Nikon sales rep told us to expect a high end 1 Series body before
    too long.

    Personally, I agree with you. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 20, 12:15 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 20, 8:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >
    > >> >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >
    > >> >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    > >> >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    >
    > >> >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    > >> >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >
    > >> >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though.  The years after are
    > >> >extrapolations.

    >
    > >> Hopeful guesses.  I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    > >> off Panasonic's DSLM.

    >
    > >Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company.  Too bad Nikon dropped
    > >the ball with their meagre offering.  I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    > >history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.

    >
    > After a slow start, the Nikon J1 and V1 are selling reasonably well.
    > The Nikon sales rep told us to expect a high end 1 Series body before
    > too long.
    >
    > Personally, I agree with you.  ;-)


    And yet, I wonder who exactly are buying them? They aren't
    enthusiasts, if you use Dpreview's forum as any indication, it's dead,
    dead, dead. Also, a "high-end" body for that sensor is the ultimate
    (IMO) "sensor swine before body pearls" offering. They are now
    talking about a higher-end OM-D body and I'm not even sure if people
    will want to pony-up say $1500.00 or so for a body with a 4/3rds
    sensor? It could end up like Olympus's E-3/5 downfall. The one of
    the most ridiculous things was looking down the throat of the E-3, a
    big body and seeing the tiny sensor...But who am I to judge what might
    transpire? Both offerings could be aimed at "creating" a new market
    segment.
    RichA, Jul 21, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jul 20, 12:15 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >On Jul 20, 8:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >>
    >> >> >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >>
    >> >> >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    >> >> >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    >>
    >> >> >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    >> >> >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >>
    >> >> >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though.  The years after are
    >> >> >extrapolations.

    >>
    >> >> Hopeful guesses.  I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    >> >> off Panasonic's DSLM.

    >>
    >> >Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company.  Too bad Nikon dropped
    >> >the ball with their meagre offering.  I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    >> >history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.

    >>
    >> After a slow start, the Nikon J1 and V1 are selling reasonably well.
    >> The Nikon sales rep told us to expect a high end 1 Series body before
    >> too long.
    >>
    >> Personally, I agree with you.  ;-)

    >
    >And yet, I wonder who exactly are buying them? They aren't
    >enthusiasts, if you use Dpreview's forum as any indication, it's dead,
    >dead, dead. Also, a "high-end" body for that sensor is the ultimate
    >(IMO) "sensor swine before body pearls" offering. They are now
    >talking about a higher-end OM-D body and I'm not even sure if people
    >will want to pony-up say $1500.00 or so for a body with a 4/3rds
    >sensor? It could end up like Olympus's E-3/5 downfall. The one of
    >the most ridiculous things was looking down the throat of the E-3, a
    >big body and seeing the tiny sensor...But who am I to judge what might
    >transpire? Both offerings could be aimed at "creating" a new market
    >segment.



    Nikon's 1 Series appeals most strongly to people trading up from a p&s
    or bridge camera who don't want the weight and bulk of a DSLR. The
    cameras sell especially well to women.

    A high end body for the 1 Series should broaden the system's appeal to
    more advanced photographers. But ultimately, that appeal will be
    limited by the 10 MP sensor.

    Personally, I can't take it seriously because of the small sensor size
    and the 2.7X crop factor which makes a nonsense of using F mount
    lenses on a 1 Series body.

    The high end OM-D body will be quite different. It will appeal to
    serious photographers. We are told that, at the same time, there will
    be a significant price drop for the E-M5.

    The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer. So good
    that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    apparently testing another sample to confirm. I guess what surprised
    them is the excellent dynamic range.

    The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    performance.

    Of course most m4/3 users will never obtain anywhere near these
    figures because they don't shoot RAW. Shooting JPEGs yields a dynamic
    range that is 1-2 stops less.
    Bruce, Jul 21, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 21, 6:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 20, 12:15 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Jul 20, 8:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >On Jul 20, 7:03 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >Check out the graph on the second slide.

    >
    > >> >> >> >http://www.3dnews.ru/editorial/632251?from=nav-next-article&live

    >
    > >> >> >> That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    > >> >> >> manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    >
    > >> >> >> But it may be right.  The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    > >> >> >> offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.

    >
    > >> >> >The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though.  The years after are
    > >> >> >extrapolations.

    >
    > >> >> Hopeful guesses.  I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    > >> >> off Panasonic's DSLM.

    >
    > >> >Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company.  Too bad Nikon dropped
    > >> >the ball with their meagre offering.  I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    > >> >history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.

    >
    > >> After a slow start, the Nikon J1 and V1 are selling reasonably well.
    > >> The Nikon sales rep told us to expect a high end 1 Series body before
    > >> too long.

    >
    > >> Personally, I agree with you.  ;-)

    >
    > >And yet, I wonder who exactly are buying them?  They aren't
    > >enthusiasts, if you use Dpreview's forum as any indication, it's dead,
    > >dead, dead.  Also, a "high-end" body for that sensor is the ultimate
    > >(IMO) "sensor swine before body pearls" offering.  They are now
    > >talking about a higher-end OM-D body and I'm not even sure if people
    > >will want to pony-up say $1500.00 or so for a body with a 4/3rds
    > >sensor?  It could end up like Olympus's E-3/5 downfall.  The one of
    > >the most ridiculous things was looking down the throat of the E-3, a
    > >big body and seeing the tiny sensor...But who am I to judge what might
    > >transpire?  Both offerings could be aimed at "creating" a new market
    > >segment.

    >
    > Nikon's 1 Series appeals most strongly to people trading up from a p&s
    > or bridge camera who don't want the weight and bulk of a DSLR.  The
    > cameras sell especially well to women.
    >
    > A high end body for the 1 Series should broaden the system's appeal to
    > more advanced photographers.  But ultimately, that appeal will be
    > limited by the 10 MP sensor.
    >
    > Personally, I can't take it seriously because of the small sensor size
    > and the 2.7X crop factor which makes a nonsense of using F mount
    > lenses on a 1 Series body.
    >
    > The high end OM-D body will be quite different.  It will appeal to
    > serious photographers.  We are told that, at the same time, there will
    > be a significant price drop for the E-M5.
    >
    > The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer.  So good
    > that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    > apparently testing another sample to confirm.  I guess what surprised
    > them is the excellent dynamic range.
    >
    > The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    > stops between ISO 160-400.  I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    > better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    > performance.
    >


    I can't help but wonder if Panasonic made a mistake by keeping their
    best sensors from Olympus? Now, they have another camera with a Sony
    sensor in it to contend with.
    RichA, Jul 21, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jul 21, 6:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer.  So good
    >> that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    >> apparently testing another sample to confirm.  I guess what surprised
    >> them is the excellent dynamic range.
    >>
    >> The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    >> stops between ISO 160-400.  I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    >> better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    >> performance.
    >>

    >
    >I can't help but wonder if Panasonic made a mistake by keeping their
    >best sensors from Olympus? Now, they have another camera with a Sony
    >sensor in it to contend with.



    I can see why Panasonic did that; why give all your best sensors to
    your closest competitor? But their decision does seem to have
    backfired quite spectacularly.
    Bruce, Jul 21, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    > stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    > better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    > performance.
    >
    > Of course most m4/3 users will never obtain anywhere near these
    > figures because they don't shoot RAW. Shooting JPEGs yields a dynamic
    > range that is 1-2 stops less.



    How is an 8 bit file "1-2 stops less" than a 12-13 bit one?

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 22, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce wrote:

    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Jul 21, 6:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer. So good
    >>>that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    >>>apparently testing another sample to confirm. I guess what surprised
    >>>them is the excellent dynamic range.
    >>>
    >>>The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    >>>stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    >>>better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    >>>performance.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I can't help but wonder if Panasonic made a mistake by keeping their
    >>best sensors from Olympus? Now, they have another camera with a Sony
    >>sensor in it to contend with.

    >
    >
    >
    > I can see why Panasonic did that; why give all your best sensors to
    > your closest competitor? But their decision does seem to have
    > backfired quite spectacularly.


    I thought Panasonic and Olympus jointly developed the 4/3 system. I
    never researched the patents, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that any
    patents were held jointly. And again, I never researched any corporate
    decisions, and have no knowledge of R & D by each individual company
    beyond that initial cooperation. If each company pursued their own R &
    D independently AFTER any original patents, then it would stand to
    reason that each would make improvements independently. After all, they
    ARE competitors.

    I would appreciate any updating on my underlying assumption.
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 22, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> How is an 8 bit file "1-2 stops less" than a 12-13 bit one?

    >
    > A good JPG doesn't "lose" dynamic range because of the number of bits, it
    > is a log compressed format and as such can potentially represent the full
    > DR of an image - it does lose fine dynamic resolution, of course.


    I'm unaware of any camera that can adjust curves before saving to jpeg, and
    I sure as hell find it easier to do it at my leasure afterwards, than try to
    do it with each shot as I take it, even if they did, so I don't have any use
    for saving 8 bit jpeg only files in camera. They *WILL* lose DR.


    > Where JPG does lose DR is when it maps to a colorspace. JPG's created in
    > camera are mapped to a colorspace (and most cameras provide at least a few
    > choices). Such colorspaces have comparatively narrower DR.


    Since many only map Jpeg to Srgb, that is indeed true.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> How is an 8 bit file "1-2 stops less" than a 12-13 bit one?

    >>
    >>A good JPG doesn't "lose" dynamic range because of the number of bits,

    >
    > Yes it does. A generic 8 bit gamma corrected image will
    > not have more than about 11 stops of dynamic range.


    But how many camera's can correct gamma to your choice before saving to
    Jpeg? And why would you want to stuff around with gamma for every shot
    whilst shooting rather than save raw and do it later?
    Saving to Jpeg in camera is simply for those who don't know any beter, or
    whose camera's can't do anything else IMO.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> A good JPG doesn't "lose" dynamic range because of the number of bits,
    >>> it
    >>> is a log compressed format and as such can potentially represent the
    >>> full
    >>> DR of an image - it does lose fine dynamic resolution, of course.

    >>
    >> I'm unaware of any camera that can adjust curves before saving to jpeg,
    >> and

    >
    > They have no choice but to do so.
    > 1. There is no way for the camera to go from its internal represented
    > image (aka raw) to the displayed image on the camera display or to the
    > saved file without applying curves.


    What is displayed on the little LCD screen is not as important as what is
    saved to file however.


    > 2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.


    Exactly, which *IS* the problem!


    >My camera has several modes of JPEG "saving" which of course changes the
    >curve (and other parameters of the save) for each flavour. (I ignore these
    >generally as I do everything from the raw).


    Right, me too.


    > 3. Note that many cameras have camera-direct-to-print capability and so
    > the use of curves is not only unavoidable but absolutely necessary to get
    > a useful image.


    Sure, if that's what you are after. I have no use for that either.
    Many people are happy with photo's from their iphones, and RAW files sure
    aren't necessary (or posible) with those. Neither could you claim they had
    "12-14 bits" dynamic range :)



    >> I sure as hell find it easier to do it at my leasure afterwards, than try
    >> to
    >> do it with each shot as I take it, even if they did, so I don't have any
    >> use
    >> for saving 8 bit jpeg only files in camera. They *WILL* lose DR.

    >
    > That's why most of us save in raw. But not all people do and so they lose
    > information. It's unavoidable.


    Exactly my point all along.


    >On the other hand there are a lot of photographers who are satisfied with
    >the in-camera result or at least with the narrow range of change they can
    >do with the in-camera JPG. There's nothing 'wrong' with that if it meets
    >their needs.


    Sure, but claiming they don't lose dynamic range (or only 1 or 2 bits) is
    what I objected to.


    >>> Where JPG does lose DR is when it maps to a colorspace. JPG's created
    >>> in
    >>> camera are mapped to a colorspace (and most cameras provide at least a
    >>> few
    >>> choices). Such colorspaces have comparatively narrower DR.

    >>
    >> Since many only map Jpeg to Srgb, that is indeed true.

    >
    > Most DSLR's now save in a variety of user selected RGB spaces.


    Can't see much point in non standard jpegs myself. I only use RAW for my
    use, and use Srgb when converting to jpeg for the internet, because anything
    else is pointless.


    > Or leave it at default since you'll take care of all of it in raw instead
    > and how it saved in JPG is moot.


    Not moot when I save it as Jpeg in PS, and my camera never does anyway. Not
    once in over ten years have I found it necessary to ever save as Jpeg in a
    DSLR. And some can now convert files from RAW to Jpeg in camera if I ever
    do. :)
    Perhaps if I ever have a need to shoot a huge burst rate/length that is
    beyond my RAW capabilities, but can be met with Jpeg I would use it.
    Otherwise throwing away up to half the camera's performance holds no appeal
    for me.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>> How is an 8 bit file "1-2 stops less" than a 12-13 bit one?
    >>>>
    >>>> A good JPG doesn't "lose" dynamic range because of the number of bits,
    >>>
    >>> Yes it does. A generic 8 bit gamma corrected image will
    >>> not have more than about 11 stops of dynamic range.

    >>
    >> But how many camera's can correct gamma to your choice before saving to
    >> Jpeg? And why would you want to stuff around with gamma for every shot
    >> whilst shooting rather than save raw and do it later?
    >> Saving to Jpeg in camera is simply for those who don't know any beter, or
    >> whose camera's can't do anything else IMO.

    >
    > See my other reply - but the main point is the curve is preset in camera.


    Exactly, and a one size fits all, can often mean one size fits nothing.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
    #17
  18. Trevor <> wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message

    [...]

    > I'm unaware of any camera that can adjust curves before saving to jpeg,


    Oh, so you never heard of a camera where you could set "contrast"?
    Or (Canon) Picture Styles?

    That's adjusting the curves before saving to JPEG.

    > and
    > I sure as hell find it easier to do it at my leasure afterwards, than try to
    > do it with each shot as I take it, even if they did, so I don't have any use
    > for saving 8 bit jpeg only files in camera. They *WILL* lose DR.


    Only if the curve is too steep.

    Oh, BTW, how much DR does your output medium (screen, print,
    ....) have? That's where you loose DR!


    >> Where JPG does lose DR is when it maps to a colorspace. JPG's created in
    >> camera are mapped to a colorspace (and most cameras provide at least a few
    >> choices). Such colorspaces have comparatively narrower DR.


    > Since many only map Jpeg to Srgb, that is indeed true.


    You'll find that most DSLRs also map to Adobe RGB (1998) and
    often indicate that with a leading _ in the filename.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
    #18
  19. Trevor <> wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message


    >> That's why most of us save in raw. But not all people do and so they lose
    >> information. It's unavoidable.


    > Exactly my point all along.


    You lose information any time you save in JPEG (e.g. after
    converting your RAWs). It's called lossy compression for a reason.

    Whether that information is useful to you is a different question.

    >>On the other hand there are a lot of photographers who are satisfied with
    >>the in-camera result or at least with the narrow range of change they can
    >>do with the in-camera JPG. There's nothing 'wrong' with that if it meets
    >>their needs.


    > Sure, but claiming they don't lose dynamic range (or only 1 or 2 bits) is
    > what I objected to.


    It's trivial to devise a linear 5 bit format that has more dynamic
    range than a 14 bit RAW from a camera. (Just use bigger steps!).

    So what's the reason an 8 bit format with variable step size
    can't encode as much DR as your camera's RAW? You claim it
    cannot. So ... prove it.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> 2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.

    >> Exactly, which *IS* the problem!

    > No it isn't.


    It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.


    > . For the raw user it is irrelevant.


    Now that much is true at least.


    >>> That's why most of us save in raw. But not all people do and so they
    >>> lose
    >>> information. It's unavoidable.

    >>
    >> Exactly my point all along.

    >
    > But it's irrelevant to those who are content with the image from the
    > camera as is.


    If they are happy yes, not when they claim there is no loss of dynamic range
    however.


    > Polaroid did very well with Land cameras. You got what you got and that
    > was it.


    Yep, and were outsold well and truly by film camera's.


    > Likewise slide film - very narrow range (a little more than 5 stops).


    5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
    inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.


    > Yet, many of my best film images were from slide.


    How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
    sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40 years
    ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
    years from now.


    >> Can't see much point in non standard jpegs myself. I only use RAW for my
    >> use, and use Srgb when converting to jpeg for the internet, because
    >> anything
    >> else is pointless.

    >
    > As your needs are satisfied you shouldn't care about anyone elses.


    I don't, neither do I care for those who make false claims.


    >> Not moot when I save it as Jpeg in PS, and my camera never does anyway.
    >> Not
    >> once in over ten years have I found it necessary to ever save as Jpeg in
    >> a
    >> DSLR. And some can now convert files from RAW to Jpeg in camera if I ever
    >> do. :)

    >
    > You seem to be deliberately missing the point.


    Nope, simply correcting the change of subject.


    >If raw is important to
    > you, then that's your need and choice. But, again, to those satisfied
    > with the in-camera JPG, that is sufficient to them.


    Never said otherwise.


    >> Perhaps if I ever have a need to shoot a huge burst rate/length that is
    >> beyond my RAW capabilities, but can be met with Jpeg I would use it.
    >> Otherwise throwing away up to half the camera's performance holds no
    >> appeal
    >> for me.

    >
    > And again your needs are not those of others.


    Never said otherwise, although many simply do not know any better. Jpegs are
    fine for the P&S brigade of course.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 24, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. anthonyberet

    How heavy is a litre of heavy water?

    anthonyberet, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    10,848
    tadchem
    Apr 10, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    Digital camera sales growth to slow

    Alan Browne, Feb 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    431
    Alan Meyer
    Feb 12, 2005
  3. thing2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    294
    thing2
    Feb 22, 2006
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    2,278
    Bob Larter
    Jul 13, 2009
  5. Rich

    Cruddy P&S sales drop for Sony, DSLR sales jump

    Rich, Aug 1, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    434
Loading...

Share This Page