Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
 51 
 on: May 26, 2016, 11:08:06 PM 
Started by dwswager - Last post by John Koerner
The new DP Review of the Nikon D500 is in.

Result = Gold Award
"The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested."

In a nutshell, the D500's image quality is only a hair above the finest ASP-C cameras, but its overall handling, rugged durability, and ability to AF and handle "live action" utterly destroys the competition. Notice I said "the finest," in regards to image quality, which means it's only a hair above the D7200 and Sony a6300 (the 7D II's image quality isn't even in the Top 10).

Other notable quotes:

    • "Cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II and Sony's a6300 appear to offer comparable capabilities on paper, but these appearances prove deceptive in real-world use: the D500's autofocus and continuous shooting performance is noticeably better."

    • "Autofocus is the D500's great strength: along with the D5 it's the best we've ever used. Just as mirrorless cameras appear to be closing the gap when it comes to following simple subjects, the D500 comes and blows them (and its DSLR rivals) all out of the water."

    • " ... as an APS-C sports and wildlife camera, the D500 is without rival, and that puts in on the top of our awards podium."
    Enjoy,

    Jack

     52 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:34:29 PM 
    Started by BradSmith - Last post by digitaldog
    Yes so would I, and the whole discussion about licensing is completely irrelevant to the OP's concern. Let's take this back to the technical issue raised. It is correct that there is no reason why the colour perception of a printer profiling target on a monitor needs to be close to the colour perception of the print of the target.
    That IS correct. Now both pages should appear similar in density.

     53 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:31:57 PM 
    Started by BradSmith - Last post by Mark D Segal
    Take a look at the images of the charts in my original post.  Lower right hand corner identified it as an XRite product.  I'd call that "branded"

    Yes so would I, and the whole discussion about licensing is completely irrelevant to the OP's concern. Let's take this back to the technical issue raised. It is correct that there is no reason why the colour perception of a printer profiling target on a monitor needs to be close to the colour perception of the print of the target. Let us always bear in mind that the target, if printed properly, reflects the native behaviour of the printer, which the resulting profile will describe numerically and help in the colour management process to reproduce the image file numbers correctly. So in principle there is no reason to worry about the fact that it looks dark. But I do see some cause for concern about the unevenness of the luminance between the left side and the rest. Is this because of how the target print was reproduced into a JPEG for posting here, or is that what it really looks like? This particular matter IS unusual and unexpected.

     54 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:24:54 PM 
    Started by iCanvas - Last post by Mark D Segal
    I'm not.  They're not going to do a press release or any such until the firmware is available to the general user population.

    Until that point, it's possible that some marketing guy @ Canon decides 'nope'. 

    That's not how decisions get made in such a company. It's "quite a bit" more structured, collective and procedural. I have very considerable confidence that this will be done - the only uncertainty I'm aware of is the timing. I'll leave it that; everyone of course is free to believe what they want to believe.

     55 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:17:14 PM 
    Started by iCanvas - Last post by Mark D Segal
    Thanks...I didn't mean to question the veracity of the source of your report.  Just a little surprised that Canon has found this info not important enough to send out in the form of an official press release, at least on their own website.  Well, may be that is how Canon does things.  I will probably just wait until they start offering in their new machines.

    Quite to the contrary, this is an important matter to them.

    No mechanical changes to the printers are required for this update - it is all firmware/driver related, and when they publish them they will be usable on all the Pro-1000s sold.

     56 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:15:06 PM 
    Started by Brad P - Last post by Dan Berg
    Can only answer about the Festool as I have one.
    The edge is a good edge but not perfect. Super sharp and does need filing.
    Even with that good blade it leaves the saw marks.
    If you are framing it doesn't matter.
    When I am doing a mount with the edges showing I have a large 42" edge sander and bump all 4 sides with that before filing.

     57 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:10:42 PM 
    Started by iCanvas - Last post by Mark D Segal
    My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints.  All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.

    I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement.  So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'.  However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:

    1.  the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat.  Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.)  However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.

    2.  How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability?  Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?

    I am an amateur photographer.  I do not sell prints.  The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience.  I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.

    Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.

    It's not picking poison. With a bit of perspective you would appreciate what marvelous printing technology we have at our fingertips these days.

    There's no point "imagining" anything about ink costs. Either we have the data to establish what it costs, or we don't. In the case of Canon a utility for the printer provides it; Epson does not. Therefore they cannot be compared. I wouldn't think of the chroma optimizer as an "extra cost". It is simply part of the inkset and costed-in along with the other inks.

    You may wish to re-read what I said in my review of the Pro-1000 about perceived print quality from the 4900, P800, and Pro-1000 printers.

    Learning to print isn't about the printer; regardless of the printer model it's 99% about the initial quality of your photographs and your ability to prepare the photos for print using your photo editing application.


     58 
     on: May 26, 2016, 10:05:12 PM 
    Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Chris Calohan
    f:13, 1/20, ISO 400 Shot from a Moving Boat, 7 minutes before sunrise.

     59 
     on: May 26, 2016, 09:59:24 PM 
    Started by iCanvas - Last post by u2jimbo
    My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints.  All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.

    I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement.  So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'.  However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:

    1.  the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat.  Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.)  However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.

    2.  How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability?  Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?

    I am an amateur photographer.  I do not sell prints.  The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience.  I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.

    Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.

     60 
     on: May 26, 2016, 09:23:48 PM 
    Started by RSL - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
    Well, just to drag this thread off topic a little, I'd like to say I really like Russ's original shot. The facial expression is priceless.

    OK, now you can all go back to your existential philosophical discussion.

    -Eric

    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10