quote: Samsung is far from faltering because even their appliances are considered among the best in terms of what's available to your average consumer
quote: In fact, the very best TV right now is still the Pioneer series plasmas that they don't even make anymore.
quote: In particular, the Sony RX-100 was just named one of Time Magazine's "Best Inventions of the Year 2012" (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/02/sony-rx100-sel... Browse through this site and you'll see the striking quality of photos achievable with what is essentially a 9 oz. pocket camera: http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/08/06/the-sony-rx10...
quote: Damn, you got downrated for that?? Sheesh, it does get a bizarre here.This is OT (then again, so are most of the comments on DT, so I suppose I'm just joining the club....), but how good is the in-camera HDR on the RX100 (vs. manually combining+aligning images in Photoshop)? I'm trying to decide between the RX100 and the Oly E-PM5 which, while not quite as stunningly compact as the RX100, costs less and takes even better pics (2x bigger sensor); the one downside (for me) is I've heard it doesn't have the RX100's in-camera HDR with automatic image alignment (the latter, I understand, obviates the need for a tripod).
quote: Are you saying that the auto-bracketing feature in burst mode is limited to -0.7/0/+.7 EV?
quote: Thanks again. One last question, motivated by your observation about raw vs. jpeg (and by the considered responses you've given above): I’ve never worked with raw (indeed, outside of those in my computer and phone, I’ve not yet owned a digital camera, not having returned to the hobby since I left it after the demise of film), and I’m wondering how it would not be burdensome to have to do post-production (required by raw) on each of one’s shots. Back when I shot film (mostly 35 mm, but also some medium format), while I liked to compose my shots, adjust dof, etc., I never liked bothering with developing, which seems the film analog of manipulating raw files. I’d be interested to hear your observations on this, if it wouldn’t be a burden.
quote: That's actually why I was hoping for effective in-camera HDR -- HDR is a good way to motivate a film person into digital, since it's a powerful, and non-gimmicky, photographic technique uniquely available from digital, and I was looking forward to being able to implement it routinely without a lot of extra work -- not so much to get that HDR look, but simply to routinely improve the dynamic range of my photos. Indeed, since what it offers -- increased dynamic range -- seems so fundamental (it's more than a mere feature -- I would think it improves performance), I don't understand why it's not considered an essential part of all digital cameras. Further, with sufficiently sophisticated auto-alignment algorithms, it seems one could routinely use a non-bracketed form of burst-mode HDR to take better conventional pictures in low light (would summing 3 pics give similar low-light performance to a single pic with a much larger sensor?), thus significantly extending the usable range of compact cameras. Of course, I'm speaking as a digicam neophyte.]
quote: Yeah, I've heard some find Lightroom much more convenient than Photoshop, so I may purchase the former instead of upgrading my Adobe suite from CS3 to CS6. Though I understand LR doesn't align images, so for HDR one would need LR + something like Photomatix (or Photoshop).
quote: Never understood why you got a bad rep around here nor why after being senselessly abused you stick around.
quote: I second that, the RX100 is a fantastic device
quote: No, not really. Out of RX100 I'm getting images of quality comparable to my good old Nikon D70.
quote: And you two show EXACTLY why Sony is failing.....You get my drift? There aren't enough audio/video purists/bigots around who appreciate that Sony might be 1% better than the competition and are willing to pay 300% of the price for an item that is 1% better than the competition.
quote: Second, and more concerning, is the non-collegial tone. He makes it personal, saying "you two show EXACTLY why Sony is failing," instead of sticking to the substance and simply saying "I disagree because..." And let's please lose the gratuitous "audio/video purists/bigots" insult. There are certainly reasons why Sony is failing, but it's not because of what they are doing with the RX100; I would argue, by contrast, is that this is the sort of product that used to keep Sony on top.