Remember this?


Perhaps I should let on as it's been playing on my mind following that unexpected outburst after the results were published. If you visit this page you'll see why I didn't choose the expected winner of the competition. The work wasn't wholly original. Was that an acceptable entry or wasn't it? I think clarification is needed. Using someone else's copyright work and passing it off as your own is, to my mind, theft. The source image wasn't even credited by the entrant.

Hi David,
Hope you had a good break. I'm pretty sure you could work the single exposure to look like the blended one. From your single jpeg version I produced this which (to me) looks pretty close to the blended one:


With the raw file it could be even a closer match. We're gifted with good dynamic range from the sensors these days, even from the likes of the MX-1 and the Q so blended exposures aren't always required.
Perhaps in a church with bright windows and dark shadow areas its a useful technique but for general outdoor scenes I'm not sure it really helps any more.
You can always let the camera do the HDR blending for you too.

Screen shots of the app interfaces look similar.
Flucard



Image Sync



I think the main difference is Image Sync has the software in the app whereas it appears the Flucard software is accessed as a web page from the card (I haven't got one but that's how the product page makes it appear.)
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/misc/Flucard-Pentax-16GB-O-FC1.html
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ricohimaging.imagesync&hl=en_G...

Definitely the two products are quite different, despite superficial similarities and discussing both as if they are same makes for confusing reading.

I've installed the demo version for Elements 11. The features seem to be available OK.
Perhaps this explains why Adobe is always accused of bloatware; installing features that they don't tell you about and not make them avaiiable., Are the extra features actually added by Elements+ or are they there already but hidden? The documentation suggests the latter. I wonder what Adobe think about it!

They are back order and Ricoh's own shop.

And still the confusion reigns!

Basically the more recent cameras, i.e. The K-1, K-S2 and K-70 have something like the flucard built in whereas previously it was on an SD card and took up one the of camera SD card slots. I believe Flucard Pro is the correct app for the older models with a Flucard and Image Sync for the newer models with W-Fi built in.

This thread was started as Image Sync (not Flucard Pro) fails to display the live view image in the app.

It would probably be best to start a separate thread for the Flucard and its dedicated app as this thread was started for Image Sync and subsequently got at cross purposes. No wonder confusion has set in.

People are asking about Image Sync and being told about Flucard Pro and possibly vice versa!

Perhaps its my K-2 upgrade kit!

[quote="andrewk"]This is a shot I took using my (4 day old) K70 and (4 hours old) DA 16-85mm, without flash at a camera club studio evening, at ISO 12,800, purely as a test. I have seen it projected on a large screen and no one noticed or commented about noise.[/quote]Yes, good noise just looks like film grain, as it does there.

I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, but the K-70 has only recently hit the shops too and shares many of the new features of the K-1. I expect attempts are being made to provide for faster focussing, hence the introduction of the KAF4 mount being a clue. As to what and when we'll see something, your guess is as good a mine! Doubt they'd call it a K-3iii though. Maybe a K-2 perhaps (and I've got one of those already, perhaps they'll do an upgrade kit for it! :wink
The K-1 in APS-C mode does do approx 50% faster frame rates in APS-C mode (not quite as fast as a K-3 though.)
With the pixel count of the K-1 in APS-C mode matching the pixel count of the K-5 it allows for less noise and a better high ISO performance which some users preferred over the K-3 performance in that area. Are there any newer (Sony) sensors that give K-5 performance at a higher pixel count? If so, that might be a clue, but more pixels will likely slow down fps rates without other advances. I suspect development of these (and in general) may have been slowed by the severe earthquakes that affected Japan. At least they didn't scupper the introduction of the K-1.