I suppose interesting technology, but I've one question: Why? Why would I want my photos stored on a cloud, except perhaps for backup? If they are on local storage, they are accessible even when my Internet connection is down, which does happen. They are accessible if Google Drive goes away. (Cloud services never go away - yeah, right.) Why would I want to be tied to a certain editor? I need to use whichever of my editing programs work best for a given image. Photo Ninja usually does the job, but sometimes ACDSee Pro does a better job of demosaicing the RAW file or I need the local adjustments in that program.But perhaps this effort is aimed at the more casual photographer. Although I have to wonder if they wouldn't just be shooting JPEGs anyhow?
SantaFeBill: What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?
Thanks for the information.
What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?
Krich13: Very good write-up, and fair conclusions.However, the Appendix sends a wrong message in my opinion. Yes, you just listed the lenses used for comparison and explicitly explained that they are NOT equivalent while having equal F-stop. I've got all that.The indirect wrong message is that it looks like the FF lenses are the biggest and the most expensive.
I would like to mention (and I think your Article would benefit from it as well) that in some cases the Equivalent larger format lenses are neither bigger nor heavier than those for smaller format. As far as price is concerned, equivalent lenses get progressively MORE expensive with increase of a crop factor (if equivalent aperture can be reached at all).
@Krich13: A f/1.2 lens is _faster_ than a f/1.8 lens, _regardless_ of focal length or sensor size, assuming that the f-stops of both lenses are a somewhat accurate reflection of their relative T-values. The article makes this clear.
Scotsman: The industry is worse off now. What in incentive does Adobe have to improve LR now, or even worse, Adobe could move it to subscription base only, and say SCREW YOU to the rest of us, as we have little choice now. I like LR but I'll not use a sub base program on my computers.
@Scotsman: If I understand correctly what I've read about Adobe's financial results, the subscription model has proven very profitable for them. I can't believe they won't extend it to LR.So I'll make a bet, with up to 3 of you who live near or will be visiting Santa Fe: By the end of Sept. 2015, LR will be on a subscription basis, at least if you want the latest features and/or extended features. Already, if you want LR mobile, you have to be on subscription. Anyone interested, send me a private e-mail for details. :-)
Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?
How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?
Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?
The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.
@quiquae: Are you serious? Try running an app written for Windows 3.1 under Win7 or 8 ... .
You make a very good point. What happens if you've tied your future there and Adobe isn't any longer ... . At least if your apps and your images are on your computer, you can keep using them as you find another solution.
I admit I'm not much into video, but still ... U.S.$900 for the camera, then another $5000 for a TV to view my badly done amateur 4K videos (since there is yet no 4K broadcast content in the U.S. - heck, HD TV here is still 1080i or even 720, not 1080p.) Plus of course 4K-enabled video editing sw and a monitor that would give some idea of what the 4K video looks like. Plus a computer or at least a graphics card/CPU upgrade.
For that amount of $$$, I could get a great FF DSLR plus a very good lens, probably two.
I'm sure I'm missing something ... . Just not sure what it is. :-;
Thanks, but he should have waited 2 weeks or so and done one on LR 6. :-)
maksa: Sigma has discontinued 50-150mm F2.8 OS. The next step we are waiting is to announce 50-150mm F2.8 III. 800 grams, 140 mm, stabilized with Pentax and Sony DSLRs.
OK, let’s it would called 50-150mm DC APO OS HSM Art.
There's no evidence on the relevant U.S. sites that this lens has been discontinued. The Sigma site still shows it in its active lens list, not in the discontinued lens list. B&H, Adorama, and Roberts list the lens as available, not discontinued.Where did you see that the lens was discontinued?
D1N0: F4 is more compact and lighter than F2.8. On Full frame it is adequate on APS-c a bit slow. Price point is a bit high though for a less well known third party manufacturer. I wonder
Once more with feeling: F/4 is F/4, regardless of the sensor size. (Cf. the Wikipedia article on f/stops) If a proper exposure for a given subject and ISO is 1/160 at f/4, its a proper exposure whether your camera's sensor is the size of a compact's or an 8x10 Leaf. (Assuming, of course, T-values of the various lenses are all reasonably close to f/4.)
Since I shoot DX, the only way I'd consider this lens rather than the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS would be if the Tokina were significantly less expensive - say US $750 rather than the c. US $990 that the Sigma can be purchased for. Given the announced Japanese price, I doubt that will be the case.
And then I'd have to wonder if the extra stop at the long end was worth it over the Nikon 70-300 VR at c. US $590 - and I'd get longer reach as well.
Fascinating. Thank you very much. Especially poignant considering what was about to break over England and the world.
Just a note to posters: The article is questioning Nikon's _strategy_, not the camera per se.
Alan Kett: New piece from Thom Hogan today about just how bad then new Nikon track will be for existing users. If what' he's saying is correct, the only way to edit existing NEFs (and I have several thousand of those myself) will be to maintain a dedicated box and existing NX2 going forward. Not good.....
"Why not just convert to TIFF or DNG ... ." As far as DNG is concerned, CNX2 will not export a file in that format. If you use the Adobe converter, you lose the edits you did in CNX2. As for TIFF, I exported a D7000 14-bit NEF to uncompressed TIFF using CNX2. The resulting TIFF file was a little over 90MB. Using LZW compression _increased_ the file size to 122MB!So what are you going to do, if, as some have posted elsewhere, you have tens of thousands of images you've processed with CNX2? Calculate how many terabytes of storage you'd need to save the TIFFs, then what it would cost. Yes, storage has gotten cheaper, but not that much cheaper. )-:Of course, what most will have to do is to save some subset of the CNX2-processed images to TIFF, and realize that the work they've done on the others will be lost when CNX2 stops working on their system, which will happen at some point.
Significantly less capabilities than CNX2, and CNX2 will no longer be supported when NX-D is officially released.I've rather tenaciously (some would say foolishly :-) ) held on to using CNX2, but even I see it is now time to find something else.I hope that the developers of Photo Ninja will soon follow up on their plans to add local adjustments to the program. My results with the trial version have been quite striking, except when I need to adjust only an area rather than the whole image.DPR's headline should have read "Nikon releases beta version of _last_ generation Capture NX software". :-(
Since where I live the sunlight is usually bright enough that you need a VF (OVF or EVF) to shoot outdoors, U.S. $1100 for a compact (that's not so compact) isn't attractive to me. But of course YMMV.
From Panasonic we get the GH4, from Nikon we get more Coolpixs. Be still my heart.
SantaFeBill: I just wish it had two things: A Bayer-array sensor, so there would be a greater option (and quality) of RAW conversion available, and a small attachable GPS unit that would automatically write GPS data to the file as the picture is taken, as is the case with my DSLRs. Come to think of it, it's probably healthier for my pocketbook that it doesn't have these. :-)
Thanks, Sessility, but none of the three RAW converters that I currently use for my non-Nikon files (ACDSee Pro 7, DxO 9, and Capture One Pro 6) support current Fuji X-Trans sensors, according to their respective Web sites. Again, perhaps fortunately for me ... . :-)LR may support them, but what I don't like about LR would be a long and (to the discussion here) irrelevant post.
I just wish it had two things: A Bayer-array sensor, so there would be a greater option (and quality) of RAW conversion available, and a small attachable GPS unit that would automatically write GPS data to the file as the picture is taken, as is the case with my DSLRs. Come to think of it, it's probably healthier for my pocketbook that it doesn't have these. :-)