RobertSigmund: All points apply to me - except the last!
@pbolli, I have similar concerns about the purchased version of LR becoming featureless, forcing people to lease PS in order to make it featureful.
Regarding PS, I'll just stick with CS6 and ignore anything about cloud PS. Will never spend another dime on PS until they make it purchasable again. I'll continue to use LR for raw conversion until they decide to cloud LR too.
Meanwhile, I'll spend my free time on learning GIMP, which is completely free of charge.
Hope Adobe will go downhill from here, and its greedy shareholders losing all their money invested on Adobe.
By the way, I just ordered this book from Amazon - "The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything".
Josh152: One thing is for sure Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are finally starting to step up and offer real competition and alternatives to Nikon/Canon in the lens department. With lenses like the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC Which is is so close to the Nikon/Canon versions optically that the differnce doesn't really matter unless your hobby/business is pixel peeping instead of photography and is the only stabilized lens of it's type including the new ridiculously priced canon 24-70. Not to mention it also seems to be built just as well as the Nikon/Canon versions and is fully weather sealed. Then there is the amazing sigma 35mm f/1.4 which many reviews are saying is the best 35mm available from any brand.
With more and more lenses this good being released by 3rd party manufactures at more reasonable prices it will be interesting to see how it plays out and if Nikon and Canon can keep their lens prices so high.
I'm all for more innovative designs and cheaper lenses from the 3rd party manufacturers. But they really need to step up on QA and QC. Especially Sigma. All the Sigma lenses that I have purchased require AF fine tune. I also had to return one copy of 35mm F1.4 because it de-centred severely. It's much cheaper than the Nikon version, but it is still not a cheap lens. Tokina seems to be the least problematic one with quality. But Tokina lenses need to be updated asap with ultrasonic motor and image stabilisation.
Hey Zeiss, while you are at it, could you please get Cosina to make E-Mount and X-Mount Voigtlander 50mm F1.1.
Nappe1: OM-D EM-5 Definetely. making weather proof, Image Stabilized, such high quality digital camera in such small size is a big achievment.
If Olympus is not the most innovative camera manufacturer, then none of them is innovative. By the way, I shoot with Nikon gears. Not an Olympus fanboy.
I wouldn't call it low res. A higher res screen with something like 300 ppi simply means you have to zoom in and out a lot more for precision editing.
By the way, I thought apple would never make a tablet smaller than 10".
"There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touchscreen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. It is meaningless unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size," Steve Jobs said.
I usually don't care about the look of cameras. To me the camera is just a tool. It's just like how I don't care about the look of my cordless drill. But then this thing is really an absolute eyesore. Especially the white one. And for $899 again??? Really???? I guess people should wait for the fire sale. FYI, Adorama and Amazon were selling the V1 kit for $399 not long ago (It's now $499 @ Adorama.)
$224 for a tripod ring?? By the way, when will the manufacturers make a collar that is arca compatible without having to add a plate to it? How hard could that be???
Should have kept the V1 body. Then add more direct control buttons onto it. This thing now looks huge for a camera with an 1" sensor.
MarcV: There is so much hatred in the world...If hating would be an olympic discipline many of you would go for a gold medal!
so unless you need a mirrorless camera to track fast moving subjects, i really don't see why any one would buy the nikon 1 over the sony nex or m4/3 cameras.
there's so much love in the world too, but it's almost impossible to love the nikon 1 series cameras at such high prices. i guess the only people that would love the 1 series cameras are 1) the wealthy soccer moms or wealthy sports spectators who don't want to shoot with DSLR, 2) the bird-in-flight shooters who want to shoot birds in flight with a mirrorless camera.
It would be great news if Fujifilm builds the same sensor in 4/3 format, and sells it to Olympus to put into the next OM-D camera.
Reilly Diefenbach: DXO is second only to CaptureNX2 for interface clunkiness. Image browser strip has to be clicked away in order to get a still cramped view of the photo. Give us a full height pic for the love of Mike. Where are the autohide left and right panels? Clueless. Zoom and grab the pic and move it around? You have to click on the hand first. DXO, you've got a lot of work to do, and I don't mean more modules. Get a copy of Lightroom 4 and see how simple and fast beats slow and laborious with tiny buttons every time. Lightroom's lens correction is close enough, too, so DXO's utility get smaller every time out. The only use I have for DXO at this point is to correct superwide pics and sharpen up the corners with Lens Softness, but it's rare these days. Did I mention Lightroom is $100 on sale vs DXO $200 to use my D800?
@Reilly: I'm on the exact same boat. Kudos to DXO because their lens correction modules do work very well. But the user interface is just too painfully clunky. I find LR's lens correction to be close enough in most cases. Also, I find LR doing a much better job with noise reduction and highlight recovery. These days, I only open Optics Pro to correct pics that are shot with my Tokina 12-24 to fix those nasty chromatic aberrations. I haven't used Capture NX2, but of all the raw converters that I've tried, Fujfifilm's Hyper-Utility has to be the clunkiest ever, followed closely by DXO Optics Pro.
Ergo607: Who Cares?
@OldZorki: I love your suggestion. DXO selling the lens correction modules to Adobe would be a dream come true.
@montxsuz: You may not find Optics Pro slow. But compared to LR4, I have to say it is extremely slow and clunky.
@montxsuz: I don't have the highest end components. But I know my PC is absolutely not a sloth. See below for the specs of my PC running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.
Intel Core i7 2600K cooled with Corsair H100, and overclocked stably to 4.8GHz.
G.SKILL Ares Series DDR3 1866MHz 4x4Gb RAM.
Asus Sabertooth Z77 motherboard.
C drive (for programs and games) is a pair of Crucial M4 256Gb Solid State Drive in Raid 0.
D drive (for RAW files and other storages) is 4 x 1.5Tb Western Digital Caviar Black in Raid 10.
Video card is a XFX Radeon HD6970, mainly for Battlefield 3 after work ;P
@oldZorki: Yes, this is why I think the DXO team should get a copy of LR, and compare it to theirs. LR is a good example of speedy processing and workflow done right.
@Manuel: The rendering time I referred to is the time it takes optics pro to render a preview image from the raw file onto the display before it becomes workable. It takes way too long. With LR4 on my computer, the image is workable almost instantly right after I click on it. And each time I make an adjustment on a slider, Optics Pro would re-render a new preview. This makes the software painfully clunky. With LR4, there's no stuttering at all when you make changes on the slider. To me, this is absolutely not a minor speed issue as I often have hundreds of pictures to work on after an event. The only edge I see Optics Pro has over LR is the specific lens + camera correction modules. Other than this, LR trumps Optics Pro is every other aspects. Image quality wise I find that I get much better noise reduction and highlight recovery with LR than with Optics Pro. After trying out Optics Pro v7, I decided to stick with LR instead of wasting money to upgrade my copy of Optics Pro v6.
@ Manuel (con't): I run LightRoom 3 and now LightRoom 4 on the exact same machine (Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.8GHz with 16Gb ram.) Each time I make an adjustment, I see the changes right away. I can play with the adjustment sliders without being slowed down one bit by any image rendering. I thought LightRoom 3 was fast, LightRoom 4's rendering speed is even faster. Images are rendered almost instantly. There is absolutely no way that I would go back to DXO until they can match LightRoom in this aspect. I suppose DXO is good if one only has a few images to work on. But when one has to make adjustments to hundreds of images each time, I guess LightRoom is a much better choice.
@Manuel: I bought v6, and I found that image rendering is slow. Each time you make a single slight adjustment, the image needs to be totally re-rendered. Making it extremely and painfully clunky to use. I lived with it because it actually does a very good job correcting the optical flaws of my Tokina 12-24mm. When they announced v7 claiming that the preview is faster, I had high hopes. Downloaded the trial, and I was very disappointed. I didn't feel it previewing faster one bit. When they meant faster, I suppose with a sports stop watch you can tell it's a tiny fraction of a second faster. But it's still as clunky to use as v6. Still requiring full re-rendering each time you make a slight readjustment.