saeba77: 24-70 isn't a bit too expensive? the tamron cost 1/3 (with VC) and the nikkor non VR cost 1/2
the 200-500 maybe is a must with a Nikon 1 system:)...1350mm
Amortize the cost over the life of the lens.Nikon and Canon will probably last 15+ years and still have repair facilities and parts for them. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina may have service but I am less confident about their lifespan.
WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)
"Clients however, don't care about gear! They want a good result. And ofter there are good alternatives to give such good results.
It is us photographers who want to show off with the latest and greatest. In reality for 90% of your assignments or private family pics you don't need it."
I wonder about pros who obsess over gear. I can only imagine that they don't have enough jobs to keep them focused on making great images.For the hobbyist I get it. For the pro it is a tool that makes money or not. One should always buy the best tools for ones trade but that also means that one buys the tool once and keeps it until the work demands a change.
Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.
Why are you talking sense here? ;)
R N: Hey, Canon shooter here: that 200-500 looks pretty awesome, especially at the price. Hard to understand some of the caterwauling and griping.
Price trumps the argument for many.
backayonder: So the new 24-70 is what in Aussie dollars around $3400?Makes the secondhand version that I am about to buy tomorrow for $1300 including UV filter a bargain.
"When I compare it to my vintage 35-70 f/2.8, petite by compare, I have to ask myself, why this 24-70 is so gigantic."
Because the lens formula is entirely different.Note the similarity in size to the Canon. This formula has been found to yield the best performance. In addition they added VR.Note that the Zeiss Otus and Sigma 50 Art lenses are both large compared to classic designs. That is because they have determined that that configuration is the optimum for IQ.The manufacturers have heard the public demanding ever better lenses and they are delivering. They don't necessarily result in small packages.
brownie314: Is Nikon not aware of the current situation in the camera market? Why throw more uber high priced lenses at a market where people are willing to spend less money?
I don't know if you have been following camera news for a while but the demand for fast, high quality zooms with VR seems to be quite high. The Canon owners are STILL whining about the lack of IS on their 24-70 L II. I would suspect that Nikon saw a great opportunity to make some good money on a new, must-have lens for serious photographers and maybe pushing a few others to jump to Nikon.Great move in segment that is still throwing off profit.
FuhTeng: I'm curious just how big the market is for people to buy a $1000 a7 and then a whole bunch of $1000+ lenses.
There's the kit zoom and used/grey marketZony f4 standard zoom, the 28 mm + adapters, the slow (and tiny) 35 mm f2.8, and then used/grey market 55. That's it for less than $1000 lenses.
Is their goal to have a high profit margin in ILCs? Sure, the a7 family will give them that. Largest market-share? I'm skeptical. They need more <$1000 lenses to keep their impressive market share if they're going to completely abandon the APS-C line.
If they're going after well-to-do enthusaists "pro" market, and they're happy with high margins, sure, keep the $1000+ line coming - MF Loxia, AF Batis, G Macro, 70-200 f4, Zony 16-35.
@ttran88. I think your comment is inaccurate. However in the push and shove of business if the demand is there, make money by filling it.
The market is huge if you get a bunch of Canonikon customers.As Sony is still small, they can take share. Canonikon has to protect share. The defensive position is the weaker one.
Photomonkey: More profit in FF. More status in FF. More easily marketed to photo wannabes.
They will likely see a huge jump in market share with the follow on advantage of selling FF sensors to their competitors.The real question is what R&D will there be for APS-C people?
In the smaller formats there is currently almost no profit. Thus they can't make it up in volume.As for volumes, Sony has stated it is mounting large push into getting the volume sales.I see no reason to doubt them. Profits will slip as volumes rise but at the moment FF has the margins other segments lack.
More profit in FF. More status in FF. More easily marketed to photo wannabes.
I think Canon is quite aware of their intentions and their progress.That's why they went to change their unders.
Niklas Ramstedt: Am I the only one here who likes LR and PS CC and is prepared to pay for software?
It seems that way sometimes. Americans are happy to complain that everything is too costly. They also seem to have a Socialist flavor to their endless rage about Corporate profits and conspiracies despite their otherwise free market jingoism.This is occasionally leavened with an observation that they could probably make a better image editor if they had enough duct tape and twine and two weekends free.
falconeyes: Adobe did also update their blog article from 2013:-> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html
IIRC, their promise to CS6 users when announcing it is the last version with a perpetual license was that support for new cameras to users with a perpetual license would never stop.
IE., that they would NOT *force* customers into CC. Now, it seems they break their promise.
I am now just awaiting see them increasing their monthly photography subscription price too ...
Lesson learned:Two years is about the time Adobe "forgets" about promises they made :(
You can use CS6 until Hell freezes over AFAIK.Your real problem will be accommodating OS upgrades and camera changes.But as the DNG converter will probably let you convert to DNG from the latest cameras I see no hardship different from any other stoic clinging to the "old ways".
joyclick: Why let Adobe enslave you,tether you,make you do everything at their bidding without you having any say/choice in the matter?Boycott adobe,support other companies so that adobe is sent to oblivion.
There are alternatives to Microsoft and Apple but still people use them despite the claims of how they will be driven to oblivion by their greed/malice/stupidity.
So far no credible alternative to PS is used by anyone in any numbers. C1 is a good product but not really breathing down LRs neck.Reading off a list of obscure PS competitors doesn't prove anything. It means there are a lot of PS wannabes who are scarcely used by anyone.
Steve in GA: Looking through the comments here, I'm struck by depth of the depth of the vitriol. Apparently, few of the commenters saw these pictures and simply paused to remember that awful day and the 3,000 people that died.
There is no saving Iraq from what we started. There never was. The Middle East has a complex history that the West has never understood or attempted to understand. This is not a left wing /right wing issue. It is just fact.
Thinking that military could achieve the stated goals in that environment was never believed by the military. Their job is fighting. They did that part.The cost of maintaining a force in country was unsustainable financially and politically. Even today the military morale has been deeply damaged by the multiple deployments and the shameless lack of support for veterans.So, no, you are wrong and no matter what the chickenhawks of your party say, you never could win Iraq and you will not win the Mideast even if you nuke it to glowing glass.
Your suggestion that a small number of troops could have secured the borders sounds exactly like the overblown pronouncements of an early victory. If you recall the borders were only a part of the problem. The real problem was an insurgency that was instigated by the remnants of Baathist sympathizers with some foreign elements that were getting throughout the historically porous borders. If the Administration had been schooled in even the tiniest bit of history of the region they would never have gone to Iraq in the first place.Sun Tzu has many encomiums that perfectly illustrate the folly of the Iraq war. Not the least of which is "No nation has benefited from prolonged war."
Actually Iraq was never "won" it was a tiger being held by the tail. To ensure our "victory" we would have had to maintain an occupying force of immense size and cost indefinitely.Public opinion about the war was overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of the war and its multiple tours of duty, growing death toll and profound expense. In addition there was a growing realization that the Bush/Cheney administration had deceptively led the country into war and the bread and circus free credit show to distract us blew up and nearly destroyed our economy.President Obama brought troops home because the public DEMANDED it. They did not want to see more young men and women being killed to cover up the blunder of the Iraq war.THAT was why the GOP did not win the next election and THAT is why they didn't win the next one and THAT is why they won't win the next.
9-11 was portrayed as this generation's Pearl Harbor. In that event America got to exact terrible revenge on Japan for its attack. In this case there was no single point of focus that could render the requisite level of revenge.
The depth of the vitriol comes from the frustration at not being able to have prevented the attack despite our chest thumping rhetoric and also form our frustration that the subsequent actions of the Administration were profoundly wrong and resulted in countless innocent lives lost and colossal sums spent.In fact, the US played directly into Al Qaeda's hands by expending its fury in an unwinnable expedition costing us our global credibility and creating an enormous bloc of enemies worldwide.
So much for jingoism.
RichyjV: Quite a lot of WB/colour shifting of those tones, lots of blue in the shadows of some of them. Looks like the photographer trying to set the emotion rather than just documenting what the scene looked like. In this case I'd prefer it were not done, we shouldn't need to be told by the photographer how to feel about these shots.
These were scans made for archive and backup purposes. Production film scanners give beautiful results very quickly but show off the failure of film when underexposed. Film will look this way because the correction to overcome the tungsten/flourescent WB reveals the underexposure in the magenta and yellow layers. You can see the effect in digital by changing the WB and seeing the exposure correction you need to make to ensure that enough yellow and magenta light is being recorded to create a decent color balance in the shadows.
Just like today, if your exposure is off, post processing does not always save it.
Darn, I really wanted the 25 to be f1.6