And I thought lenses for small sensors were supposed to be smaller and cheaper than lenses for full-frame. The Canon 85/1.8 (an excellent lens optically with very fast ring USM focusing and good build quality) goes for $389 at B&H right now.
Shouldn't this lens, with shorter focal length and thus a smaller aperture, designed for a 1/4 sized sensor go for around $250 or so?
Direct link |
Posted on May 24, 2012 at 13:53:09 UTC
as 54th comment
| 8 replies
gingerbaker: I am not sure we are getting more flexibility here, indeed, I think we are losing some, although I think the behind-the-scenes processing looks to do a better job of reducing artifacts.
We have now lost the recovery slider, the brightness slider, and the fill light slider. But we did not really gain anything to replace them, since we already had four sliders (shadows, blacks, highlights, lights) in the manual section of the curves dialog as well.
Not particularly happy about this at all. :(
The manual section of the curves dialog did NOT do what these controls do at all. Highlights is like a version of recovery that works without hue shifts, exposure and shadows are like fill light without that halos, and we now have white and blacks that control the shapes of the ends of the adaptive controls. In addition, we still have the same curves controls but now have them for separated R,G and B in Lightroom as well, we also have local white balance, local highlights and shadows, and local moire. If that's less control, I don't see how.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 23:43:19 UTC
photo nuts: Why do people enjoy posting negative critical remarks even for articles as innocent as an introduction to new software?
Better overall? Your way would soak up about 1,000 hours of my time per year. I don't consider that a bonus just to save $79 (the cost of an LR upgrade) every two years. My time is worth more than $0.04 an hour.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 23:36:07 UTC
Neodp: They removed my kind posts, quickly showing how to do this better, in the free Gimp!
Censorship is great, isn't it?
Read this while you can, I guess.
Bye bye DP.
The catalogs are non-destructive, and I haven't had LR destroy any images or metadata.
And I have processed entire 700 image shoots from card download to web site in 45 minutes with LR. Doing the same with a pixel editor is more of a 10-15 hour task.
"I wasn't aware this was a contest."
Really? Who was it that said this above?
"Because there's a better, overall way. This would be a worse way, overall."
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 23:32:57 UTC
Neodp: They removed my kind posts, quickly showing how to do this better, in the free Gimp!
Censorship is great, isn't it?
Read this while you can, I guess.
Bye bye DP.
Better while still having the ability to process 700 images in 45 minutes without creating any intermediate files and doing so in a completely non-destructive way?
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 19:45:56 UTC
Because it doesn't do close to the same thing. Curves is applied globally to the entire image. These controls are applied locally. You could, using this approach, start with two pixels of the same tone and, after processing, end up with those same two pixels having different tones depending on what's in their surroundings. This helps greatly to achieve the goal of high-contrast scene processing - intentionally reducing global contrast without losing local contrast.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 19:43:22 UTC
ljfinger: Canon's efforts here are, in my opinion, a waste of development resources that they could have been spending on their still-camera lineup (with video). RED is so far ahead of Canon here that Canon has nothing to compete on except price, and their prices are way too high. Consumers aren't going to buy these expensive cameras so their volumes - and therefore their profits - are going to be low.
So let's see a high-pixel-count full-frame, a 100-400L II, the actual release of the lenses they've announced, a T4i, a 70D and a 7D II instead of these cinema cameras that have almost no chance of competing in the cinema market and that almost no consumers have any interesting in buying in place of a nice automobile for the same price.
"Canon video cameras are already competing in the professional cinema market."
Any professional shooting Cinema in a compressed RGB CODEC is, frankly, not being professional. Given the three Canon choices here, I'd choose RED every day of the week, and I don't even like RED as a company (their founder has a tough time with the truth)!
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 14, 2012 at 14:33:43 UTC
Canon's efforts here are, in my opinion, a waste of development resources that they could have been spending on their still-camera lineup (with video). RED is so far ahead of Canon here that Canon has nothing to compete on except price, and their prices are way too high. Consumers aren't going to buy these expensive cameras so their volumes - and therefore their profits - are going to be low.
So let's see a high-pixel-count full-frame, a 100-400L II, the actual release of the lenses they've announced, a T4i, a 70D and a 7D II instead of these cinema cameras that have almost no chance of competing in the cinema market and that almost no consumers have any interesting in buying in place of a nice automobile for the same price.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 14, 2012 at 12:51:04 UTC
as 47th comment
| 5 replies
mmcfine: I return LR4 and got my money back. LR3 is great and works well on my 08 MBP. LR4 has (may it's fixed) many import issues, files missing, some files can not be previewed on import, I could not import Jpegs if they where shot together as Jpeg+Raw, video playback sluggish and feature limiting and a few other annoying bugs. And Adobe want's me to provide feedback??? what they are not making enough money to employ testers? I have given Adobe feedback for 15 years and the only think they where happy to accept is my upgrade money. Sorry Adobe, no more.
Thousands of dollars a year? It's $79, about every two years.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 2, 2012 at 17:07:22 UTC
NoCoShutter: Sorry, but I think it's LAME of Adobe to make users of LR 3.x pay for a full version (or update) to LR4 just to get camera support. If they MUST make more $$ for every camera… then sell the RAW support patches individually. Heck, I'd pay $$ for digital support for the 5DIII rather than have to update about 50 catalogs and 1,000,000 images. That'll be fun.
The don't sell raw support patches because they give them away for free. Just download the free DNG converter and you're good to go.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 2, 2012 at 17:06:36 UTC
ljfinger: Not much difference - 5DIII, D800, D4 (I'm looking at the raw files). They all look pretty darned good. ISO 25,600 on any of them looks a lot like ISO 400 film - that's 6 stops of difference!
You can get down into the very deep details and say stuff like the 5DIII is a touch better in the mids and brights, the D800 a touch better in the darks, the 5DIII has a little better retention of low-contrast detail, the D800 has a little better retention of fine detail. But, honestly, these differences are very slight even looking as we are here at the equivalent of a 60x40 inch print viewed from 18 inches away!
Yep - even your 4-stop push is a slight difference.
I didn't look above ISO 25,600.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 14:52:04 UTC
MichaelK81: Ok, I admit, I pixel-peeped. Am I the only one who thinks 5D III has absolutely no advantage over 5D II when shooting RAW at high ISO? In fact, in some images, 5D III has noticeably more noise.
I think we're reaching a point where technology is limited by the laws of physics?
I'd say the 5DIII is 1/3-2/3 of a stop better than the 5DII in raw, based on these samples.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 13:58:11 UTC
Not much difference - 5DIII, D800, D4 (I'm looking at the raw files). They all look pretty darned good. ISO 25,600 on any of them looks a lot like ISO 400 film - that's 6 stops of difference!
You can get down into the very deep details and say stuff like the 5DIII is a touch better in the mids and brights, the D800 a touch better in the darks, the 5DIII has a little better retention of low-contrast detail, the D800 has a little better retention of fine detail. But, honestly, these differences are very slight even looking as we are here at the equivalent of a 60x40 inch print viewed from 18 inches away!
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 13:57:27 UTC
as 82nd comment
| 7 replies
Loading this page is still about half a MB, which is still pretty mobile unfriendly, given the nature of the content on this page (almost all text). Really, it's no more mobile-friendly than the desktop site is.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 14:33:16 UTC
as 38th comment
ZoranC: Way Adobe pulled this one off sucks big time in my book.
During (pre)Xmas sales they were dumping LR 3 for $149. Now full version is $149 and upgrade is $79 which means those that gave money to Adobe early are milked by Adobe out of an extra $79 over those that didn't give them money.
Don't tell me Adobe management didn't plan this, that they didn't know what their LR4 pricing strategy will be, when LR3 sales started few months ago, so this leaves a stench of yet another greed driven manipulation by Adobe.
If Adobe had any respect for their existing customers they would offer free upgrade to anyone that bought LR starting in November of 2011.
Otherwise they shouldn't be surprised when customers start looking for ways to not give them any sales in the future, or to delay purchasing of Adobe products for as long as possible.
I know I will be one of them as I firmly believe any greedy company deserves strong lesson in how to be humble and not spit in the face of hand that feeds you.
Right, because of course cutting prices for your current and future products in half (with a published expiration date for the current product pricing) while providing a free beta (with a published expiration date) is the obvious way to abuse and cheat your customers.
I'm sorry, but I can't even roll my eyes back far enough for this post.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 6, 2012 at 22:54:12 UTC
Westminster, CO, United States
And I thought lenses for small sensors were supposed to be smaller and cheaper than lenses for full-frame. The Canon 85/1.8 (an excellent lens optically with very fast ring USM focusing and good build quality) goes for $389 at B&H right now.
Shouldn't this lens, with shorter focal length and thus a smaller aperture, designed for a 1/4 sized sensor go for around $250 or so?
gingerbaker: I am not sure we are getting more flexibility here, indeed, I think we are losing some, although I think the behind-the-scenes processing looks to do a better job of reducing artifacts.
We have now lost the recovery slider, the brightness slider, and the fill light slider. But we did not really gain anything to replace them, since we already had four sliders (shadows, blacks, highlights, lights) in the manual section of the curves dialog as well.
Not particularly happy about this at all. :(
The manual section of the curves dialog did NOT do what these controls do at all. Highlights is like a version of recovery that works without hue shifts, exposure and shadows are like fill light without that halos, and we now have white and blacks that control the shapes of the ends of the adaptive controls. In addition, we still have the same curves controls but now have them for separated R,G and B in Lightroom as well, we also have local white balance, local highlights and shadows, and local moire. If that's less control, I don't see how.
photo nuts: Why do people enjoy posting negative critical remarks even for articles as innocent as an introduction to new software?
Better overall? Your way would soak up about 1,000 hours of my time per year. I don't consider that a bonus just to save $79 (the cost of an LR upgrade) every two years. My time is worth more than $0.04 an hour.
Neodp: They removed my kind posts, quickly showing how to do this better, in the free Gimp!
Censorship is great, isn't it?
Read this while you can, I guess.
Bye bye DP.
The catalogs are non-destructive, and I haven't had LR destroy any images or metadata.
And I have processed entire 700 image shoots from card download to web site in 45 minutes with LR. Doing the same with a pixel editor is more of a 10-15 hour task.
"I wasn't aware this was a contest."
Really? Who was it that said this above?
"Because there's a better, overall way. This would be a worse way, overall."
Neodp: They removed my kind posts, quickly showing how to do this better, in the free Gimp!
Censorship is great, isn't it?
Read this while you can, I guess.
Bye bye DP.
Better while still having the ability to process 700 images in 45 minutes without creating any intermediate files and doing so in a completely non-destructive way?
cxsparc: Why not simply use curves adjustment?
Because it doesn't do close to the same thing. Curves is applied globally to the entire image. These controls are applied locally. You could, using this approach, start with two pixels of the same tone and, after processing, end up with those same two pixels having different tones depending on what's in their surroundings. This helps greatly to achieve the goal of high-contrast scene processing - intentionally reducing global contrast without losing local contrast.
ljfinger: Canon's efforts here are, in my opinion, a waste of development resources that they could have been spending on their still-camera lineup (with video). RED is so far ahead of Canon here that Canon has nothing to compete on except price, and their prices are way too high. Consumers aren't going to buy these expensive cameras so their volumes - and therefore their profits - are going to be low.
So let's see a high-pixel-count full-frame, a 100-400L II, the actual release of the lenses they've announced, a T4i, a 70D and a 7D II instead of these cinema cameras that have almost no chance of competing in the cinema market and that almost no consumers have any interesting in buying in place of a nice automobile for the same price.
"Canon video cameras are already competing in the professional cinema market."
Any professional shooting Cinema in a compressed RGB CODEC is, frankly, not being professional. Given the three Canon choices here, I'd choose RED every day of the week, and I don't even like RED as a company (their founder has a tough time with the truth)!
Canon's efforts here are, in my opinion, a waste of development resources that they could have been spending on their still-camera lineup (with video). RED is so far ahead of Canon here that Canon has nothing to compete on except price, and their prices are way too high. Consumers aren't going to buy these expensive cameras so their volumes - and therefore their profits - are going to be low.
So let's see a high-pixel-count full-frame, a 100-400L II, the actual release of the lenses they've announced, a T4i, a 70D and a 7D II instead of these cinema cameras that have almost no chance of competing in the cinema market and that almost no consumers have any interesting in buying in place of a nice automobile for the same price.
anthony mazzeri: For all those commenting here about 4K video frame grabs looking like crap, Laforet proves you wrong:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/07/what-camera-did-i-use-to-make-this-still-picture/
PS: Cheat - the EPIC is actually 5K, but I'll leave the link here anyway.
If you don't like Vincent's example, try this one:
http://red.cachefly.net/RED-VOGUE.pdf
This is a really ideal astro dSLR!
mmcfine: I return LR4 and got my money back. LR3 is great and works well on my 08 MBP. LR4 has (may it's fixed) many import issues, files missing, some files can not be previewed on import, I could not import Jpegs if they where shot together as Jpeg+Raw, video playback sluggish and feature limiting and a few other annoying bugs.
And Adobe want's me to provide feedback??? what they are not making enough money to employ testers? I have given Adobe feedback for 15 years and the only think they where happy to accept is my upgrade money. Sorry Adobe, no more.
Thousands of dollars a year? It's $79, about every two years.
NoCoShutter: Sorry, but I think it's LAME of Adobe to make users of LR 3.x pay for a full version (or update) to LR4 just to get camera support. If they MUST make more $$ for every camera… then sell the RAW support patches individually. Heck, I'd pay $$ for digital support for the 5DIII rather than have to update about 50 catalogs and 1,000,000 images. That'll be fun.
The don't sell raw support patches because they give them away for free. Just download the free DNG converter and you're good to go.
JayK2: Can someone tell me if it's possible to add more than one tune to a slideshow in LR 4?
Only if you splice files together using an outside tool.
ljfinger: Not much difference - 5DIII, D800, D4 (I'm looking at the raw files). They all look pretty darned good. ISO 25,600 on any of them looks a lot like ISO 400 film - that's 6 stops of difference!
You can get down into the very deep details and say stuff like the 5DIII is a touch better in the mids and brights, the D800 a touch better in the darks, the 5DIII has a little better retention of low-contrast detail, the D800 has a little better retention of fine detail. But, honestly, these differences are very slight even looking as we are here at the equivalent of a 60x40 inch print viewed from 18 inches away!
Yep - even your 4-stop push is a slight difference.
I didn't look above ISO 25,600.
MichaelK81: Ok, I admit, I pixel-peeped. Am I the only one who thinks 5D III has absolutely no advantage over 5D II when shooting RAW at high ISO? In fact, in some images, 5D III has noticeably more noise.
I think we're reaching a point where technology is limited by the laws of physics?
I'd say the 5DIII is 1/3-2/3 of a stop better than the 5DII in raw, based on these samples.
Not much difference - 5DIII, D800, D4 (I'm looking at the raw files). They all look pretty darned good. ISO 25,600 on any of them looks a lot like ISO 400 film - that's 6 stops of difference!
You can get down into the very deep details and say stuff like the 5DIII is a touch better in the mids and brights, the D800 a touch better in the darks, the 5DIII has a little better retention of low-contrast detail, the D800 has a little better retention of fine detail. But, honestly, these differences are very slight even looking as we are here at the equivalent of a 60x40 inch print viewed from 18 inches away!
Loading this page is still about half a MB, which is still pretty mobile unfriendly, given the nature of the content on this page (almost all text). Really, it's no more mobile-friendly than the desktop site is.
ZoranC: Way Adobe pulled this one off sucks big time in my book.
During (pre)Xmas sales they were dumping LR 3 for $149. Now full version is $149 and upgrade is $79 which means those that gave money to Adobe early are milked by Adobe out of an extra $79 over those that didn't give them money.
Don't tell me Adobe management didn't plan this, that they didn't know what their LR4 pricing strategy will be, when LR3 sales started few months ago, so this leaves a stench of yet another greed driven manipulation by Adobe.
If Adobe had any respect for their existing customers they would offer free upgrade to anyone that bought LR starting in November of 2011.
Otherwise they shouldn't be surprised when customers start looking for ways to not give them any sales in the future, or to delay purchasing of Adobe products for as long as possible.
I know I will be one of them as I firmly believe any greedy company deserves strong lesson in how to be humble and not spit in the face of hand that feeds you.
Right, because of course cutting prices for your current and future products in half (with a published expiration date for the current product pricing) while providing a free beta (with a published expiration date) is the obvious way to abuse and cheat your customers.
I'm sorry, but I can't even roll my eyes back far enough for this post.
maboleth: Painfully slow on i5 quad core, 8gb ram, sata3 hard drives. Welcome LR3.6 again.
The final will read and upgrade older catalog files, including those from the Beta.
Barso: Any ideas when LR4 beta will cease to function
End of March.