More typical behavior. PS used to be upgraded when they made actual improvements, now it's a revenue event with minor updates at best, given the "fixed" 18-month cycle. Stage 3 of the greed initiative is to reward subscribers ate the expense of purchasers - obviously creating an incentive for moving to the most favorable revenue model for Adobe. Just annoying that valuing the customer is a distant second behind $$$.
It's just too narrow. I'm on a 24-inch monitor which is about 20-inches wide - 14 is wasted and about 6-inches is used for posts with tiny text. I know the old DPR was narrow too but this just feels much worse.
I like many of the features, but this one issue is a real challenge.
Jeff Morris: Tokina is the only 3rd party manufacturer that I have real respect for. The only negative about Tokina lenses are their propensity to demonstrate higher than normal levels of CA. However, build and performance are usually on par with the big boys.
@tkbslc - Nonsense. Sigma is a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to the "big boys", their lenses don't beat any top Nikon or Canon glass. Unfortunately, I've owned far too much Sigma (and later sold it all) to know first hand. Inconsistent AF (not a calibration need but a variable misfocus) is the biggest problem followed by marginal wide open sharpness on the 1.4 or 2.8 lenses (although the 50 and 85 seem to be better - at a much higher price than their value lenses).
Now don't misunderstand, Sigma fits a very important niche - good value, good performance. This is their strength and they are a valid choice for many. But to say Sigma beats the "big boys" is utter nonsense. You get what you pay for - cliche as it is - never more true than with Sigma.