techmine: Good Job Tamron. You know right you can't make everyone happy? Its a good start to bring in some lower cost alternatives to otherwise pricey Sony.
you may have heard: the weakest link of a chain decides.as always: buy a small camera too expensive for you. then add cheap, big glass. good idea.
Mostly Lurking: I'm certainly glad this article was posted and I' sure it's of value to many photographers / post-processors, especially to commercial photography. So thank you for doing so.
However, as an amateur, I prefer to touch-up blemishes individually and allow the 'character' of person to be seen. No 'plastic' skin for me, thank you!
as he said: just reduce opacity from 100% to 15%, 10% or 5%
panacealater: Surely you're not suggesting the wealthy should not have purchasing options that reflect their status. Why should they be confined to the price constraints many of us respect?
While I do not share the attraction to their efforts to remain a viable manufacturer by supporting the needs of their traditional customer base, I see no reason to disparage them.
Now, if someone gave me one for Christmas, I wouldn't exchange it. lol
If someone gave me one for Christmas, I'd sell it and use the money to buy some lenses or some new bodies, ...
--> why not give the money to the poor, you capitalist!!?
mrmut: I don't see the point. CF standard is nice, fast, has a great form factor and is widely adopted. The smaller alternative is excellent SD card. Why add another one?
the point is: buy a new camera!
D200_4me: Suggestion: Make it so the galleries don't force the entire page to reload when changing to a different image. Makes the browsing slower and very annoying :-(
as always: we don't serve the customer, the customer has to serve us.
MICHAEL_61: Very interesting. My conclusion: in order to buy a lens, get as many copies as you possibly can tested on your camera (preferably 10 at least) to choose the best one of them.
"My Nikon F lenses of the 60's were much more uniform in their quality as seen in my 16x20 B&W's."
you pixel-peeped them at 100%, then?you would have been surprised ...
ps: my agency sells my pics every day. must be those incompetent editors and customers all over the world who never look closely and buy crap ...
benincolorado: great article!
This is totally in-line with my personal view on the topic, because so far I never had any issues with neither my new lenses nor my used lenses that I bought.
Thanks for this article, it should be (and I'm sure it will be) spread widely in forums.
Wrong. Most of Henri Cartier Bressons pictures wouldnt make the cut in this forum - not sharp enough. it such simple.
Malcolm L: In 44 years of fairly serious photography I have gotten 1 "bad" lens out of 12 I currently own. It was pretty obvious, I sent it back. The next one was also bad. The store would only replace that one if I signed a waiver that that was the last replacement. I foolishly did and got a third bad copy - I since have given that one away (to someone who is happy with it). All the other 12 have been more than good enough for me printing at up to 17X22. And I only judge the quality in a print. Malcolm
most people NEVER ever print in their lifetime. so they judge onscreen, 100%. and they dont know what they-re doing. the sharp single pixel is their aim, not a wow-picture.
Peter Waldvogel: There are really lensese out there that DO overcome some of the old physics issues and the design and production choices that some companies make are really annoying.
Take the 17-55 2.8 by Nikon and compare it to the 24-70 2.8 - One is DX and the other FX, but for their counterpart cameras they are basically designed for the same kind of photography and the 24-70 is a much better lens!!! It can produce very sharp images from edge to edge even at 24mm, where as the 17-55 cannot.
I think it's reasonable for Nikon users, especially professionsals to criticize Nikon for this and if I ever start shooting for money again, I hope Nikon will address (what I see as) the huge design flaws in the 17-55!
no. the 17-55 is for hobbyists, quality- and cost-wise. the 24-70 is for professionals. if you decide to use your 17-55 as a professional, then blame yourself.
ive never tested any lens and never felt ive got an unsharp copy. no unfunctional canon 1d m3 either. how comes?ps: im a pro for 25 years.
sharpness is overrated anyhow.
the more sharpness-fanatic the mediocre the photographer. cause he's nothing to give but sharpness. no decisive moments, no composition, no nothing.
and the sharpness is not his but the manufacturer's.
so, in real, he himself has nothing to give. that's why he´s so aggressive, mostly.
jorepuusa: ...cameras get updates and new colors, but pictures that amateurs take are the same as they were in 70´s 80´90´etc.Flowers in a vase, out of focus picture of our cat, dad´s new car hilites blown..etc etc.Lot´s of opinions about the sensor and ergonomics and then...the same poor pictures with no visual idea. And mister Sonycanikolyfuj smiles.
then have a look at 80s pictures - they are badass as well.
ET2: How did E-PM1 get such a high video rating? It's video is rated higher than 5n, higher than GH2 , higher than A35, C3, T2i ....
put yourself in the position of your reader. those scoreboards are completly useless.
steveh0607: This may be an opening for Aperture. Apple should step up its game a bit and really go after Adobe. Nothing beats competition. Get going Apple!
...but apple is about to say farewell to the professional market. aperture is not one of the better raw-converters, to say it nicely.try raw photo processor, raw developer, c1, raw therapee, maybe DXO7...
BobDavid: Believe it or not, I suport Adobe's decision. Photoshop is central to my business. Research and development comes at a cost. As a professional, I have never had a problem writing a check to pay for excellent software. If you are an amateur complaining about upgrade costs, maybe it's time to switch over to another suite of image editing software.
so where is the problem? just go ahead writing your professional checks for adobe! moreover you could donate some bucks for them as well.
BobDavid: In regard to paying for software, a previous poster's comment: "Who cares!!! pirates rock: D"
My response: You are a thief. And those of you that pirate software are thieves. Have you ever consisdered that by pirating intellectual property, you are disincentivizing companies to spend money on R&D, probably eliminating jobs, and undermining a company's ability to offer the very best. If you love pirating software, move to China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are defaulting on your student loans and living with mommy and daddy. How would you feel if somebody decided to pirate something of yours?
move to china?most pirate sw is distributed from china. and sold to usa.so blame yourself.
Marc Rogoff: Not much love for Adobe - this is another example from Adobe on how not to make friends and retain customers....just wish there was another "game" in town to compete with them properly. They are an extraordinarily arrogant company. Just look at the cost differences of software for UK users despite complaints over the last 5 years.... If the software was priced better they would reduce the incentive to "steal" software. Most young Photographers use 'stolen" software as the cost is out of the ballpark for them.
stay with cs5 or what youve got for a long time. it works now even for professionals and will do so in 2 years time.dont update your system either, if it runs now to your satisfaction.
priced better? for whom. the comp. will price as much as the custoer will allow. its easy: dont buy and let them get bancrupt.
tom sugnet: Greed is the main cause of this crisis.
you like your ford f150? get a 1-year subscription. after that the motor wont run any more. if you dont renew your license youll pay full again later. so its a bargain if you renew every year ...
Simon97: I used to be an IT manager for an engineering company. This is the way nearly ALL the software was licensed: It required some sort of USB dongle or a license server or still needed to be authorized like Windows OS or MS Office did (or does?). With most of the engineering software, you paid to use it for a year. If that expired, you paid to renew or lose use of the software and are charged full price of the software if you wanted to use it again.
Depending on the software, we figured it cost us $15,000 for a workstation, but that is still small compared to the cost of the human running it.
good ol times :-)but they are over now. in the end adobe will loose.
do you write about every single accessory available on the worldwide market for $29,-? is this the only grip available for any compact and did you present all other grips for all other compacts as well?so, it's obviously PR for a good friend.