Yes, but what GEAR did the photogs use?
If I don't know that, how can I tell if the pics are any good???
My most-used camera/lens combo is the APS-C Nikon D7000 with the FF Nikon 24-70 f2.8.
Yes, that gives me a 35-105mm equivalent range. I could sometimes use a more wide-angle fl, but that's what my wide-angle lens is for. Frankly, I appreciate the extra range at the long end.
Perhaps I'll appreciate the greater wide-angle capability if/when I upgrage to ff. The next iteration of the FF Nikon 6XX, which should feature better viewfinder focal point coverage, would seem ideal.
Personally, I'm very glad I invested in a top-of-the-line FF lens.
Jogger: Should have separated this into pocket camera and fixed-lens compact.. e.g. LX100/X100 and RX100/G7x do not belong in the same category.
None of them are truly pants.
Ooh. Busy day for HowaboutRAW, running around, trolling for Leica.
JakeB: I'd post a comment stating my opinion, but HowaboutRAW will just shout me down like he's done EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' COMMENT that dares to raise even the spectre of criticism of the god-like Leica Corporation, so I'll just go take some photos instead.
Life's too short for internet bores.
You're the obnoxious bore who has to nitpick every single negative opinion expressed about a company that doesn't give a crap about you, RAW.
I'm pointing out that you're a sad little time-waster.
Now carry on.
I'd post a comment stating my opinion, but HowaboutRAW will just shout me down like he's done EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' COMMENT that dares to raise even the spectre of criticism of the god-like Leica Corporation, so I'll just go take some photos instead.
More crappy pictures than ever before on my camera!
Don't be too quick to jump over to Lightroom. It's looking increasingly likely that Adobe will make Lightroom subscription-only software like Photoshop.
In the meantime, I'm sticking with Aperture for the foreseeable future while I keep an eye on the development of Apple's "Photos" program.
Michael Piziak: So a firmware update upon release of the camera? Doesn't sound too assuring.
Someone needs a chill pill.
joe6pack: Before I install it, can someone tell me more about this software?
How big is the installation? I don't have Lr or PS.
Are there services running in the background even if I don't run the software? e.g. DRM, Update, etc
Review on Amazon isn't so exciting. I understand this is FREE but there are a lot of harm a bad software is capable of doing.
Thanks for sharing your insane ideas.
Not so fast, Fuji fans.
The Leica T has also upped the specs on their EVF viewfinder.
To enjoy the new feature, simply toss out your old standalone viewfinder and spend another $600 on its replacement.
Leica thanks you for your loyalty and assures you that your work reminds them of Cartier-Bresson.
We need more people like this guy making photography cool and less of the old farts going "birding."
steelski: This is literally a waste of your front page. You can spend your time how you like. But I think this would have been beneath you a year or two ago. Sorry to be unkind.
I would be happy to see you and other humorless bores gone from this site.
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
Your use of "genuine," "the real thing," and exhortation to "do it for real" suggests that while you may have adjusted your workflow to the digital age, you have not also adjusted your thinking.
This gives rise to your present attitudes towards digital, no matter how much you use it, as basically an inferior copy of "the real," which for you is film.
You were brought up in a world that equated reality with physical materials and chemical reactions. The arrangement of pixels to your mind is a pale imitation of these physical materials and chemical reactions.
End of the day, you are seeking to rationalize every passing generation's sense that the old ways were somehow better.
Digital vs. film is a discussion from the past, one we won't be hearing for much longer.
Glad to hear you take pleasure from shooting and processing film.
You should also, however, keep a more open mind about the quality, convenience, and creative options offered by skillful digital processing.
Are you kidding me?
Is this for Leica?
WesWilson: As a 20 year pro who shoots a variety of projects, I purchased the D7100 as an "upgrade" to my D300. I was wrong. The 7100 has more pixels. That's it. Otherwise the 300 is simply a better camera. It focuses faster, it handles better, and it is a better made camera than the d7100. I feel the 7100 is simply Nikons attempt to lure MWACs and amateurs into their camp with a high-megapixel camera. IMHO Nikon does not make a pro-quality dx sensor camera at this time. That's a shame, since for sports especially a dx format camera has some advantages over full-frame. Come on, Nikon...where's that D400 we all want?
Yeah, these D300 guys are deluded bores.
Zeisschen: If I have a well composed shot using a good lens and nailed focus I never needed photoshop. I bit of cropping and lighting up the shadows is usually all I have to do. I won't spend more money on a software than on printing pictures. iPhoto and Aperture ist enough for me.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion of techniques for Photoshop users.
If you think of Photoshop as an advanced dark room it might help you transition into the twenty-first century.
(unknown member): I think the person who wrote this review was either drunk or is just looking for reasons to write the camera down the drain.
The quality of this review isn't worth the disk space it is stored on.
It is a fine camera, period
Translation: The reviewer had the nerve to point out flaws in a camera I own. WAAAA!!!!
Where are all those bitter PC users to complain that the demo is on a Mac?
Combine them with the Adobe haters and we could achieve a perfect storm of internet outrage.