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.
Daniel Lauring: The Macbook Air is a great little TOUGH lightweight machine. It was my goto travel machine, until a very hard fall took out half the screen. I had all intentions of replacing it with the latest Haswell version, but the specs just aren't competitive anymore. It's screen was good in 2009, but has never been updated to "Retina" not to mention it's not even IPS.
Instead I bought an i7 HP T13-3000 Spectre, that had a QHD (2560x1440) IPS touch screen and similar solid aluminum construction for about $250 less than the comparable i5 Macbook Air. It's only hardware shortcoming, compared to the Air is it's Intel HD4400 graphics vs. HD5000. Battery life is about 9 hours vs. Apple's 12, but that is still plenty.
By the way, when I spec the machine the author says (i7,8Gb,512Gb) costs $1549, on Apple's website it comes to $1849. The author's price is for the 256Gb version.
I didn't misunderstand you.
I take issue with your saying the MacBook Air screen is "FAR, FAR inferior" to the HP screen.
That's complete nonsense.
Those who REALLY need color critical work will be using Ezios and the like in controlled-light environments.
If you're out in the field under non-controlled lighting conditions, the MacBook Air screen is far more than up to the task.
And, no, Daniel, Windows 8.1 is not even close to a good OS. It is an awkward mash-up of the very differing needs of desktop/laptop and mobile devices. Windows 7 is much better. OS X Mavericks is much better.
Ability to use Aperture is also a huge plus for me.
I'm sure the HP is a good machine. But for me it would need to be MUCH cheaper for me to choose it over a Mac.
Three hours more battery time is significant.
Trackpad experience is significant.
Having to use a poorly implemented mash-up of desktop and touch OS is significant.
And let's face it...
Anyone to whom color accuracy is truly crucial will be working with a calibrated Ezio or similar in a light-controlled room, Daniel.
Or if you really need that when you're out and about, then a 13" MacBook Pro with retina display would be a good alternative to the Air.
But when you try to claim that the MacBook Air screen "FAR, FAR inferior" to your HP, then you're just being silly.
Glad you're happy with your purchase, since justifying it is clearly what your post is really about.