grainy sky for iso 100!
Speaking of updates - most software matures in five years or so and then the updates are for the vendor's good so that they have some reason to try to sell you more. Look at Microsoft, they have been selling the same word processor for many years, but each year they "improve" the interface - causing us to have to hunt for the new location of functionality we used to know how to find and use.
I think Adobe's move is not to "improve" their software - it is because there is not much left to improve. They are running out of ways to actually improve the software so now they come up with ransom mode.
The cost is way too much for enthusiast photographers, it's probably too much for someone struggling to get a part time photography business going. I think a competitor will fill the gap with the right software at the right price.
I work in Higher Ed IT and we are re-thinking our use of Adobe software on campus - even with ed discounts our costs will be rising substantially. Adobe was way cool in the early days, not so much in the last few years.
Great price break, but what do people think about the functionality. I just installed a 15 day trial and I am not sure how I would use this stuff within my normal Bridge/Camera Raw/Photoshop work flow. Isn't most of the functionality redundant with newer versions of Photoshop?
Am I correct in thinking that the Sigma USB dock would allow me to tweak and fix any focusing issues I might have with the new 30mm 1.4 and my Canon 450D?
Five steps to the perfect landscape DSLR
1. A full frame sensor with only 18 megapixels and optimized for dynamic range. 2. A large bright viewfinder3. Manual focus only - with the kind of beautifully silky focusing ring lenses we used to have in the SLR days.4. Enough weight to the camera to make it less shake prone.5. A real mechanical shutter release - you guessed it, like the old SLRs used to have so that you can trip it without shaking the camera. These electronic button releases bite in comparison.
of course if you have no experience with a quality older SLR you won't get what I am talking about.
Wow, if the 6D falls short in the dynamic range tests, like many others I will be looking at Nikon. It will be interesting to see how the image quality tests stack up.
LOVE this camera. All these iso 200 pics have the same creamy - no noise look that my Canon 300 D had - only with way much more resolution to work with. Bigger pixels are better. Period.
Thanks to Dr Fossum for sharing his knowledge with us. It is a privilege to hear from one of the lead engineers in the field. My favorite take away from this talk is the clear indication that more pixels is not always better and that all else being equall I would rather have larger area light gathering units on my sensor.