cd cooker: can someone tell me why some lens companies use x,x instead of x.x to represent the max F number? In this lens, it shows 1,4. Thanks
+1,4I was just about to say, not just Germans, all of us in Europe (except UK and Ireland) use the metric system, hence we use the comma...
Starkiller: A lens without AF is like a car without power steering. It works, but in 2013 nobody will buy it.
Eh... Zeiss produces top quality optical glass, that their photography department, for instance, then assemble in lenses, with almost no distortion, nor chromatic aberration, and most of the time with nothing-short-of-stunning results in sharpness, into well built, easy to operate manual focus lenses... I don't think you can reduce zeiss or leica to just taking a tax on lenses made for Japanese manufacturer... It's a bit much.And no they did not develop an AF system, for the simple reason that it is expensive, requires to make compromises in size or optical design and that anyway AF can never be as accurate as MF and people who buy these lenses use them for applications in which detail and thus proper technique play a preponderant role...So sure, not everyone will enjoy it, and I see very few reasons why I personally would shoot Zeiss not being (good enough?) obsessed with detail and technique, and sure it's not the lens for casual snaps, but hey, it definitely has a market.
BJN: It's too bad that modern DSLRs are lousy for manual focusing, except in live view. The retro manual focusing lens needs a camera retrofitted with a 1970's style focusing screen.
You'd be surprised to see how some people manage outdo autofocus both in terms of precision and speed using manual focus with a viewfinder and a good focus screen. It does take a lot of practice I suppose (I'm really not good with it, but I've met a couple of photographers who obtain astounding results, with minimum fuss).Truth is for stills, it's really hard to beat you eye, and only last gen EVF start to be decent. I had a Canon AE1, it had a quite decent focus screen, and with the smooth 50/1.4 you'd hardly miss focus.I find it hard to focus correctly on the fly with EVFs (screens or OVF styled), with a screen under 460K it's almost impossible, and even with 1M dots, the image is clear but depth remain harder to judge than with the naked eye through a good FF VF.
Biowizard: My last 35mm film camera that I kept with me at nearly all times, was a Contax S2 - titanium bodied, 100% mechanical shutter - fitted with a Ziess Planar 50mm f1.4. If I wanted other focal lengths, I'd shoot on my Olympus OM-1 and the assortment of Zuikos I had. Renenber, this Contax was my take-everywhere camera, and I wasn't interested in toting a "system" around day-to-day. The results of shooting Kodachrome 25 through this lens, even wide open, were nothing short of stunning. Even made my prime Zuiko glass look fuzzy by comparison.
Since I went digital about 9 years ago, I've been shooting Olympus with Oly zooms. Good images, nice handling, but nothing to compare to my Zeiss 50/f1.4.
I am about to invest in my next DSLR - and am VERY tempted to forego autofocus and zooms, and instead buy a couple of Zeiss prime lenses. Myt only quibble: Nikon's focusing thread runs back-to-front compared to Olympus & Canon, and I am not sure I could get used to that!
...Yes, you do get more MP, but actually, at high ISO past ISO800 both Canon and Nikon sensors have the same SNR, and although you probably only get 1 stop of headroom at ISO100 with the Canon compared to the rather mind boggling 2.5-3 stops you get with the Nikon (which you'd probably only use for signle shot HDR, and personnally I don't really like pulling the shadows, it does make some fancy scenes, most of the time it's over the top, but it's not any closer to what the eye sees, well that's debatable I suppose), I'd still would not call Canon sensors "Jurassic" artefacts... I mean at high ISO there's less than a third of a stop difference... Nikon has more DR, okay, but don't make it sound like you can't pull out a good size print from a 5DIII or a 6D.
Please, add a bit more noise to the 45 mm night shot, it's a bit too clean to judge the lens output... I know, I know, there are plenty of samples... =PTesting the 100D in low light, I suppose?
Sad Joe: Sorry - missed off two additional features from MY 7D MK2 spec: Headphone socket and dual card slots.. now my work is complete and I can go back to taking images.....lovely sunny day across the UK and wait for it HOT.
And which makes coffee, don't forget coffee... Otherwise it ain't worth buying ;)
Nerval: Eh, I don't understand.
As far as documentaries go or art goes, well the debate will always remain on where is the line and that's fine. After all, it's a healthy one.
However, when it comes to journalism, as in reporter, and news photographer, I (but that's my own opinion) can't figure out why or how there could be any place for retouching other than matching the actual scene (how a human eye sees it): the job is to show reality, not "enhanced reality", so adjusting to match the scene brightness and actual colors okay, "enhancing it", not okay!
Giving it a more dramatic or less dramatic impact, well the selection of images, and the framing already does that a great deal, and now it would not even be what it looks like?
It's illogical, if a journal, newspaper claims to be objective, they ought to do their best to stick to the truth, and we know they will still have trends.
Otherwise they 're just tabloïds trying to sell stories and images...
"enhancements", ah come on, stop jesting with words, enhancing solely means making better, which in that case is subjective, and you do it by retouching, chemicals and burn and dodge process were called that, and they did not move silver particles...
Also, journalists have always manipulated images, and that's nothing new, it's just that saying "go ahead and and do as you please with the representations you bring to your audience" is a bit too much...
Aesthetics, well shoot your shots correctly, not everything in this world has to be aesthetic, moroever what is and what's not is subjective...
After, journalists will always edit their shots, and when they want their photograph to carry a strong message, they will always be very selective on the way they shoot it, and present it... But it should be done prioritizing information, not to please viewers' eyes... (that does not mean the shot cannot be beautiful, I'm talking about intents and principles).
Eh, I don't understand.
Cheers to DPR and Mr Lew, Great pics and well written article, great content !
Thing that concerns me most actually is not in the poll :- This moves empowers the company way too much against the customers who are buying into it, it's too one sided. Okay, professionals and amateurs alike can all walk away... It is not like every single business in the graphic design and photographic industry were using Adobe products as an industry standard! Oh, wait... Yes, they all do...
Leon V: Framer
I am an amateur photographer and love digital imaging and digital painting. I am not a whiner! Phtoshop CS6 and Camera Raw 6 is all I need. I do not need CC or any other Adobe product. These hundreds of comments are not people whining.
Ah... thought you were never going to show a hint of understanding towards others.
NancyP: I think that Adobe has just created a market for OS emulators and other reverse-engineered methods for keeping LR and PS current versions running. Newer cameras should have either DNG RAW format or provide simple proprietary to DNG converting program.
I just don't see how this will work well in bulk. In text-based medical records processed through the cloud, there still can be lag time even with hospital grade (fast) connection, and the amount of data is miniscule in comparison.
OTOH, you may never need to buy another computer.
LR cloud would add problems. How many people are willing to have their catalogs on-line and only available on-line? LR is not "just" a rendering engine.
By JamesInCA (29 min ago)
"The software is installed and run locally, just as it always has been. This is primarily a licensing change."
Personnally, I'm not a big fan of the cloud... I do not like tech when it can become too intrusive.
Jay A: Hey Framer, your attitude is uncalled for. I have no interest whatsoever in renting software. Do you not get this?
@ Framer : you're being self righteous:
- You tell people not to whine, because it displeases you, don't you? Well if you do not like these comments don't read them! =)
- You think when someone thinks something is wrong he should not try to act or express his ideas? Well, then you should not be writing here, should you now? =)
Companies need to know what their consumers want, that's consumer feedback and not just "YOUR" feedback is necessarily the best.
Then Internet, is pretty much about freedom of speech, so get over it.
Jay A: About a year ago I dumped several thousand dollars worth of Apple hardware and software due to similar policies. Tomorrow I start looking at alternative software to process my photos.
This is precisely what has scared me about digital photography for the past 15 years...that one day I will have a ton of photos that are totally useless to me because a software vendor decided to pull something like this.
Maybe it's time to dust off the film cameras.
Actually, the future of digital camera file format is not settled, so it's not completely stupid to ask ourselves question about compatibility, it happened in other fields.... just sayin... quark xpress and indesign.
(unknown member): Fortunately I don't own PS.
How will they cater to photographers who live in places with slow internet?!
So, about education, which, actually is different from blind information gathering/ ingestion... and learning to behave and adapt.
Adobe turning more and more towards the cloud, is much more about strategic marketing, monetization and consumer control than anything else.
Companies crave for power, success and profit, which is normal, logical, but which does have some not so good consequences on us end-users, most of the time.
So tell me, you had an education where you were taught never to take a critical look at what was offered to you ?
People getting their facts wrong, well there will be a ton all the time, eventually, everybody will know what it (adobe cloud) is, what are the specs and so on.
That's not so important. How it will affect consumers, their rights, and what is this strategy all about is.
But, what's happening is not just complaining. Hell doesn't it raise any doubt in you?
Do you just say: "okay, adobe offers that; that's the future. It ought to be good"?
Leon V: I have used Photoshop since version 3. All I use is Photoshop! I am an amateurphotographer and like digital painting. I have absolutely no need for any other adobe product! Looks like I will be using Photoshop CS6 for the rest of my life or until Adobe comes back to selling future stand alone versions of Photoshop. This is a stupid move on Adobes part. They obviously did not think this through. I bet there are thousands of people out there that use only Photoshop and have no need for any other product!
PHOTOSHOP CS6 HAS ALL THE FEATURES I NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY DIGITAL IMAGING. I ONLY CONTINUED TO UPGRADE AT $169 PER YEAR TO GET THE LATEST VERSION. I WILL NOT PAY $600 A YEAR FOR SOMETHING I WILL NOT OWN!!!!!
I predict Adobe will see a great decrease in the number of customers because of the move. It may take a year or two, or a change in management, before we will be able to buy Photoshop as a stand alone again.
@ gw5815 :A great deal? Are you serious???Ok...So you say, paying $240 A YEAR, EVERY FREAKIN YEAR, for toshop is a good deal ? In Europe when you had to cash out 400€ for CS3, at least, you could use it for five years if you wanted to... like me, cause I don't buy a whole new set of cameras EVERY year... So $80 a year then... So, tell me how is $240 a year a good deal?
Sophoto: Dear Adobe Customers
We at Adobe have decided that all of our loyal customers are completely happy with their Adobe products and that our products cannot be improved upon. We have a large enough customer base and no longer wish to sell creative suite products. To deter new customers, we have decided to make our software only available via subscription at bloated prices. We thank you for your loyal custom over the years and look forward to no more relationship with you.
You're kind of an adobe fan aren't you?
Well it's all right, and they sell good products. But companies working on a subscription model do tend to get lazy and less accepting of innovation, focus more on getting new consumers (marketing effort) and secure a monopole. More control on the side of the company is never a good thing for the consumer, or customer, whatever way you put it.
backayonder: Great if you are on a fast broadband service with lots of data allowance each month. But I am on Wireless Broadband with only 8GB per month. So most of that usage will dissappear will it with programme downloads and picture uploads to Cloud Cuckoo land?
Yeah, but bandwidth is not really the issue. What adobe is seeking is no end-user comfort, it's just end-user control.
Kendunn: Tough sell, as by these comments. What is really going to be tough is people are mad and will make do for years with CS6 and those years will be lean for Adobe. I see this happening- no one will be buying by the month but holding on to what they have. In the mean time this will open up the market for developers and before people outgrow CS6 the competition will have something for $250 that is a step up from CS6 and Adobe will be out in the cold
Yeah, but feeling or not is just not the argument:
Empowers adobe way too much against the consumer: - they get a ton of info from their customers, they gain marketing control- they force a tax on professionals, it's pay or die, you do not decide if you want to upgrade every six, four, or two years, you pay, full stop. Iif you can't or don't want... well, too bad.- They will use this to provide side services, that they will probably also monetize... You want more storage, or faster batch processing, or whatever, I don't know they could offer ton of stuff... and charge extra.- A susbcription means a contract, so you're not free to change, and not likely too, once you're in. If they have a good portion of the industry buying into it, it's almost victory... Subscribers will also be less likely to accpet new products or change that could bring innovation. When you buy a prog, well you have it, and if you wanna give a go to another, it's ok. You're not gonna subcribe to give a go...
Nerval: I agree with lot's of people raising cons...
- Yes, it will help Adobe fight illegal downlad... all right... but that's the only thing I see which is remotely okay.
People making money out of their craft have to buy it anyway... so seriously, they're not going to earn a ton more...
But I see a lot of cons :
- I live in Southern Europe and I move around a lot, most of the rime the best access I get is a 3G connection, worst case edge T_T... So online storage and syncing... Yeah good for you if you live in the US, or in Japan.
- No I do not want that helluvah lot of stuff, I want lightroom, and seriously I could make do with half the things that are available in photoshop and not in lightroom. So, no I'm not going to subscribe.
- I do not like the subscription model : - most of the time it does not reward loyalty, because companies working for with that model constantly crave for new customers and pay more attention to them than their actual customer base
This trend apple has been taking, microsoft as well, and even more recently and boldly adobe (at first on the mobile market), to dictate the market on what's good and limit alternative choices will only result in poorer conditions, poorer offer, for the consumers... Much less consumer empowering.
I have nothing against companies making profit, a business has to be profitable, and has to progress...
BUT, coroporations, world-wide, do have a trend to try to pick up a monopole and exert a certain control over their customers and end-users which is not always of the most healthy form...