Turn everything into money.
I think it would be fair if one wants desperately "protect" a genius architectural achievement from viewing, be so kind and build it in a far land.
In public places, one has already agreed to share.
Though I can understand if it is strictly commercial interest. Then again the rules must be utterly clear and when public interested is overrun then just abandon the idea of the law. No messing around.
The world seems to be over-regulated these days.
rrccad: I'm starting to think that it's either dpreview or that photographers on the whole are turning into crotchety old geezers that bitch whine and moan about everything. heck half of them can't seem to carry anything over 1lb, and I'm sure soon that will be subbed with a cane the way some are going on.
all of which makes me scared :/
a cool tool - and now we'll be swamped with overdone simulated fog images ;)
(however I have to admit, I can think of a few photos i want to try adding haze to just to see how they look).
My sub for LR/PS is around 9.95 per month. LR is a rather useless for me (can't handle IR RAW's and can't handle Sigma), but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades? did you ever see the sticker price of PS before?
if you can't afford it, really, leave your sniffling somewhere else.
it's getting pretty nauseating.
"but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades?"
That seems to be point of miscommunication - why insist/assume everybody needs PS?
I for one am completely the opposite, not interested in a single bit in PS and in that context the price is definitely not reasonable by seeing the opportunity cost (i.e. upgrade price for LR only spread over the periods).
It is important to stay in the context - standalone users knew there might be regular upgrades coming to CC which by itself is not an issue. However, introduced that shortly after the full release gives impression of forced choices.
ihv: The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
Suddenly, shortly after the release of the perpetual version the CC gets a feature update. I find this utterly nasty business practice.
No. Because the feature set was rather short for such a long development period and yet sholrtly after the release new features appeared - too quickly to be developed after the full release.
I completely understand the different licencing policies, but this seems to be rather cheating.
Trk: Even though Adobe declared perpetual license as "snapshot" of features of CC version at the given time, they should put these new features into LR6 this time too as some sort of customer protection, otherwise it look very convenient for Adobe to release new features so shortly after version release, where I do not remember such a update in previous versions.Also current companies practice is to support perpetual software licenses 18 months including minor feature upgrades which at least de-haze tool is.I will probably wait for LR7 and keep now LR5.7 and I wanted to upgrade to LR6, but current Adobe practices are too aggressive. To those who think subscription is cheap, maybe in US in $, in Eur it is very expensive for me, if they offered subscription in my country's currency, maybe ...
Not less important - the subscription is just plain expensive for LR only. I don't need PS.
The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
ihv: Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.
Hum, looks to me like a software add-on (with P1 price(!)) because a software license is needed.
Doesn't the Photoshop CC have this technology for compensating motion blur?
The P1 effect of this is yet to be seen.
NB! All that FMC claims is to compensate for movements because higher ISOs are impossible on CCD, not because CMOS wouldn't allow something.
Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.
That's a great news. GoPro has became quite slow in recent 2 years - no rectilinear option, no raw photo, battery life has remained the same.DJI could start to create much better platform for video & stills focusing on mft.
Vivid1: Couple this camera with a 17 or 24 T/S and you have a landscapers dream... IF it lacks a stop or so of low ISO DR - it will be absolutely no dealbreaker (Landscapers can do multi shots and studio photogs don't need it)
One thing is for sure - this camera IS creating quite a splash - the way this thread has grown is total proof.... I hear people who are non photographers, talk about this 50Mp monster. So congrats to Canon for being the first to break the 50Mp barrier on 35mm format.
Well, this is the thing, for me and many others bracketing is not an answer. One effectively looses some of resolution and increases postprocessing time. Before the D800, I had many Canons up to 5D2 starting with the D60 from 2002. So I have a general idea what to expect from Canon (the 5D3 doesn't take the DR miles ahead, also tried it out shortly before switched).
Maybe I just overreacted to the word "splash".Fine by me for people whom the 5Ds series looks like a bargain.
Sometimes examples speak more.
I'd have had hard times to get this with Canon, I didn't want to blow the lights: http://ihvweb.net/tmp/sm_side-by-side.jpg
The IS works pretty well for a handheld shot@36MP. For light travelling having a solid tripod is not an option and one doesn't choose the weather.
Well, the Pentax 645z is 50MP on a larger sensor with relatively high DR. A single shot will get you there so no merging of separate images is needed. By the way I mean no HDR at all, just the ability not to blow highs and still retain shadow details.It is not like DR is needed for every shot but it is indeed very handy to have, the more the better.
martindpr: Somebody mentioned the use of bracketing regarding the supposed equal DR as the original Mk3. So, in order to increase the DR, you'll have to make several shots, which raises a few problems: 1) How will those affect the resolution, bearing in mind that tiny vibrations shift the sensor plane and blur the image, let alone physical changes in the environment which change it (wind, rain, light, etc...) Than, lenses... Will you end up with 50MP image? Second, and most important, why do we need a 50MP camera? Moire isn't an issue, at least not for large prints with my D7100 which only has 24MPix. But, of course, detail, lot of people may suggest, but this doesn't hold either. Make a poster (say, size A0), and have a look at it from 3-4 feet distance. Will you notice any difference between anything produced by a 12MP camera (say D300, 5D1, D2X, 1Ds1, D3, etc...) and 5DMk3, D600, D7100, or even D800/E/810?? Out of experience - no, there isn't any difference in resolution, other than DOF,DR,etc
Agreed that it is little bit awkward looking camera: low ISO, low DR , high MP, minimal video. A higher price and very high MP points to a specialized camera. Then again, the specialty excellence advantage isn't fully utilized because of not so high DR. Generally speaking the D810, a proved camera quite long available in the market, looks a tad better to me than this yet to be released camera - the former having better low AND high ISO, better movie, truly removed AA not "canceled out" (provided one prefers the camera without the AA).
How would you stabilize outside movement, that was the question.With such a precision of detail registration, even short bracketing gets two different pictures of foliage etc.Agreed the lens choice for Pentax is quite less what Canon has to offer.
You are kidding, right? How you plan to combine two shots of a landscape with wind or other movements registered by ultimate details of 50MP? Not even talking about conveniency.
Much better tool for the job would be a Pentax 645Z.
As to "splash", it gets more and more controversial about Canon. Used to be quite different before 2008.
I'm pretty happy about the announcement.
The switching from the 5D2 to Nikon when the 5D3 came out feels still like a good move.Recognizing the good old Canon here, giving with one hand taking with the other. And no shy about the pricing.
Some points:- DR the same as the 5D3 (interview with C.W.)- ISO should have been at least the 7DII level?- exp comp is +-3- video max 30p
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I tried Lightroom 5.7 last week. Adobe's website would only make the trial version available as part of CC, so I doubt new version 6 will be sold as a standalone application.Apparently Adobe succeded in dragging every Lr user to CC, despite it being outrageously expensive. You paid less for the standalone programme even if you updated it every year. I knew this would happen.As for the 5.7v I tried, it is exactly the same as Lr4, which I tried some three years ago, save for some presentation details. Lr6 will undoubtedly have some fancy features added, but I have no reason to believe it will bring any real improvement over previous versions.
It IS expensive for LR only, I think this is what Manuel meant.Not everybody needs PS.
As an Adobe Lightroom user I wish ACDSee great success.
With the Aperture gone Adobe most certainly have slowed down a lot, not to mention the threat of subscription only.
Don't know what might happen next in photography industry but I might be getting the 645X model in two (?) years when the FF happens to come out (well that's a call for Sony but seems feasible).
Klaus Weber: I'm still using my Canon 5DMKII, waiting for an replacement. MKIII is a nice camera, but way too small step for a change, with more or less the same IQ.
So, I think like myself many more people are sitting and waiting. AF of the 5DMKII is lousy, luckily I am rarely doing action shooting, but whenever I do it is a pain. I could use higher resolution (reproduction photography), and for landscape higher DR would be very welcome.
This camera here looks amazing, in all aspects.
So Canon - please make the rumors come true, to bring you back into the game by spring next year. I would really not like to sell all my (partly very nice) lenses for a switch of brands, but if I have no other choice, I will do. For sure I will not invest further in Canon gear until I know that they can innovate again.
I used to have a 5D2 (and many more Canon cameras before that with L-lenses) and felt the same when the the 5D3 came out.At that point I went to Nikon D800 and am pretty happy (obviously not all is glory but the overall package for me is definitely much better).
in my opinion the trouble Canon faces is the trust towards the brand. Let's say they finally update the old sensor tech but at this point why should I believe it won't happen again, waiting long for an important update? After all, talk as much as want about the overall system, sensor is the heart of camera not a side effect.
Marcus Antonius: It's just where you look and what you want to see.I'm sure Sony fanboys drool over this part:
Lackk of AA comes at cost though there is more resolving power.