valkyrite: I am just waiting (and saving) for Panasonic 150mm f2.8.
It would be a damn good lens for using at dimly lit concerts and events.
I just want it to be sharp and under $1K.
I think it will be more than 1K, but still, the 24-70 and 70-200 equiv lenses have been substantially cheaper than the competition, 2.5x and 4x cheaper respectively...
Anyway, with lenses like these coming out, a good x1.4 and x2 converters with full electronic connections would start to make sense... Unlike with the 75-300 where it would just be silly :)
BaldCol: I wish there was a way I could use Lightroom across my home network rather than having it fixed to one PC. I can't see that the problems are insurmountable, I use many network based databases at work.
Then it is not a problem, I too have my images and catalog files on a USB3 drive, it transports nicely to my laptop where I can open the catalog and work with it exactly the same as on my workstation.Only thing is that my Windows7 workstation expects it to be there for backup, so remember that!(And I would so like to have a conservatory to sip G&T in ;)!!!)
Brian_Downunda: I agree with the stated reasons why a database approach is strongly desirable. That's why I use one (Imatch - Windows only). My complaint about LR is that it forces you to use its catalogues, which is unnecessary duplication if you choose to use other DAM software. Aftershot Pro / Bibble 5 (now sadly moribund since the Corel purchase) gave you the choice of using catalogues or file system mode, which at least was a better fit for users of other DB software.
Question: Does LR have the ability to let you "relocate" files and folders if you have moved them to another location? If not, then it becomes very hard to use LR with other, more powerful DAM software, and so the compulsion attached LR catalogues becomes an obstacle.
You can relocate files yes.
Lightroom also allows you to work in filesystem mode if you so please. There is no forcing you to put everything into catalogues...
Neodp: Nope, sorry. ...not going back to LR catalog hell.
I find this most hillarious to read... Lightroom is simplicity itself, forget about old drawers (or shoeboxes) with dias, and instead have all your images readily available by looking for what is on the image or even where it is in your work process or how well you liked it.Also, the performance... Have you ever even opened a large directory in something like bridge? It takes months to get previews of everything, in lightroom it is near instant because the preview data is stored right where you read it (not in every file where you need seperate open, seek, read, close commands on every single file throughout)
Oh well, some people like the way they have always worked, at least they have moved away from film (or have they?)
Esign: I dislike deciding once and for all about catalog structures, storage units etc. I move things quite often and like to keep it that way. I also worry about hardware crashes and incompatible software. The shots of your children are worth copper now, but gold in 50-100 years. To my knowledge, the only future-safe file formats designed for long time storage are TIFF and CALS. Both can keep some embedded tags within each file, and they can be restored to a new database even if the only remaining file designations only are #0000001, #0000002, etc. But somehow, the tags must be placed in the file tag area by someone. If LR does this when saving as TIFF, I'm willing to re-evaluate LR as a useful application.
I keep my images on my workstation, then as a complete backup of the folder structure along with a complete backup of the lightroom database on my NAS, which in turn backs everything up to the cloud.The RAW images are converted to DNG, which is an open format, you can write your own reader to it if everyone else should decide to abandon the format and drop compatibility (But aside from microsoft, when does that every happen? Even to obsolete file types)I can tell you for sure that this works, I have had all my data wiped out from under me (Workstation, NAS, everything!) and yet, I could restore from cloud (took an age! almost 72hours), reinstall lightroom on the new machine and open the old catalog and everything was back to where it was, down to the last pixel and comma.
The design would have to change completely, since it is strictly a userspace program, instead you should have a service level database and storage engine and then a user space client program.It would be nice to do, but I don't think there are enough people who need it, to actually make it feasable to develop.
Thauglor: I don't believe Lightroom's catalog feature is adequate, or appropriate for my needs. I bought LR3 for some of its editing capabilities... distortion correction as an example.
It's terribly frustrating that LR won't allow me to simply "open" a photo, edit and save as I see fit.
I understand that the catalog is very nice for a lot of folks, but there's no 'good' reason, that we shouldn't have the capability to also simply 'open' a file without adding it to the catalog.
We should have the option. There's no real excuse for it, IMO.
I expect that Adobe's business model is designed to be as inclusive and proprietary a system as possible to "lock-in" the customer.
If you dig the cataloging that's fine... no argument, but really, is there a good reason anyone can think of to PROHIBIT the user from editing one file on the fly if they want to ?
Uhm, the editing capabilities is the same as in camera raw afaik? But if it is only for editing why did you buy Lightroom? That is like using Access to edit document files, it is not the tool for the job at hand.
bradleyg5: This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.
This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.
It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.
If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.
This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.
So you also refer to your Nikon 35mm f2.0 lens as a 50mm f2.8??
The F number equivalence as you describe is only for DoF... The f1.8 gives more light than an f3.6 (4 times as much actually) so in terms of photography it gives more options...
ntsan: Love how all of sudden people insist on equivalent DOF for every camera out there.. I guess the M43 finally hit some stride with 75mm F1.8 & 12-35mm lens
Next thing is people demanding mid frame equivalent lol
No, we want large-frame glass sheet equivalence, in terms of resolution and DoF :)
Is it legal to submit color images? There are several brown toned or even multi toned images...
ProfHankD: Well that's two excellent E-mount lenses. Pitty I can't afford them ;)
All E-Mount lenses are as large as SLR lenses, they are good for the video cameras (VG10 or FS700), the still cameras are not any good.
MontyP: TechRadar is reporting that the new deblur tool demonstrated at Adobe Max in October won’t be available in Photoshop CS6.
Old story... Adobe have already admitted that their demonstration was fake and while the theory is still interesting, it is nowhere near usable yet.
tony field: Humm, I like the interface. The only thing I immediately noted was that ACR no longer has a "fill light" - new controls to use :)
As a user of LR4, the new controls are so much better IMHO. Where "fill light" was very rough on mid-tones, the new shadows control and black point is much easier to work with because they don't affect mid-tones in the same way. (black point, white point works like levels output control in PS, shadows work like "fill light" but only on the darker tones.
h2k: The example for Iris Blur that you show is unrealistic - the model's shirt should remain in focus as well, not just her neck and face (because the shirt has the same distance to the camera as the face).
Yet i am sure there will be many unrealistic "romantic dreamy" blurs starting from today all over the place. Face clear, all the rest blurred. It makes me feel dizzy.
In the case of the photo you're using in the blur example, the tilt-shift blur would have been more useful (in this case, it would not have created the typical trendy tilt-shift effect, but would have been useful anyway because of the way subject and background had been arranged).
OMG! You can't completely replace a big sensor and expensive wide aperture lens with a piece of sftware yet?! That is so bad...
TBH. Making correct iris blur needs advanced 3D information, your pictures do not have this, they are 2D representations, so you can never get the result you are looking for, this have to be done even before your sensor captures the image...
And, that is an example. You can actually get some quite impresive results with iris blur, if you manually mask the areas as they are in a 3D scene and apply increasing amounts of blur pr. mask...
Both good and bad this... Reading the verdict, it seems to be more about the way this was done, than the actual picture.
I don't like that it is being put as a copyright verdict, that gives legitimate copyright a bad name. It is a case of dishonest business, and should be treated as such.
I really hope they put this to good use... And by good use I don't consider putting a 500 fantazillion giggy pixel sensor in my mobile phone, to take extra detailed pictures of the inside of my pocket while walking...
I would rather see this in large scale to have a 15-16MP ultra clear noiseless image from a camera...
Knowing Sony however, I think we will see 20mp mobile phone cameras in the near future...
@quaoarus Ya, because the 14-35 f2.0 and 35-100 f2.0 lenses are really bad quality and slow... So is the 12-60 f2.8 to 4.0 and the cheaper 14-54 f2.8 to 3.5...
Anyway, this have been long rumoured, and I really hope Panasonic can pull it off soon, because we really need some fast zoom lenses to go with the system. And hopefully they won't be as expensive as the NiCannon counterparts...
calloc: Canon and Nikon are playing a slow-development game to maximize their profit as Sony did while back with TV. I hope some new companys jump in this so called professional DSLR marker.
Will never happen. Mainly because these professionals are also the most fanboyish of users. The pros I sometimes work besides are so stuck in their Nikon and Canon trenches that it is funny. They even have discussions that are worthy of many a 10yo boy :)
MadsR: When will these people realize that their efforts are in vain?They work against progress with all their might, resolving to arcane changes in law and prosecuting their customers when they inevitably fail fighting technological advances.It is folly to think they can stop content sharing. It is impossible always have been and forever will be. They don't realize that content sharing are in their own best interest, so they try an limit it as much as possible, mostly through impossible to enact laws that only have the effect of alienating their customers by making legal purchasing and usage impossible and strengthening "pirates" because their goods are easy to obtain and easy to use.
Well, you could set up your stuff for sale and distribute is using torrent or some other protocol. Sure people can download it without paying if someone sends them a torrent link, but they would probably not have paid for it anyhow, and the ones that would buy it, suddenly have an opportunity to not only buy it, but actually buy it in a convenient way, getting the official torrent from the distributor would secure you from malware infected stuff you might find elsewhere...
And in the same way as radio stations pay a bulk sum for playing music on the air, ISPs should pay a bulk sum for having their customers have access to content. Without content no users, and without users no content, so it is a win-win.
Of cause both of these "solutions" work from the concept that executives in the content business are reasonable, which they prove again and again they are not.
Interesting because of the 12mm option, better than the 14mm f3.5 of the kit lens.Will be interesting to see the performance compared to the upcoming Panasonic 12-35mm ~f2.8 or lower and compare the prices.
f3.5 is a bit slow. OK for daylight shooting (might replace the kit lens as travel lens, if it is not too heavy) but unusable at night like the kit lens.