BJN: Wondering why the cropped performance is featured first on a full frame lens review?
And to potential buyers: why would you buy this zoom range for APS-C?
It's pricey for a cropped sensor, though it does avoid some issues (you get the sweet spot in the center). As for the length - I still have a Tamron 35-105/2.8 I bought for my F4s and use on my D3. Sadly, as great as it was(is) it's softer than I like, so I tend to use my primes in that region. Still, for me it's the perfect zoom range for walking around. Wide enough for small groups of people, long enough for a quick portrait shot or to get closer into some action. And not the dog slow f4+ most lenses in that zoom range have. I wouldn't get it for FF - it's just not long enough to keep on my camera for the way I shoot. By the time I'm at 24mm, I may as well break out the 14-24/2.8 and get something really interesting. (I started with a 28-85 with my F4s and sold it within a month - too slow, not quite wide enough to replace a WA, not quite long enough for everyday).
This is good news for everyone who swears by their Leica glass and wants to continue shooting with it. The problem is that every digital camera is disposable these days - you're essentially buying a "lifetime film and processing package" onto which you put your lens.
To make matters worse (or better, depending on your point of view), the serious advances in digital film are occurring in the 24x36mm and smaller sensor sizes. What good is a photoreceptor site with 1.5X the area when the technology behind it is 1/3 as sensitive and more subject to spurious electrical signals (noise).
IMHO, it might be worthwhile if you were trading absolutly sensor performance to leverage existing inventory of (very good) glass. But you're not - you have to go buy all new glass. And since SLR manufacturers have been designing glass for digital sensors for quite a while now, they have the jump. Unless you need MF to feel superior, or justify your fee, there is little or no practical case for using it.
dstate1: What a complete PR disaster. They should have run both subscription and user owned models in parallel with strong pricing on the subscription package. After a few years the market would decide and adobe would be the good guys for offering a choice. Better to boil a toad slowly so he doesnt notice.
Never throw the frog into boiling water.
Plastek: Just boycott it - don't subscribe. Eventually they'll give up.
They feel they have the market cornered. AutoDesk does this in the CAD space. Architectural work is very, very heavily in AutoDesk's corner and there is so much legacy code out there they have you locked in. They've also gone to a subscription - it's about a grand per seat per year. Now, they'll still sell you a stand alone license, but they "update" their format every three years to be incompatible with the old format, and if you're more than three years out of current release, the upgrade cost = new seat cost (which is ~$6k). They've already locked you up, as their sales contract forbids resale of a license - it dies with you.
I can see how Adobe wants in on this, and their big, corporate clients will just pay as a cost of business. It would cost too much to retrain everyone, to be honest, even if the alternative software were free.
jkoch2: Let me play the devil's (Adobe's) advocate: traditional sales of software are doomed by falling sales of PC, the higher cost and diminished returns of further upgrades, and by the fact that "winners" in the new media world will all use cloud content or tools that are rented like web or phone connections. Profits from consumer software, or traditional schemes, are doomed. People who don't care about these facts are not going to buy much, or buy often enough, to be worth pandering to. The rest will, sooner or later, opt to rent PS the way they rent movies or pay utilities.
The only thing that defies logic is how anyone can use "cloud" to edit video, unless they rent oceans of cloud memory, upload oceans of clips, have (expensive!) 100mbps connection speeds (anywhere they go!), and have 100% confidence in it all.
Actual seats of paid Adobe won't be going down unless they choose to undermine their market by providing full featured, bargain priced versions for future tablet operating systems.
Most of the work done by their business clients, and their willing-to-pay amateurs is done on full-OS machines - OSX and Windows. That market isn't going anywhere. PC/Mac sales are in decline because people have tablets/phones for their day to day internet and simple creation uses. These people who are using SnapSpeed and Instagram may drop their desktop PC, but those are the ones who probably only purchased PS Elements, or used a pirated copy of PS. They certainly didn't shell out $500-$3000 for the full CS. The fact that those 60-70% of the pop no longer need a computer does absolutely zero to the number of machines Adobe's CS base users will buy or maintain.
This is about enforcing a uniform retail price, with no discounted versions floating around. I'm sure there are some of you who picked up PS or CS5.5 right before CS6 came out when Adobe had their fire sale - or grabbed a box copy that was on clearance somewhere. Full fare, everyone pays the asking price software is what Adobe is after.
AutoDesk and Bentley have moved to this kind of extortion recently, and for my business I pay it because I have no other choice. For my hobby, my money will find something else (or I'll find a pirated or trial version and run it in a VM). It just doesn't have the kind of value to the casual hobbiest that it has for their pro users, but they can't figure out how to fleece (Excuse me: monetize the value proposition for business users) their pros any other way.
mn88: I haven't posted in a long time, but I had to comment on this story. In the past I could justify the upgrade expense (usually skipping a generation), because the price I paid fit my use of Photoshop. Plus, I don't need to have the latest and greatest versions. I have CS5, skipped CS6 thinking the next version would have upgraded video tools that I'd like to have. Won't be upgrading now! I'll keep using CS5 which does what I need it to do and look at another product down the road. No way I'll be paying Adobe a monthly subscription. It will be substantially more than I've been paying. I sure hope LR doesn't go down this road. I agree with so many of the comments from others. Hope Adobe is listening.
So for $240 a year I get only Photoshop. I usually pick up the "previous" version on sale, as I can go for 2-3 months at a time between uses (hey, I'm busy, and it's not my business). I got CS5.5 for a couple hundred dollars directly from adobe right before CS6 came out. I don't need CS6, a barely know half of what's in CS5.5, but I'm familiar with the workflow so it's easier than learning something else.
With no option to buy a "cheap" version I'm essentially out of the market. There are cool, time saving tools in Photoshop, but I'm more likely to live without than come up with $1000 over the next 4 years (or $2400 for CS) just to edit stuff a few times a year.
Wenetu: Just wait few months for new windows 8.1 tablets...The first will be the Acer Iconia W3 for 299 dollars.
This is probably going to be true, except for the $300 part. There's better than a 50-50 chance that I'll ditch my iPad when I refresh my laptop. I love the form factor of the iPad, but so little on it is full featured, and many things simply don't transfer to usable formats on desktops. Something like the Helix (provided they can get the Wacom drivers working), while $2000, provides everything - including LTE - that I have a $1000 laptop and a $800 tablet for, but which is half the combined weight. And then I won't have to worry about how full-featured (or not) the tablet version of Lr is.
That's certainly going to be a trick. Maybe, if it works, Adobe can back-port all of the memory management and code efficiency it will take to get Lr running on a tablet back to their desktop version so that it can run at an acceptable speed on a Quad-Core i7 machine with under 16GB of RAM.
cgarrard: 20mpx going to need raw to salvage good IQ from that super small sensor. Unknown if it has raw so far, my guess is that it won't.
Otherwise interesting camera from a quick look at it so far.
If they allowed reviewers (or individuals) access to the RAW images, it would be an unmitigated PR disaster. I'm telling you that the data off the sensor is utter crap, but they process it to make it look nice at normally viewed sizes. I did a comparison of the Canon SX260(?) 12MP and the Sony HX30 and decided on the Sony primarily because though it has very, very slightly less detail when comparing a photo at the same zoom, the photo required no additional processing to appear sharp and contrasty. I really don't have time to PP 500 pictures of vacation snaps. If I want fine results, I use my D3.
Oh no, there's no way you could get anything useful from RAW. I have the HX30V, and the in-camera chip postprocesses the heck out of every image. Zoom in and it's ALWAYS a watercolor. Makes a 50% crop look sharp and contrasty, though (which is large for most screens, and overkill for Facebook).
I'm impressed with how much good, forward facing video was captured (the sorting room was great). I would think two opposite facing cameras (or the four sides) would have added some better video at times.
I'm not surprised it made it through. Lots of things look like bombs from their internals. There's just not enough at stake to make checking all packages worth while, even in the US. If it were a bomb, it wouldn't have endangered many people for most of the journey.
RedDog Steve: Overkill, I'd say.Twin generators ?Does the trucks engine and electrical system not have enough capacity to power the lighting system ?
Of course it does. The hybrid version of the Silverado even has a pair of 120V outlets in the cab and in the bed. These are strobes, not studio lights, so their draw is almost certainly pretty tame. A simple run of 4 gauge and a heavy duty inverter would do the job.
Hell, in LA just the subwoofers on most car stereos pull more juice than his lights.
StevenE: I would not be comfortable doing this.
More importantly, I think you get better photos from co-operative subjects, and you find many more opportunities and stories by going up and talking to your subject first.
Cy - you forgot cats. If there's anything that dpreview has taught me, it's that cats are the perfect combination of available and cooperative whenever someone has a camera and feels a burning need to take a picture and post it in the forums.
So...where's the 4k video file? I see a couple of digicam shots of the setup, and what looked to be a highly compressed 720 (looked too smeared for even 1080) version of the video on vimeo, but nothing that would let me see it at full res on even my paltry 4960x1600 res setup.
Oh, and I'll bet it cost more than James' Aunt's girlfriend made grafting on the internet last month.
fdfgdfgdgf: Not a magazine quality I will wait for a better Nikon product
Actually, it is good for all but the most unusual 8k and 16k displays. Just because you can display 30 or 140MP doesn't mean you can see them. An 8k retina-resolution limited display is 29" across. You won't find a handheld paper-replacement display anytime soon. You'll probably never see a mass marketed 16k, hand-held display in your lifetime that is at 300dpi/ppi, if only because even a full sheet of newsprint is significantly smaller.
rithex: cool project but doesn't really work that well due to the fisheye lens.
Actually, I think the timing glitches are a result of the cameras not being genlocked. They're shooting fast, but not fast enough that you can get perfect syncronization of the frames in time domain.
That's what makes this cool - you don't have to have a set of computer synchronized SLRs to create a limited bullet-time effect.
I'm curious how these will fare with the new W8 machines coming out, like the Lenovo Helix. The Surface Pro, Helix, and several other tablet/convertible devices have the same digitizer, using Wacom-licensed technology. It's a shame the upcoming 20" Panasonic tablet will not have the EMR based pen.
Josh152: The thing people are loosing sight of is that a radio station deals with copyright, licensing and advertising all the time. They knew what the law and industry standards are for this type of thing. They obviously knew what they did was wrong even as they did it. The radio station was just playing the odds that the photographer would never find out and lost. Then they try to offer an insultingly low amount for using a image that for that type of add campaign. It's like they dont' understand there is a differnce in the price and value between some guy off the street who is just happy his work is good enough be used in this manor and a real pro trying to make a living.
Both parties should have been more professional about it though. If you can afford it it is probably best to contact a copyright violator through an attorney and the radio station most certainly should have used an attorney to communicate and negotiate once they were accused of the violation.
Yes and no. Mechanical and performance licensing are really special beasts all to themselves.
As to the value of the photo - a typical wedding photo on Shutterstock, at the size needed for this publication, is $19 for up to 250,000 copies or viewers. This could have been the most awesome photo in the world, but I suspect if they had realized or known that licensing would be even $100 they would have chosen another image. (I would have) Is she being punitive? Sure, and I'd be on board with 2-5x the going rate as an "oh sh!t, sorry, we screwed up" value. bu 100X? That's just asking for an argument.
In the US, if you have not registered your copyright, you are only entitled to "actual damages" (lost profit, which will be based on either your actual sales in a similar situation, or the usual and customary rates). If it were registered, then statutory damages apply, and $2000 is chump change. Not sure how Canadian law treats the distinction.
CameraLabTester: From millions of dollars to tiny pixels... stealing is still: THEFT.
It's actually similar with real property. Like intellectual property, it isn't an item you can remove from the physical possession of another person. Real property (i.e. land) has it's own set of language and laws which are distinct from regular or personal property and intellectual property. Now, if the radio station and broken into her studio and removed a completed print, and then glued that into their presentation, that would have been theft. If they had taken the physical print, scanned it, and put it into their presentation, it would have been both theft AND copyright infringement. If they came in, built their own studio on her land and claimed it as theirs, taken the print, scanned and used it, it would have trespassing, theft, and infringement. Oddly enough, in many states, if she waited 30 or more years to complain about the studio building, they could have claimed adverse possession and had the land title transferred to them legally.