Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.
I suppose an important question would be how much of a difference 14mm makes (vs 15mm).
chlamchowder: At least batteries with poor contact are more manageable than ones that like to explode.
All I have to say is wow. It's incredible you didn't realize:1. That comment was sarcastic2. 'Better than a miniature bomb' is a low standard3. Manageable =/= something you want to deal with4. I'm not condoning defective gear (see #2, 3)5. I'm not defending Canon (see #2, 3, 4)
Here's a revised comment for those without a sense of humor:"This situation is better than one in which a battery explodes and damages the camera and/or user. That said, it's a problem and I'm glad Canon's fixing it."
btw I shoot Nikon, so no pro-Canon bias here.
At least batteries with poor contact are more manageable than ones that like to explode.
photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.
Though I still wouldn't buy this personally (just because I'm picky about image quality), I agree that there's a justification for it. The convenience of having everything from wideangle to long telephoto in one zoom lens can help "get the shot".
For example, if a bird is coming at you from long range, and then lands a meter away, you can smoothly zoom out and keep shooting. With a 300/2.8, or even a 70-200/2.8, you would have to run back to keep within minimum focus distance. You could run a dual camera setup, but even then there's more transition delay in switching cameras than zooming out more.
As for pros, if a 24-450mm f/2.8 existed that was sharp wide open, they'd be all over it. Sadly that lens doesn't exist.
I wouldn't call it P&S quality, but it definitely isn't what I'd want from a $600 lens.
I suppose my expectations are just too high, and it's probably acceptable to a lot of people who want the massive zoom range in a compact setup.
vladimir vanek: Someone should stop google from their spy activities. It's/will be really dangerous that a private company has so much data in possession... And excavates more everaday from your emails, searches, tracking, calling etc.
Ok, point taken (about Prism and other NSA projects). But at least consumer feedback and market forces have some effect on big companies. Google and Apple are moving to default encryption on phones. Microsoft fought back in a case where the government tried to get access to emails. All that happened because of customer privacy concerns.
I'm still concerned about companies like Google, but I'm more concerned about the NSA, which pretty much can't be held accountable for anything.
That's how they make money - by using that data for targeted advertising. You give up some privacy, and in return get nice things like free storage space (drive) and so on.
It's scary, but I'm more concerned about governments than Google or other tech companies. If your views are too far away from the ruling party's ideology, Google/MS/Apple/Amazon won't care and probably never will. Governments on the other hand.....(at least the US isn't there, yet.)
Scales USA: Google also has facial recognition, so it can name the persons in a photo, and even inform the FBI if a wanted person is found.
The potential, as noted sounds both wonderful, and also frightening. Snapping a candid photo of a person and having them named? Its possible now for millions of people, but so far, Google is holding back due to potential privacy issues. (big $$$$$$$$$ lawsuits)
IMO an even bigger worry is that all our children will grow up in a surveillance state.
That said, this development is impressive (if used properly, to help visually impaired people). Kudos to those working on it.
Gollan: I like OneDrive, and this should be good news, but their client for Mac OS has been extremely unreliable since it was released. For those of us who work in mixed environments, this is a show-stopper.
Using a browser isn't as convenient as a native client. On Windows, OneDrive stuff will automatically sync. You can open/edit files as if they were only local, and a background sync engine will keep everything in sync (both ways).
If you only have a browser, you'd have to download/upload files manually to keep things in sync. Not a big deal IMO, but some others might think differently.
Not sure we (photographers) are the target market for this?People who just browse the web, check email, and occasionally edit a few documents won't mind having less storage and no micro-sd slot.
On the other hand, the only attractive feature I see is the display resolution. Every other spec is kind of mediocre.
Pete Perry: This is a great idea and it isn't like VMWare, it is more like Citrix.
The only issue will be if Adobe fails to keep up with their server farms as then things with get slow.
As for using it on Linux, I would do it! This would mean that users of Linux and Chrome can now have MS Office and Adobe CS so, you're no longer tied to either one of the two mainstream operating systems.
Oh and, until Photoshop gets open CL support, there's no reason this won't run as fast as a MacBook Pro... even with Open CL support, the MacBooks use crappy Intel processors so, there would be less of a benefit than using a higher end graphics card.
I think we're still fuzzy on what's going on. Are you sending inputs to Adobe, which then does all the processing in the cloud? Or is the photoshop app doing the processing locally, but is just limited to saving in the cloud?
Their comment about OpenCL suggests that it's running locally, and could take advantage of graphics hardware later (if it were running remotely, it'd have no way of accessing graphics cards, unless they're talking about a server farm with graphics cards).
On the other hand, "streaming" suggests something more like remote desktop/citrix. If that's the case, you better have a really good internet connection...
AbrasiveReducer: Assuming the appeal of Chromebooks is the low price, when they figure a way to make Photoshop work on a $400 Chromebook as well as it works on a MacBook, they'll have something.
Pete - source? It seems like it saves to the cloud, but runs image processing code locally. What you say seems to contradict what's on Adobe's site, which mentions PS running within Chrome's app sandbox. (And by virtualization, I mean something like Java's JVM, Microsoft's .NET platform, or Android apps, where the program's code sits above a translation layer).
Also, you don't quite make sense - if the app is completely running on remote server farms, Adobe would not be tweaking the level of performance you get from your machine (because it's not even running on your machine). Every machine would give the same performance, dependent on internet connection latency, of course.
Wye Photography: Perhaps Adobe is trialing a full cloud solution before moving it to Windows and Mac.
Oh please no. Internet service (especially good internet service) can't always be expected when traveling.
fotobert: more and more reasons to go for Linux, Raw Therapee and GIMP.
Except you like to see your nude selfies somewhere in the internet.
Just my thoughtsAlbert
Not always, when you're working off a laptop and have limited hard drive space. I've started deleting raws after conversion, and that results in a lot of 'orphaned' entries in LR's database.Lightroom doesn't just force you to copy pictures off the card, it forces you to add pictures to its catalog.
I actually use RawTherapee, both on Windows and Linux, and like it better than Lightroom. It doesn't force you to copy pictures off memory cards before you can start converting.
David2553: Interesting. This would means PS is moving to cloud base and indeed a good idea. The only problem is storing Raw files in Google's cloud is no where near cheap.
Storing stuff in the cloud to backup or share is great, but I'm not sold on using the cloud in place of local storage (which is what's happening here). Since image files aren't small, that places a lot of demand on your internet connection. And it's not always easy to get a fast internet connection, especially when you're away from your home/office.
That would be nice, but I very much doubt it. It's running in a virtualized environment. Virtualization means a performance penalty. And not being able to access GPU resources when virtualized means performance will be cut even further compared to native photoshop.
You might as well just get a cheap $400 Windows laptop - it'll probably run photoshop better than a Chromebook (once you take all the preloaded bloatware off Windows)
It sounded interesting at first, but relying on a strong internet connection (often hard to obtain on the go) and not being able to use fast local storage really reduces its appeal for me. Running in a virtualized environment also hurts performance.
On top of that, Chromebook hardware tends to be weak. The Chromebook pixel (Ivy Bridge i5 at 1.8-2.8 ghz, 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD at $1450) is weaker than even the Surface Pro 3 (newer Haswell i5 at 1.9-2.9 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD at $1450 w/ type cover). The SPro 3 is arguably more portable too, and lets you use photoshop offline.
And if portability is not so important, you could beat both the Chromebook Pixel and SPro 3 in terms of processing power with a laptop at the same price.
Patrick H Lockwood: I see some comments here where they are suggesting that this camera will only have a value for sports shooters. As a wedding shooter who owns a 7d, here is the camera's value for me. First, in combo with 5d, I like the 7d's apc sensor which, in church, the extended reach using a 70 - 200 ( effective 112 - 320) is invaluable. My current7d produces very usable shots at IS0 5000 in low light ( though the exposures have to be right on ). So, if the ISO reach can go higher, that plus the focal point tracking improvement ( shooting candids ) this is a camera I definitely want to own. It won't replace the 5dmkIII, but it makes a formidable companion.
I don't know much about wedding photography (I don't do that and probably never will - I think it's too much pressure). I also don't have a 7D.But I did use a pretty decent APS-C cam before, the Sony a580, and ISO 5000 was kind of passable if I shot raw and did a ton of post processing. So perhaps it's not the raw output that he's talking about, it's the output after raw conversion, tons of noise reduction, and maybe downsizing too.
I think everyone has different standards for "usable". In fact, one person would probably have different standards for "usable" depending on how the images are going to be used.For example, if I knew that a picture would be displayed no larger than 300x200 online or would be printed in a newspaper, I'd have no problem hitting ISO 12800 on an APS-C camera. The noise just isn't noticeable enough at those sizes.