rfsIII: I find it very interesting that so many people now say they need to buy two camera systems, one for "serious" shooting and one for casual shooting as though you could split the two.
But my real question is whether this is a genuine need or something that we've been coaxed into believing by the camera industry. And why? Isn't one system enough? Presuming you're not a full-time professional, what is the unfulfilled psychological need we're addressing by owning two camera systems rather than one? I love new gear, and love that we have so many choices, but this seems excessive.
By T3 ...
"Do you just have one pair of shoes? (Okay, maybe you do. But a lot of us do have different pairs of shoes for different occasions.) "
You mean you have a pair with a camera mounted on them?
Peter Hayward: I just wish Nikon would fix how 'tabs' work in their dialog boxes in Capture NX. Reported previously over last three years or so. No feedback. Not yet done. So simple to fix. Pity.
Could you explain what you mean by 'tabs'? Thanks.
CeleryBeats: Intrestingly I red that this photograph was likely staged.
"Intrestingly I red that this photograph was likely staged."
As in nature being red in tooth and claw?
'If you have A-mount lenses laying around, those too will ...'?
Lay golden eggs?
Or do you mean:
'If you have A-mount lenses lying around, those too will ...'?
JohnEwing: Otus regrets...
Is this like buyer's remorse?
larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."
I agree (even if this is the only case in which dpreview have used it). The format is irritating and pointless. Indeed, less attractive. The internet should be quick to use. For a relatively simple article one should be able to review the whole at a glance, perhaps with items set out in tabular form. The BBC News website takes the annoyance one step further by overlaying captions on top of pictures instead of underneath. One has to click a button to see images without overlaid semi-transparent captions.
Mike Sivcevic: Adobe is screwing Australian customers yet again. LR5 costs $149 on the US site and $186 on Australian site. Same product, same server, same credit card gateway, 25% difference.
They've constantly been screwing us up, most notably with the CS6 that is about twice the price here comparing to the US pricing. It is cheaper to board the plane, fly from Australia to USA, buy a boxed copy in store and fly back.
Greedy corporate morons!
"Is the price you of $186 you are quoting for Australia with or without VAT ?"
GST (Goods and Services Tax (=VAT) is levied at !0% in Australia but not on foreign purchases under $1000, hence nothing on Lightroom. Price is in Australian dollars.
"Australians get ripped off because they are prepared to pay more (because wages and salaries are generally higher)."
Agreed, but many, such as myself, are not well off and, having spent much of my life in the UK, I am frugal. Many Australians have absolutely no idea of the value of anything. On Gumtree (classified ads) one regularly sees second hand cameras being offered for only a little less than the price of a brand new one from online sellers because they have paid an extortionate price from a local shop.
Actually, the Aussie price is equal to US$175 (AUD$186, 'GST not payable') thus the difference is +17.5% at the current exchange rate. Not quite as bad as the OP calculated but, nonetheless, unjustifiable.
Well, I live in Western Australia and I am in complete agreement with you. However, the cost of living in and around Perth, W.A. is extortionate. I just returned from the pub where a pint costs A$10! Cost of living here is said to be higher than London or New York. So Adobe are just following suit. Sadly, most people have no idea that they're being ripped off.
RobG67: What saddens me the most is the way that so many British posters are using that execrable Americanism 'store', when the word they really want is 'shop'. Shops are were goods are bought, stores are were goods are kept ie 'stored'.
I agree to some extent but 'store' is widely used for large establisments in the UK. BHS: British Home Stores, Co-operative stores etc. Shop tends to be used for smaller businesses. We see the word 'retailer' used too, e.g., Britain's high street retail giant...However, I too like to see the simplest and most appropriate expression used where possible. In this case I see little 'execrable' about the use of 'store'. I think that is a bit of a slur against Americans.
Excellent new features which maintain this as one of the best sites on the internet. Your innovation and hard work is highly appreciated!
digitall: What has technology, ubiquity and speed got to do with 'art'?
Art does change but change is a quantity, not quality. I do not know how you can hold that 'Art is all opinion' and that 'opinion's form'...Opinion is a facet of language, spoken and written. Art, within the realms of painting, photography etc., is to do with expression and is about expression of emotion. Great art is an emotional experience and the technological aspect is a realtively trivial part of artistic achievement. However, I find your assertions interesting if unconvincing.
Mine is a rhetorical question, but thank you for your considered reply. My point is that art is nothing to do with quantity, speed of transmission, etc. Art has been available to those with an artistic temperament for millennia.
What has technology, ubiquity and speed got to do with 'art'?
Have you any idea how bad this patch tool example is? You've ended up with two identical rippled areas in the water where the tripod legs were eliminated. What is needed here is a more 'content aware' photographer/editor!
ozgoldman: I'd like to see Nikon try that in Australia, as they would be fined zillions of $$$$. Restrictive trade practices are illegal here, and so they should be.
You are surely joking! Customers in Australia are at the mercy of all the big duopolies and monopolies, importers etc. We pay full 'recommended retail price' and are offered the most paltry discounts imaginable. No competition at all and we pay dearly for everything. Nikon black list 'grey' imports, won't even repair such cameras even if you pay. Try and get anything done about that.
Same with power tools. A compound mitre saw which retails for about $1,100 dollars here goes for about $400-500 in the USA.
dopravopat: I think that HDR is being overused and when applied, it is overcooked.
The sample posted in this article is a clear example when HDR was most likely not neccessary at all. I would not mind if there were strong shadows or white clouds or snow, ot the sun in the sky. I seriously doubt that the dynamic range of the scene was greater than 8 EV, a value that a properly exposed RAW can capture with all details. Also I do not like the colors, both greens and blues/cyans, they are "radioactive". The image should have been processed in LAB mode with a stronger global contrast on the lightness channel (local contrast is fine - details are clear). And overall with less saturation and especially the green channel should be a bit darker. That is my opinion, your taste may be different (or your monitor). Even when I am doing HDRs, I try to keep them as natural as possible. It is very simple to get an surrealistic, painterly look. But it is much harder to get a well balanced image with natural look.
I agree, it is a particularly poor example.
A truly stupid book with a review of equal quality. What is the point of this?
Your choice of subjects is excellent. So many interesting characters and a marvellous record of London life.
A useful tip, many thanks!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review