This is a powerful photo.
Cane: OMG, how many times can you mention burst rate? You'd think that was the only feature in a camera worth buying it for.
Yes, that's right, Dan.
The marketeers are forever vociferating about selling points. Add "bokeh" to "burst rate."
Vegasus: Usually almost once a year or 2 years epson will release new high end scanner,.. finally epson release the new one, good job.
Pat Cullinan Jr: No viewfinder? So near, yet so far.
straylightrun: Not bad for a FF superzoom that starts at 24mm, but the RRP is crazy.
Argh, that used to be MSRP.
Bokeh didn't bother me in 1960, and it doesn't bother me now (except for the doughnuts you get with catadioptric lenses).
What is RRP?
(When you tell me, I'll probably slap my forehead.)
Impressive corner sharpness.
jwhig: "Canon's new EF 11-24mm F4 L wideangle zoom lens is Canon's widest ever rectilinear zoom by some margin"
You mean the widest FULL FRAME zoom lens. The 10-22 EF-S is wider.
My pet name is Mungawa. My wife calls me that. :)
That was a jokie-wokie-poo. "Gezornplotz," indeed!
But not as wide as my Gezornplotz 7-14mm.
Hmmm... The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S sells for $1800. That's $1600 less than the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.
What should I do?
Pins and needles, needles and pins.
Prognathous: Is image-stabilization "class leading" only in comparison to other similarly priced in-body IS cameras (Sony, Pentax) or also in comparison with similarly priced kits with in-lens IS (Nikon, Canon etc...)?
>All I know is that I can get sharp, well focused images >in a dark room at 300mm equivalent at 1/4 second >shutter speed.
Now that's high-impact communication.
That's the stuff that sells people on product.
Cat photos, yes!
Menneisyys: To everyone complaining about DPR's NOT using lens correction: I, as a prospective buyer of the 16-55 lens, really do want to know NOW, before the much stricter and more informative reviews of slrgear.com / lenstip.com how much distortion and CA the lens has and how sharp it is. The only way of finding this out is NOT applying any lens / CA correction to RAW files.
It's only this way that we can reliably compare the CA / pinchusion / barrel distortion levels to those of the 18-55 or the primes. After all, we all know the in-camera JPEG engine gets rid of the (sometimes pretty strong) CA of the 18-55 almost entirely so you can be absolutely sure the 16-55 RAW images, which seem to have much less CA, are at least equally clean.
Again, the better, the less distorted input BEFORE the correction, the better output AFTER the correction. Tests like these are of high importance for us high-end users / pixel peepers.
Pat Cullinan Jr: If you need to use your psd files, you must pay monthly tribute to Shantanu Narayen for the rest of your natural life.
Photoshop, by the way, is infuriatingly short on photographic tools. New features are few and faaaaaar between.
Narayen must be as well-liked as QuarkXPress CEO Fred “All customers are liars, thieves and bastards” Ebrahimi.
You make some good points, Barry.
Actually, I work in Photoshop Elements! I only go to Photoshop for Warp and Puppet Warp, and sometimes Shadows and Highlights (which is better than that of PSE) and Selective Color. I use Neat Image for noise control.
Serif has launched Affinity Photo for the Mac. I would like the DPR community to investigate the virtues of this challenger. I would love to see a PS-killer to make inroads. Competition is good!
Dani Lischinski of Israel has developed a raft of photographic tools, including a colorization tool that tops anything you ever saw. Adobe couldn't care less. See http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~danix/.
I will be looking at slrgear.com and lenstip.com, thank you.
Funduro: Adobe can take its CC thingy and stick it in Russia for all I care.