Michael Ma: I got a physical letter from Adobe in the mail saying watch out for fraudulent charges to my credit card in the future. Any one else get that? I'm surprised that all of you didn't. With that said, features in Adobe CC rock. Little annoying things that they probably held off on, are all here. It saves me significant time in my workflow on a daily basis.
The updates are so good in fact, on some days, I forget to worry about my credit card being used randomly by a stranger because Adobe forgot to encrypt their information.
I got the letter, but I'm holding off on CC for as long as I can. My current workflow with software I own, free of payments, is just fine for the time being.
Had Adobe released CS7, I very likely would have upgraded. Not like they need our money or anything. Oh wait a second... they do.
"and a 160-degree angle of view that can be customized for tighter 140- or 150-degree angles using the iON iOS or Android app."
At least with a GoPro, such angle-of-view adjustments can be made with its frustrating onboard interface. It's not always practical to use the iOS or Android app for adjustments.
T3: The line "it's in my hands again" seems to imply that today's digital cameras have taken photography *out* of the hands of photographers. But, of course, that's absurd. Today's digital photography gives photographers more control over their images than ever. And I don't see how stripping out features puts photography back *in* your hands again. That just seems like you're putting *less* into the hands of the user.
Maybe it's an all manual SLR, with no auto focus, match needle metering, and a one-frame image buffer that forces you to wait a second between each shot.
I have several FF Canon bodies, as well as several Oly and Panasonic M4/3 bodies. Some of these are bloated with an insane amount of options and menu items. But you know what? I set the camera on 'M' or 'Av' and 90% of the time, the dual dials (and/or wheels) and shutter button are all that's required for a pure, it's-in-my-hands-again experience.
And if I should decide that a higher ISO is needed, it's very simple to change, much more so than swapping out my film to a faster one.
The menus are only a problem for those who cannot resist playing with all of the bloated options.
"It's in my hands again" is what I say to myself during every visit to the urinal.
Limar: "Forget the Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4, Sony Alpha 7R and RX10, Nikon 58mm F1.4 or the tiny Panasonic GM1"
You have begun to sound like Ken Rockwell, when he is agitated about something - important or not.
Hating what you don't like and having no polite reservation to express it in what should be a respectably objective site, is not cool.
Please maintain the class that has made dpreview respectable thus far.
Sorry and thanks!
Does that mean everything in the first paragraph was supposed to be a joke, i.e. not true? Because I was actually interested in the focal lengths, price, built in shutter, etc.
"All joking aside," I have no interest in this garbage. The only possible market for such a kit are hipsters. But hipsters will either simulate retro photograpy with apps on their iphone, or will go all-in retro and shoot with a circa 1972 manual camera body and real film. Nobody in their right mind would purchase something so half-assed.
doady: Apparently size, weight, price and lack of autofocus are not compromises.
The price differential hardly makes the improvement in color worth it for most. Especially when factoring in weight and size. I could, for example, create custom calibration settings in my raw converter for each of my Canikon lenses to deal with colors that are "not-as-good-as-Zeiss" and have them automatically applied to my images as appropriate.
The target market for this Zeiss are not working pros, but are lens fetishists and people with money to burn. In fact, I suspect that a significant chunk of these lenses that are sold will be purchased by rich folks who wouldn't know good color if it bit them in the groin.
This is a very exciting lens. However, this lens has a lens focal range less than a 24-70 f/2.8, and it weighs just as much. As weight savings is one of the main benefits of APS over FF, this lens only makes sense to those heavily invested in APS.
12-40mm/2.8 seems sweet, especially the push-pull AF/MF. Too bad it's bulkier than the Pana 12-35mm/2.8; I would've guessed otherwise, considering the Pana has O.I.S.
FocusBogus: OM-D E-M1 sounds messy. Why not simply OM-D2? And then cheaper models OM-D20, OM-D200...
PEN is a weird choice for a camera name... it sounds like what I have in my pants.
I like the PEN name. I often thought they should emphasize the in-body image stabilization, and call it the PEN-IS. Then lazy forum posters can eliminate the hyphen like they do with the OM-D.
"This new package will set you back $120 per year, which seems like a good deal, considering how often Adobe updates their products."
Adobe will have far less incentive to update their products frequently once everyone is on subscription.
Additionally, many like myself, did not upgrade to each and every new version. For the most part, I was perfectly happy skipping versions of Photoshop and upgrading to every other version.
"Prior to Creative Cloud, a copy of Photoshop and Lightroom would've set you back around $400."
I didn't see any mention of a tripod mount. If I'm going to be carrying around another device so I could take better pictures, I might as well carry a tripod for even better pictures.
It's obvious to anyone who understands HK politics that this is their way of making a point to mainland China about their pollution. What better way than to show the snap-happy mainland Chinese tourists what their country is doing to neighboring lands.
Snowboarders can stay in the parks and stick to the rails and other silly stuff.
wootpile: Where is t-h-e f-l-i-p-s-c-r-e-e-n !?
still, they should have included a flip screen.
"And now you know that."
I already knew that. Please don't talk down to your audience.
Roland Karlsson: Number 1 is very nice and so is also number 4, IMHO. No 2 and 3 I can live without.
Lots of people here are very fast to call photos cr@p. I think they shall reconsider, and at least agree on that they think it is cr@p. Its not the same thing as saying it is cr@p.
#3 is perspective corrected (either that or he shot really wide and cropped the bottom). He shot from a level equal to that near the bottom of the photo.
robjons: Having grown up in the area, you take the bridges for granted. I wonder why the new east span doesn't maintain the double-deck design of the original?
Because the double deck design results in quite a depressing roadway when traveling eastbound on the lower deck, which was originally used for a trolley. People traveling in both directions should be able to experience the open sky and views of the suspension tower.
Ummm... no print button? C'mon Canon, you can do better than that!!!
Wishlist for the 80D: TWO print buttons.
acidic: I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Okay, I know it's super fast and all that, but if it's seriously supposed to convince FF shooters to go APS-C, it's measly 2x zoom range isn't helping any, considering that it's FF counterparts don't weigh much more and have closer to 3x zoom range. Of course if it's significantly cheaper, say in the $900 range, it could be a winner.
Yeah, I know that they can't be small with such (relatively) large apertures. But honestly, if this lens costs $2K and weighs as much as it does, why would someone choose a crop body and this lens over a FF body and a 24-70mm/2.8?
I acknowledge that this lens has more light gathering ability at a given FOV (than 24-70/2.8 on FF), but given that a FF body is easily 2 stops better (with regards to noise), the advantage goes to FF. Not to mention that this lens damn will need to resolve more lpm due to smaller pixels than it's FF counterpart.
Of course, if it's in the $900 range, this lens makes total sense.