When are we going to get a new 135?
FantasticMrFox: Oh, great - I bought the stand-alone LR 6 (a program that's just two months old!) two days ago and now there's an update that the cloud version will get but I won't. Is that the kind of support I paid €129 for?! Pathetic.
Maybe DPR would mind picking this up for an article.
I didn't see that either when I purchased LR6 standalone. Matt, why don't you tell us where you saw this? Thx.
A much bigger file size and still only USB 2.0?
brian1366: Paid $79USD last night to download and install the STANDALONE version of Lightroom 6 Upgrade.Sure Adobe isn't promoting the standalone version much and they put the link at the bottom of the webpage, but it wasn't that hard to find. A lot of whiners on here.
We can argue your point regarding processes, but it's like fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Adobe is an industry leader and has the resources to do better. They can reasonably be expected to do better. As you said "They have only themselves to blame!"
With respect to your lesson for purchasers... the other lesson would be for software companies who rush into the launch before adequate testing is done!
"It is important to keep separate the 2 aspects: design of the product; and design of the download process."
Disagree. The installation process is part of the software design and processes. It is the process by which the software bootstraps itself onto your computer. It is one of the most important processes in the product - without it, nothing else matters. The distinction you describe is artificial. Good software design requires attention to ALL processes.
Adobe has the resources to do better. They are a leading software maker and their customers have a right to expect the highest standard. This is not some struggling startup.
Brian1366, I'm not sure what your criteria is for a "beautifully designed interface" but that is a very high standard to meet. For me, it would start with making sure the download process is trouble free - for example, if you try to download the software YOU HAVE PAID FOR using a browser that is not supported, you would get a message that says "Downloads are not supported for the browser you are using. Please try another browser." HTML 413 error pages (Header too large) are not something users should see when following instructions.
You're entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to slag those of us who found the process confusing and badly engineered. Before you start insulting me as a "whiner", you should know that I just retired after many years spent earning a decent living as a software developer and have been using LR since version 2.
One thing that is axiomatic in software development is that poor interfaces generate huge tech support loads. This is certainly the case here.
Rbrt: I live in Canada and have finally managed to install the Lightroom 6 standalone upgrade. It has not been easy.
Took quite a bit of hunting and clicking to find a link for this. Paid for the upgrade with my credit card. Order took 24 hours to be processed. Once processed, I clicked on the link to download. Got an html error message saying "Header too Large". Called the 8000 number. On hold for a half hour and gave up. Tried their chat support. Better success. Got a response within 5 minutes. Support guy said problem was my browser (Firefox); suggested I try Chrome. Did that and download worked. Started the install. Install software reported there was a reboot pending. Did the reboot. Successfully started the install... (cont'd in response)
...(cont'd) Install wanted me to log on with my Adobe ID (apparently Adobe is determined to get us all on the cloud no matter what they say about continuing to support standalone for LR). Logged on with my Adobe ID. Adobe prompted for a serial number. Assumed this was the LR 6 SN I had been given. Nope. Wanted the serial number of LR 5, which I was upgrading from. Took a while to figure that out because screen messaging is not clear. Entered that and installation went fine. LR 6 started up and asked if I wanted to convert my catalog. Said yes. LR 6 opens up but no images from my LR 5 catalog have made the transition.
This has not been the sort of easy process it has been in the past and it has not been a well engineered one. I expected better from Adobe.
I live in Canada and have finally managed to install the Lightroom 6 standalone upgrade. It has not been easy.
El Pix: "Adobe has confirmed that all the non-connected features will be included in a standalone software package called Lightroom 6, which will continue to be available as a perpetual license for $149. It's also available to existing Lightroom customers for $79 as an upgrade to any previous version."
Sorry, but I live in Finland and this option does not exist anywhere on Adobe's web pages. So, how about correcting that statement? The only standalone upgrade I can access is version 5 (which I already own).
I live in Canada. Went to the Adobe web site and after much hunting and clicking, finally found the page where I could buy an upgrade to standalone Lightroom 6 (from 5). Entered credit card info and had to wait 24 hours for the order to be processed. Order finally processed and clicked on the link Adobe provided for the download. Got a 413 html error page reporting "Header Length too Large". Called Adobe, was put on hold for over a half hour. Finally gave up on phone and hung up. Now Adobe has my money and I have no software. Still getting that stupid error page.
Went to the Adobe web site and after much hunting and clicking, finally found the page where I could buy an upgrade to standalone Lightroom 6 (from 5). Entered credit card info and had to wait 24 hours for the order to be processed. Order finally processed and clicked on the link Adobe provided for the download. Got a 413 html error page reporting "Header Length too Large". Called Adobe, was put on hold for over a half hour. Finally gave up on phone and hung up. Now Adobe has my money and I have no software. Still getting that stupid error page.
matt1941: The Hero "basic" will kill all chinese knock-offs...
now Gopro have an even stronger position all over the action camera market.
Very well done, I could not imagine how they could strengthen their position in the market but they did on both end.
I own 2 Hero 3s and I'm very happy to see the heightened FPS for 1080, as well as the high fps for higher resolution modes.
What I would really like to see is support for different lens configurations. Right now, the GoPro supports one fixed very wide angle lens. Some way to narrow the field of view would be welcome.
Zerixos: I've got both the 28 and the 85 1.8G what are great lenses to use, even on the D800. This will be a nice add to the bag for landscapes. If They come with a new 105 or 135G, my bag will be pretty much filled for the next coming years.
I'm with you on the need for a 135. Would be very nice to have.
sportyaccordy: 82x80mm so it's a big honker... but it's only 355g, I'm guessing due to the plastic construction
Pretty cool, but still... Nikon we need lenses like this on DX. 16 1.8, 24 1.8 in addition to the 35 and 50 1.8s, and then an 18-70/2.8-4 and 18-50/2.8 or even 18-50/2-2.8 like Samsung has, with VR of course.
Really looking at things now Nikon could use a big upgrade... some mirrorless bodies, an in body IS, and making DX a viable pro option. It's getting a little silly at this point.
A new 135 would be nice for those of us who shoot prime.
KameraFever: What does this have over the GoPro beside being waterproof?
LCD monitor (a separate optional attachment for the GoPro)
That WT-5A Wi-Fi is not cheap. $900 or nearly a third the price of the camera body!
Rbrt: Ultra wide angle lens may show a wide field of view but is not good for details like license plate numbers.
Imagination and creativity. I like it.
Rbrt: Very useful but why have the thing looking like you are viewing it through a white translucent screen? Would be nice to see more contrast.
Thanks for your response. Perhaps tooltips would help. Still in all, a very nice contribution to the community. Don't let the comments get under your skin.
Very useful but why have the thing looking like you are viewing it through a white translucent screen? Would be nice to see more contrast.