Basalite: Very disappointing. No performance improvements and no additional features or improvements to existing tools that I that I can see.
Aren't feature updates restricted to CC now?
Ahh....the bad old days.
I used a lot of that stuff but Canon instead of Nikon. I still use my F-1s, AE-1s and Canonet at times as well as Pentax and Mamiya 645s but I lost the disc camera. Still, my favorite picture is one I took with the Disc camera.
nightshadow1: When I went to my CS6 (as directed with the info contained here in the Adobe press release) and clicked on "Help" "updates"... it keeps showing me that my "...software is all up to date..." which I (we) know is incorrect because it has the old ACR. And after "talking" to Adobe for 30 min... they said callback in 2 hours so a "tech support" person can help... Another great customer support program from Adobe... It took them 30 minutes ) "we apologize for your inconvenience" to discover that they didn't have the answer to the question... so call back later and start over again... Typical.
Just updated my ACR. No issues.
acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.
Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.
Acidic wrote: "Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots)."
I noticed that too.
ilya82: Got mine yestersday. The first thing I can say -for me this camera is a reincarnation of the legendary 5D :) Pictures has the same charm as 5D had.Very happy!
Ak pinxit wrote: "what is the charm of 5D ? I'm not being cynic but curious"
I can only describe it as an aesthetically pleasing quality I find in many examples of 5D (version 1) images I've seen. YMMV
Ilya82 said: "Pictures has the same charm as 5D had."
I was thinking the same thing.
rjjr: I think of some older film cameras as functional works of art that can be used to make art, but not so much with today's offerings.
@marike6, I appreciate them for the inner workings, the external housing design and the functionality. But the inner workings is the part I find most intriguing about the machine itself.
marike6 posted:"it makes little difference what year it was created or what is on the inside of the case."
What's going on inside the case is actually what I'm more interested in.
I think of some older film cameras as functional works of art that can be used to make art, but not so much with today's offerings.
This is very interesting. More options for my L lenses.
It certainly hasn't gotten any better looking...it's still ugly.
That's just ugly.
Ganondorf: I kinda feel like the "awards" are losing their meaning. Silver award? Sure its a capable camera but it seems to me that the awards should only be awarded when the cameras actually achieve something unique, or outstanding.
LOL, the "awards" never really had any meaning.
cgarrard: WOW! That, that...............is why Canon leads. That, is a serious tip of the hat to its customers. They know the value of firmware updates in the digital age now it seems, obviously they can't do this with every camera (not enough time or resources) but they sure picked a good one to do this with.
7D owners have to be ecstatic!
"By Breitling: At least they are using their own sensor not from Sony..."
What does it matter who manufactures the sensor if it's good?
Louis_Dobson: Well, I have no dog in the fight - I got rid of the D3 for an OM-D.
But I'm baffled by the review. Look at page 23 - feeble sensor DR (as picked up by DxOMark). So this camera is a one trick pony - low noise at high ISO. Who wants to carry around a brick to get that? Wedding shooters. And a very high proportion of wedding shooters want their shots out and paid for with minimal PP, which means JPG. The camera's other weakness? The JPG engine.
So it's not really terribly good, is it? It's only good at one thing, and in the end it isn't very good at THAT either.
Nonetheless it will sell well, because people are foolishly obsessed with using "what the pros use". If they bought their cars the same way they'd have delivery vans and taxis.
Me, I'd like a D800, but the OM-D is too good to justify having both. This, I'd not touch thanks, unless I decided I wanted to shoot weddings and couldn't afford a D4.
My son works for one of the premier wedding photographers in the Mid-Alantic states...they shoot only raw. He shot 2 last weekend and is booked solid for weekends through December.
He's also worked free-lance as a second shooter for a couple of other wedding photographers in past two years, all they want is raw.
When I first thought about using a digital camera 8 years ago I originally wanted monochrome only since I was working mostly in BW film. Now there is one and hopefully other companies will make less expensive ones available eventually.
Like a screen door on a submarine.