Emadn13: Dslr for FF are not bad,but in apsc size all of them(canon,nikon,pentax) should switch to mirrorless,it's a must end of story... i had 2 apsc dslr and now i buy a6000 and never gonna use a dslr in apsc size,never of course FF mirrorless are good too,in the traveling outdoor portrait and for daily use are so much better than big dslr FF,DSlr are for sports and wild pro
@Emadn123, I wish people would stop going on about how fast shooting cameras are for sports and wildlife. Cameras like the 1Dx, D4, etc., are simply for those shooting anything that can benefit from that type of camera body. That includes wedding photographers, event photographers (a few xtra fps can make a big difference at events), fashion, action portraits, etc..
Currently, I'd rather travel with a D4 or 1Dx and the lenses of my choosing than any mirrorless camera on the market today. While you might think that mirrorless is "so much better" than big bulky dslrs today, many photographers do not. ;)
canonpro: ****To all those haters, who say his work is poor, etc. Your just out of touch, Cooper really is an innovator, the firey trash the dress shot for example is from 9 years ago, seriously think of photos 9 years old and show me something from then that was this well done. How many photographers out there have tried to immulate his trash the dress themes. To the haters, look at your photos from 2006, and post them, to show us how great your work was.
Don't get dramatic. Cooper has interesting work. Know that people have been lighting dresses on fire and photographing such before I was knee high to a grass... (never mind); the point is that, for most of us who've been shooting brides-in-dresses in unusual places for more than a decade, 'emulating' Cooper hasn't even crossed our minds.
Most photographers have their own style & concepts to wrestle with. To be fair, (though I'm no "hater") here's an "oldie" shot of mine from 9 years ago (look at those poofy sleeves!). Taken with my old Nikon D2hs, 4mp, around midnight, 17-35 f2.8 lens at f5, 32mm, 1/60th if you care about superlatives. Great? No, not by any means- but fun as always. :)
Many photographers were shooting burning dresses, dresses in the mud, sand, food, etc.. Like many others, I prefer simple shots. The "innovation" you speak about was done decades... before 2006.
ZOIP: Great wedding photography is about telling stories that last generations, stories that bring a joyous tear to the eyes of Mum and Dad, amaze and delight your yet unborn children and grandchildren.
Most cutting edge work is not about stories but about confection and bride bragging on Facebook, it sells and keeps photographers fed, but its ultimately shallow and short term, These pic represent arty, technically competent and creative work, not wedding photography, but good.
There is nothing wrong with placing couples in non traditonal situations but it should have something to do with the reality of those getting married, for example a Guy who is a super keen skateboarder being shot in a skate park with his bride and mates behind in skate gear makes sense, it would have context and meaning, or say the Bride and Groom in an industrial kitchen if the Bride is a chef of super keen foodie, or a couple on a mountian top if they are both avid bushwalkers and met via that activity.
...considering how long marriages last today, at least the bride will have some "artful" perpetual photographs that she can enjoy with friends. I've never been a fan of the "trash the dress" concept where the dress is destroyed.
In this day and time, the dresses last longer than the marital union.
KlaasK: Reading all the messages below, I get the impression that I am one of the few people that can not afford to buy a new camera(system) every year. I have a DLRS camera, and a nice set of lenses, so i hope CANON will keep supporting their DLRS/APS-C customers. Even though some of you think that this system is completely outdated.
shleed... Good comment. People who use good common sense and good purchase decisions when buying their equipment, most often have equipment that serves them well for 5 or more years as you describe. Many others buy equipment just because they like the idea of buying something new; not because they need it.
Nothing wrong with either camps. I buy with 10 years in mind unless newer technology can very *noticeably* better image quality or reduce my workload, etc..
dark goob: It has FANS inside it? FANS? In a tablet? WTƒ?
I'm mystified. This is supposed to compete with iPad somehow?
I'd be surprised if it survived for a year. It's not even solid state! It has moving parts INSIDE! FANS! lolol
As long as it holds together, I really don't care what they use. :)
The Mac OS is my favorite for most things. There are some system/software nuances as well. I prefer photoshop on the mac but ms office on the pc.. Still a lot of business programs that won't support Mac sans Parallels/Boot Camp, etc.. The OS has been solid for me for the most part and I prefer browsing using Safari over all others. I wish the OS had a much more comprehensive firewall/cookie management, etc.New PCs still come with a lot of bloat. I used to immediately format the drive & customize it myself. Those days are long gone (chuckle).
I keep my PC workstations from updating due to updates considerably slowing some software. They're dedicated offline machines (win7 pro) w/no data input, so no updates needed- security or otherwise. Mac hardware is great! Simple and no fuss. The PC stuff is bland/ugly in comparison. (chuckle)
tkbslc: Saying you can get the same or better quality from a print lab for less is like saying JPEG is just as good as RAW. Printing on your own gives you ultimate control just like RAW does.
Depending on your business or personal needs/wants, etc., printing at home CAN be unwise from a pure monetary standpoint. The opposite can also be true, though far less likely for most photographers professional and otherwise.
I've been computing (and online) since the 80's as well. Kaypro, Apple III, Trash80's, Amiga100 & 2500, and a gaggle of clickity-clack keyboard types. Back when it was hard to find people that knew what Email was, let alone how to connect to another computer with a modem... back in those days it took all day to transfer a file over the phone lines. I built my fair share, programmed; now I'm just an end user who finds it easier to buy an app or plunk down the required for whatever system I require. Those were the good old days! BBSs, digitizers!, etc., but I'd neither want to go back to those archaic machines, parallel ports, and $600 Hayes modems... nor shooting with film ;)
My Mac frustrations stem from parts that have failed that apple replaced free of charge on several macs. Aside from that my Macs/ipad have been a dream.
Reality: If you don't print much and work with a great lab to print your 20x30in and larger prints, it's often much cheaper to use the lab than pay $5k for a 200lb large format printer. If you print smaller, sell little, and have access to a great lab, it can still make better financial sense to pay the lab, than paying $1.5k printer + inks + insurance/maintenance, etc.
With the lab there's no worries about down time, banding, clogs, print head replacement, wasted ink, printer sitting for extended periods of time in off or sleep mode, $2.5k for ink replacement, etc.. The bottom line is that if you print daily/sell often, having your own printer can make a lot of financial sense. Otherwise, it's best the photographer take a serious look at finding a great lab.
Careful not to be too presumptuous- the truth of the matter is that many old geezers at the labs can crank out better prints, using better equipment (that's used daily), than photographers who own their own printers. :)
Had apple revamped the Macbook PRO with a fanless much cooler version, I would've purchased it over my fanless Macbook or the current Macbook pro.
@HowaboutRaw... I've torn apart enough computers since the 80's to know whether or not my notebook has a fan ;)
My Macbook has no fans and it's been VERY useful to me. It's slower than my large Toshiba of course, but when I'm sitting at the coffee shop milking a Vanilla Bean Frap., while processing a few photos for a client, I don't always need a Quad I7, 32mb, photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator open concurrently, etc...
So, this really thin/light Macbook isn't for everyone, but I've been working the stew out of it. When I need more processing power or larger screen, I just pick up or sit down at the appropriate computer. It's just that simple. Working with both platforms daily, I prefer OSX. On that note, Win7 still ranks as my favorite OS yet when it comes to stability. My macs have been the most problematic systems that I've ever owned, but the most joyful for me to use... and the best looking in my opinion.
Whether or not something is "really useful" depends on the user and the application. For many like me, the new Macbook is just peachy.
Michael Ma: I hate the fact that you can get 1TB on the Surface Pro 4, but only 512GB on the Surface Book which is arguably more Pro that would require more storage space. C'mon Microsoft, always giving me a reason to hold off on my purchase. I waited a year to get 16GB RAM on it. Now another reason to wait. See you next year...maybe.
nerd2 actually it's not "better than a giant iPod touch..." for many people. The bottom line is it just depends on what you do with your equipment. 5 years ago using the original iPad, I was able to take aerial photos of property damage, etc., and have the photos emailed to Japan before the aircraft got back to the airport via AT&T wireless. Each time I experiment with the Surface in a store, I don't like it as much as the iPad environment, and I use PC workstation/notebooks on a daily basis along with iMacs and and a 2015 Macbook. For most things I do not prefer the Windows environment over ios/OSX.
People are different, with different likes and needs. For me, a person who uses mac/pc daily, I prefer the mac/ipad environment more overall. I was hoping Microsoft was going to wow me with the Surface, but I as disappointed. I think I'll wait for a fanless Macbook pro to replace the current low powered (but great for light editing while at the coffee shop!) Macbook.
I'm not too sure. Fanless is a big plus for me and a huge reason behind my matchbook purchase earlier this year. If Apple would've had a thin, Mackbook Pro, 16g, 512 ssd, quadcore 3.0 "isn" ghz., with the new touchpad, etc., they would've gotten over $2k from me at the drop of a hat.
I agree with dark goob., fans in a notebook for many people are an ancient pain in the neck. I like being able to sit the Macbook on any fabric and not having to contend with the fans howling for air.
Bravin Neff: My favorite comment from the Youtube ad for the Surface Pro 4:
"RIP Ipad Pro (2015-2015)."
I love the iPad, **but I could't agree more**. I think Apple had a great opportunity to really wow with the iPad pro and they failed. I'm still using my orig. iPad (awesome when it debuted) because the subsequent 'pads didn't make far enough strides to tickle my purse... and having to use iTunes to manage files, etc.? I wan't to be able to connect sd cards to my pad, add/delete/move files natively, more processing power, etc..
At first glance, the new iPad doesn't do it for me. I'll reevaluate my opinion once I get my hands on one.
Springsnow is 100% correct. *Most* people will use the surface as a notebook, most of the time, which means that for most people, it's not worth the money. I like being able to use a tablet in bed, on the BART/plane, etc., but the idea of screwing around with a Microsoft tablet doesn't make smile. I'll stick to the iPad and fanless mackbook bedside, and iMac and PC workstations/ notebooks for more heavy duty work.
naththo: Ah okay. How about go to proper photo lab then purchase your own printer then? Most photo lab in Australia are still using Fuji Frontier wet lab not dry lab.
Because if large prints are a large part of your business, it can quickly becomes more expensive to pay a lab, than to buy your own large format printer, ink, print heads, and maintenance plans. Which makes more sense depends on how much you print, print size, how often, etc.
BartyLobethal: Wow, 10 inks to waste during 'cleaning' cycles now.
Cleaning cycle waste, in addition to expensive print-head replacement/longevity. No thanks. Epson hands down has produced the best prints for us (HP the worst); however, so far I think Canon is the better business decision over the long haul unless you're printing daily.
I'm interested to know what Epson has changed with these new printers as far as print heads, ink usage, etc.. I hope they've addressed some of the gripes.
Johannes Zander: Looked at the Milvus 100mm design and the 100mm Makro Planar. Is the Milvus just a repackeged Planar?
I was hoping they'd redesign the 100 Makro, take care of all that horrible CA in some situations, colour correct for those who want really accurate colours (I happen to fancy the hint of Zeiss' grayish, purplish, blue). CA is easily worked around, but I expect more from a modern day lens at its respective price point.
GatanoII: NO AF on Zeiss glass is always the same old story, the prices are looking interesting, but without AF most potential buyers will stay away ... also for professional video, now that AF can be used on most modern Canon (and Sony with adapter) even during video and tap to focus on a touchscreen is great and allows professinal rack focus without added complessitiy and cost.
With Autofocus they could probably sell 10 times more glass, almost as much as Sigma and even more once compared only to Sigma top of the line glass, for some Art glass and this new Milvus the price difference is not huge... also Tamron is starting to produce top quality glass with ultrasonic AF and also image stabilization.
I use AF +90% of the time and more than 50% even with macro work, a little less on video, still useful and needed many times, so thanks Zeiss as you don't want my money and I suppose many other peple won't buy you glass just for a feature that was available on cameras almost 40 years ago.
"most pros"... that would depend on what they shoot. For my static work, MF works just fine. Sure AF would be nice, but after years of using MF, it just isn't an issue for me. Even my Nikkor 17-35 2.8 hasn't had a working AF for nearly 10 years, and while there has been times I've grimaced over that fact, most of the time I don't think about it.
I'd rather have a 200 f2 without AF than a 70-200 2.8... it's all about what, when, and how you shoot.
When I'm shooting something that begs for AF, then I just grab the appropriate lens. AF is great, but for me it's not a deal breaker in most cases.
When I researched why no AF some time ago, there seemed to be a legal reason why with something to do with Zeiss would have to have a manufacturing plant in Japan or something like that to qualify to offer AF on Nikon/Canon bodies. Something like that.
Again, the reason (it seemed) was a "protect our own" bureaucratic legal issue.
AF is great, but frankly I find myself using MF anyway most of the time when I need precise focus instead of the AF getting in the way (unless it has a clutch that allows me to take over once it gets the lens most of the way where I want it). I would prefer Zeiss to have AF, but it isn't at all detriment to me that it doesn't.
dash2k8: I'm surprised that the price isn't as astronomical as before.
The price of the new 100mm f/2 is nearly exactly what the old one was selling for. The old version has been discounted as of late due to the incoming new lens(es).
Caerolle: So, I see all these Zeiss manual-focus lenses for dSLRs, and I wonder, how do people use them with modern dSLRs, which aren't very good at manual focus in the OVF?
Do people mostly use them stopped down a good bit, so they *can* be focused in the OVF? Or only use them on tripods with Live View? Or do focus bracketing?
Agreed with Andy Xorx. The Canon 5d2 has an atrocious focus system compared to even old pro bodies which makes using a manual focus lens not hard, but considerably less easy. Any dslr with a competent focus system; more specifically a good focus confirmation system, will allow the manual focus lens to be focused with relative ease.
I shoot the Zeiss at f/2 nearly exclusively and most often it isn't an issue for fine art and or portraiture work. There's been times that I've selected it over the 24-70 2.8 for event work with results that pleased me.
I hardly ever use live view.