StevenE: Canon 300 2.8 IS II + teleconverters: smaller, lighter, sharper, cheaper
The 300 also has less reach on-the-fly, and no zoom. I'd take (and spend money) on this new lens hands down before the 300 f/2.8.; the lens would make a great fashion/glamour/on-location portrait lens.
dstate1: It has been a long, hard slide for Hasselblad...from makers of the V series down to high end camera case peddlers...they cant be too proud of their corporate tragectory at this stage.
What comes next can only boggle the mind: Hasselblad track shoes? Potato chips?
Some kind of cross marketing with David Hasselhof and Elizabeth Hasselbeck would be brilliant.
I was disappointed in what Hasselblad did with the V series over the years; equating to "not a darn thing". Too expensive for most photographers to consider, and too behind the times for most photographers who could easily afford it yet wanted a modern medium format solution.
1. The camera (per Hasselblad rep) hadn't been updated for over a decade.
2. Relatively few people are interested in shooting costly, grainy, PITA, MF film today.
3. The digital solution was ridiculously expensive... especially when you throw in the fact that you'd have to do everything manually + hand metering.---------------
I think if Hasselblad would've rebuffed the 503CW, smoother long lasting, modern mirror box, good electronics w/ a great *manual focus* confirmation system, for $10,000 or so years ago, they would've had a system that many photographers would've considered... especially if they also sold the upgrades as an "upgrade" kit to existing 500 series owners.
Hassy becoming a "has been" ;)
Robert Schambach: Buying this camera is god's way of saying that you have too much money...
Money is like good looks and good sense. You can never have "too much".
Kodachrome200: The problem is it is all reproduction work of copyrighted pieces. There fore no one can publish or display them publicly. What would be the point.
Think like a business person. If you had a Piccaso slide (use your imagination) it would be worth something, because someone out there would pay just to have it in their collection whether it's displayed or not. How much would that one slide be worth? How much would it be worth 3 generations from now?
I wouldn't pay $5 for the stuff, but you get my point ;)
Peiasdf: I am sure someone will take it in now that it is in the NYTimes. That said, most of SOHO art scene is just trendiness, not art.
Obviously scores of people find artistic value in it whether you or I like it or not. Bottom line... it's art. I've seen stuff from the great painters that I thought was worse than what my kids have doodled.Either way- it's all art irrespective of your opinion of it.
Shamael: One has to tell me first to what and to whom that will serve. If the card breaks, you throw the 2 partitions away. If one gets corrupted, the corrupted sector is mirrored, thus both will not work. If the card gets lost, both partitions are lost. So, is there anything we don't know here? I do not ask "that I know" since I think that we all ask the same question. On the other side, CF gets more and more replaced by SD, what is a bargain since you can fit 25 SD cards in a matchbox. Now, if they could make a CF body with 2 sd cards in slots, mirrored, that would make sense.
@plevyadophy absolutely not. I'm just talking about having four card slots; two CF and two SD. Via menu, the photographer can mirror one or both CF slots, or use them as overflow cards. That would be so much better to me.
I agree with Shamael- I'd much rather have a CF camera that has additional SD card slots (mirrored... or not via menu option). I would feel much more comfy with that option, and it would prove more useful to me.
Boerseuntjie: More pictures a day are taken with the iphone than any other camera, just look at Flickr stats and the apple commercials say so ;)So you can see why she made this statement...It's clear Flickr is not for the pro photographer
... but most reasonably intelligent adults know what she meant.
People getting their under garments all bunched up over such a trite (but true-in-context) statement. What's amazingly sad is the number of photographers that haven't awakened from dreaming and can't understand that what she said (within context) is exactly correct.
Just like there aren't any professional cobblers today r-e-l-a-t-i-v-e-l-y speaking, even though using our common sense we know that there are individuals that still professionally make shoes on their own. . . but using our common sense, we understand what is meant within the context being spoken.
The number of professional photographers generating specialized work that cannot be easily and readily recreated in volume by the general public has been drastically reduced since digital photography became a mainstay. General photography is easily generated by the public today for cheap, and is why general photography in most locales is not *generally* as profitable as once was.
Too many people devoid of common sense.
clicstudio: As a professional photographer who solely shoots women, I find fashion images to portrait not a Fantasy, but a fake reality.The cover reads "Hot Summer" but then you see a desaturated, anorexic, pale, wet haired model with 2 pounds of eye makeup and a black swimsuit who looks like she just drowned and came back to life...Summer and hot are supposed to be vibrant and happy... The opposite of this cover. Why does fashion photography have to be aboutMaking women look like androids? If the editor wants to put some fat into this girl, why not hire a normal looking model instead?Retouching is part of my everyday life as well. I love creating the fantasy of the perfect woman, but always adding to their own femininity and beauty. This cover, photoshopped or not, is, in my humble opinion, sad and lifeless.
Thin models sell. Average sized models do not appeal to the typical (fashion) target audience. Also, what the model has on would not look as good on a *non* lithe-sized model, just like many pull over "stretchy" or tube dresses look horrible on very thin models.
I find the cover (like most fashion ads) boring, but unlike most fashion ads- I don't find this cover to be ridiculous.
I couldn't care less if she had photoshopped 50lb of lard onto the girl- far too many important things in life to worry about as opposed to some mag slathering poundage onto some model via software.
kkchiu215: For the past three years, I used my 400mm f/4 DO IS telephoto with 1.4x tele plus to make up 560mm f/5.6 to capture flying house swallow. All photographs of the flying birds came out sharp and clear, all because of the extreme light weight of the Dwflaxtive Pptics design and fast aperture to freeze the fast motion of the small body size swallow.But the 200-400mm 2x zoom ratio seems to be not enough although the optical material and coating is very good. I will say this lens is suitable for portrait or fashion photography more then wild life.I am looking for a 500 to 600 mm f/4 Defractive Optics telephoto lens? Since it is not possible to capture small flying object with a tripot, you have to hand hold the lens and came together and swing your entire body try to follow the bird moment because they fly in three dimensions.
I think you are very correct. The lens is really too short for wildlife photography unless you're shooting large subject relatively close to your location, but horribly short for small birds at a distance if you're wanting to come close to filling the frame- the 500, 600 and 800mm primes are for that type of work.
This is an excellent lens for portraiture/fashion as you stated, which is something many people do not think about. It is also an excellent lens (on paper anyway) for large outdoor social or political events as well as street photography in areas where the photographer wants to be as discrete as possible.
The practical uses for the lens are endless, and I think the shortsightedness of many photographers is due to not having a use for the lens, or not having enough experience that enables them to think of the many areas on photography that can readily benefit from such a lens.
pbrad: Seems like an awful lot of judgemental comments about a piece of equipment that nobody has gotten their hands on yet. Yes the price may be a bit of a shocker (it was for me), BUT, if you are a truly a professional sports photographer (or wildlife photographer) and you get thousands for a really good shot for publication, this lens is a no-brainer if it will help you get "the shot". The inclusion of the built-in teleconverter is a great addition for those situations where extra reach will give you "the shot" and you can do it in one second instead of grabbing your teleconverter, taking the lens off the camera, attaching the converter, then putting the lens back on the camera, then recomposing and refocussing and taking the shot. By then the touchdown would be made and the extra point would be kicked. That is the type of situation this lens is made for. I will withhold my opinion until good old dp tells us whether it is up to snuff.
What I find amazing is how many people are honestly shocked at the price in the first place. What on earth did people think the price was going to be for a lens that sits between the 600mm and 400mm primes, and offers the convenience of a zoom and built in teleconverter/extender?
Richt2000: Nice lens, Price is a joke!
One could say that about all the super telephoto lens prices across all brands.Let's look at the pricing realistically... this new lens costs just under $12k USD. That places the lens between the 600mm and 500mm f/4 lenses.
You get the benefit of a zoom, constant speed aperture, and built in teleconverter that extends your reach 140mm or the "angle of view" (for those who like to be overly technical) of 336mm on a 1.6x sensor.
While I miss the old Canon super telephoto lens prices, it is hard for me to consider the pricing of this lens a "joke" relative to the pricing assigned to Canon's current supertele lineup.
If you designed this lens yourself, at what price would YOU sell the lens?
snowboarder: For me it's very simple - I have to pay way morefor something I don't own anymore. I'm not given any choice.
JamesInCA... that's ridiculous. If you have a subscription and end your subscription, you still have access to your files and can do whatever you want with your files. Gimp, old versions of PS, lightroom, aperture, Corel Painter, and the list goes on.
Adobe isn't forcing you to do anything- stop being so dramatic ;)
Dale Garman: " Adobe offers a Photoshop CC-only subscription for $19.99 per month with an annual commitment"
This move is an unbelievable price increase for those of us who have been loyal customers and upgraded over the years as each release came out. When I look back in Oct 2008 I upgrade photoshop portion for $180 and again in June for 210 which took me to Jan 2013 when I again upgraded to CS6. So measuring between 2008 and the last upgrade was about 50 months of use for $390 which averages out to about about $8 per month. This means my cost would be 2 1/2 times what I have been paying. What vendor thinks they can get by with that kind of price increase?
The original cost does not factor into my decision because I have already invested that. I'm not hostile to a cloud method of verifying license, am open to subscription at significantly reduced price , but I am hostile to this kind of rip off of their loyal customer base. What vendor gets to impose these kinds of price increases?
Question: " What vendor gets to impose these kinds of price increases?"
Answer: Any vender that can get away with it and increase short and long term profits by doing so. Even if only short term profits increase enough to positively affect something unrelated to PS could make it worth it also. Business 101 stuff.
rickpoole: I agree with Dale 100% - my cost will go up by 2-3X at the minimum. Being a hobbyist who doesn't make much money on photography this price increase is unjustifiable and unacceptable and no explanation by Mr. Hendrickson or other Adobe executives would convince me to subscribe to the CC subscription model at those rates. Even if the monthly price was only $9.99 I'd still have to think long and hard whether I want to be tied to any form of software subscription.
Mr. Hendrickson's statement of what they plan on offering for the hobbyists really doesn't make sense - Lightroom CC enhancements trying to lure them into the CC subscription model? Apparently they are not listening to the thousands of posts from users saying they will not subscribe to the CC no matter what.
You guys are killing me :) It is justifiable, because Adobe doesn't answer to you. It is also acceptable to many who use the full suite. $600 per annum for someone using PS simultaneously with IL, and using After Effects with Premier and InDesign for outputting eBook content... it starts to look like a deal to the professional who actually uses the software to the hilt.
It's a good deal for many artists who can afford $10 for PS but cannot afford to plunk down nearly $700 for PS alone.
The math is simple. Some people will benefit; some people won't. Adobe feels that it reaps the most financial reward focusing on its most financially important demographic. I can't fault them for that because it makes the best business sense. Adobe isn't your friend, nanny or nurse maid. Adobe is a company; nothing more. nothing less.
Neither Adobe nor Mr. Hendrickson or associated execs are trying to convince you to do anything. It's a simple take it or leave it scenario :)
seidensticker: It is always sad to see companies with a good product put the needs of the company (stable revenue and profits) before the needs of their customers. The American car manufacturers had a "planned obsolescence" strategy which blew up in their face when the Japanese offered better cars at a lower price and with better customer service. Adobe has ignored the needs of tens of thousands of amateur photographers (like me) who are not daily users. We are not interested in giving Adobe an annuity for life. Their new strategy is especially stupid given that Google has bought Nik software. Rather than defend their market, Adobe has chosen to cede a large portion of their business to a larger and financially stronger competitor. This won't end well for Adobe!
Not the same. Whether you're a corporation or kid that works at the local burger joint, a car means the same thing to you if you have to get to work, band practice, etc. The general public supports the automobile industry.
PS on the other hand isn't supported by the typical photographer. Most photographers aren't spending $600 -$2,500 on PS or an Adobe Suite. Adobe isn't saying "screw the photographer", but rather "Wake up... you're neither our target market, nor the demographic that pays our bills/profits!"
Photographers that *do* fit into the target market probably aren't whining about paying $20-$50 monthly.
I fancy boxed software, but I think Adobe is on the right course.Unless Google comes out with a program better than PS, they're not even on anyone's radar when it comes to processing photos- whether they own Nik or not is of no consequence in my mind.
My response is simply to stick with CS6 unless something jaw dropping comes down the pipe.
nikhilnh: I hope someday Adobe realizes that this was a very very bad decision and I also hope that they realize that "someday" is today.
I think Adobe knows their deepest pockets... and it isn't photographers making chump change. I maintain that Adobe will make a lot of money with this method. I don't like it either, but it does make sound business sense.
Clint Dunn: While I hate the news I can't say that I am surprised. Microsoft is basically doing the same thing with Office 365. After all...why sell SW once when you can make people pay for perpetuity.
The figure I would like to see is how many of the millions of PS users paid for the SW vs those just using pirated copies....
Easy answer. Amongst only those who stole the software, the subscription-to-pirated software ratio would be higher than it currently is had Adobe had subscriptions in the past as many businesses (and some individuals/groups) who steal the software but really need it for their work, would've been forced to buy it.
Too simple. Adobe isn't blind to that fact either.
Pay to play.
Gary Goodenough: I have my last versions of Photoshop, I have three CS6 licenses and would have purchased three CS7 licenses. I will not rent. So long Adobe I will spend my money on something else.
I have 6, but wouldn't have even thought about purchasing 7 unless the new features were too great for me to pass up. That's the point. Adobe doesn't make money off people like me even though I buy the suites... once every 5-8 years ;)
I think Adobe is on a roll with what they're doing. Leave the little fish behind and go for the bigger bucks. Makes perfect business sense in this particular instance to me.