Jorginho: You have many European customers on this site. So price in Euro would be nice too (or do the differ too much per country?).
You know, Auntie Betty's Pound Sterling is something to be proud of in 2012! :D
Sorry, but what's the big issue in the conversion from US$ 899 to UK£ 799???also by adding a big 25% of taxes it would not cost much more than UK£ 705 or EUR 885 in the worst case...Why the hell are still there those differences??? :(
Please read, found an important flaw that can lead to total destruction of data. I canceled my pre-order after I found it.
Basically ACDSee demands that you place the 'file delete' confirm at the OS level (recycle bin option) vs leaving it as an option limited to ACDSee image review manipulation.
Before we could select tools-option-file management confirm delete behavior on/off. Now this being set at the OS level. This means that if you accidentally select 'delete' when at the disk level or while opening a file (any program), say good bye to your data until you retrieve it from the recycle bin.
I am an IT consultnt and system administrator and ACDSee is now off my list of recommendation for those I consult for and definitively barred from the network I administer.
Note this information (use recycling option) came from ACDSee tech support.
I barely worshipped ACDSee for years. I don't feel guilty about it.When I shifted to the Bright Side I found ACDSee counterpart to be really worse than its Redmond-friendly father application. That's it.I'll wait for a mature application with its own complete RAW support, colour management, fast image rendering, etc.But every time I read comments on which programme is the best to use, I MUST laugh seing how many people compare ACDSee to Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom or... Whatever high level product of Adobe.ACDSee costs about 1/10th of the lightest Photoshop license (don't say nothing about Elements, it DOESN'T exist... ;-), and I can witness that asking directly an offer to ACDSys is worth it the effort as I always had special discounts!So, please, don't compare cats to lions, but have a nice point of view about the real high quality of ACDSee (PC version) and if you love it, take it with care, and if you hate it, use the pirated Photoshop of your own! :)
Nice life to everybody!
Ema2010: somehow all the samples colors look cold , bluish cast is dominating and warmth are missing.
It's a characteristic feature (mean: shooting style) of Panasonic Lumix cameras.I DO prefer very much that a pic would be a neutral/cold one than those super-exaggerated reddish Sony's photographs I see sometimes, being the preferred of a friend of mine...But mine is a pure opinion of myself... ;)
There seems to be a lot of people that don't understand that the problem is the almost complete will of the makers not to help Apple and other companies to decode their super-industrial-mega-secreted silicon sensors and the related data streams going out of them with the softwares that those computer companies make.
For peace sake, I still don't understand why ACDSee can decode so many RAWs, and also does Adobe ACR, while Aperture still has troubles... :(
There is too much "correctness" in Apple than in Adobe or other software houses? HOW can they read RAWs before others? ;)
[Third and last message]
Con's:- The programme has a very annoying issue which makes thumbnails on the right of the display get blurry and shifted on thir lefthand side after coming back to Manage panel, when previously you had watched a picture in the View panel, and zoomed in and out several times. Then, when you are in the Manage panel, you scroll down and up or vice versa, and then you get the strange behaviour of the thumbnails.- The very kind people that responded very fast has found a "solution" by saying that I had to scroll SLOWER the thumbnails while in the Manage panel...
So, I have one of the most powerful iMac's on Earth and I "HAVE TO SCROLL SLOWLY" because of the ACDSee engine cannot manage my lightning-fast scrolling finger!!!
O - M - G !!! :D
[Continues from previous]
Pro's:- Very fast at image rendering. They don't even dissappoint with their graphical engine, unless this mac version uses OSX own graphical capabilities but in a much faster way than Aperture and iPhoto.- Very neat interface, the one with which many people would want to work. Greys are nice and defaults are good, in my humble opinion. Aperture is a master in having looked around in the market and got the philosophy that ACDSee has introduced in the interface many years ago. ;)- Assistance is fast. Also reading of people claiming that they are slow or almost they don't respond on their forum, the web help and the direct email interactions are very very fast and clear.
Considerations about this new ACDSys release:
I purchased it. After 4 days of errors of their servers in inserting the discount code, and having very kind operators from ACDSys helping me and resetting the errors.
Well... As far as I have tried it for not more than 2 hours yet, I can state that my first impression is that ACDSee Pro 2 for Mac is... Nothing more than version 1.8-1.9 for the same platform...
By the way... I have noticed that they (at ACDSys) came out with a 59 bucks discount sent to my mailbox!Yay!!!Maybe I'll give them the last, DEAD LAST chance to have their machine code upon my iMac.
I won't be poor, they won't be rich with 59 dollars more/less in our pockets.
Marius Oosthuizen: The PC version of ACDSEE Pro 5.2 is a dream product with no flaws whatsoever, and for me it is one of the most simple photo editing and viewing software out there. i've tried them all ( Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc etc ... ) It handles batch workflow jobs like a dream, and it take less than a hour to learn from scratch, if you are n newcomer to photo editing software.
I feel sorry for my Mac user friends who struggle with the software, maybe this new version will iron out all the problems found in previous versions.
Happy photo editing.. :)
Marius, I agree with you. But it is the PC version which I already own that is GREAT!
Mac version is a crappy, buggy, slow, f*@#ing version ever made among almost all the applications the Apple platform can run.
I personally own original versions of ACDsys products for PC and Mac since 1996 or the like...
David Emery: Given what ACD did with Canvas (produced crappy/buggy updates, then ignored it, and finally killed it) for the Mac, I wouldn't trust them on any Mac product.
Version 1.xx was in the best case a very awful application. And I paid for that.So, now, I am just spending $80 more to have a final version?
I am still astonished by people who - after years of information about how RAW format is achieved! - ask Apple to hurry up issuing new updates of its own RAW format interpreter. These people are completely ignoring the fact that camera makers don't give almost anything about the format they use, or, better, are so seriously close-minded about giving "industrial" infos about that, thus making Apple (and other developers) unable to do what people ask for!I am only sad that after several years, I cannot have my Panny FZ-18 RAWs clearly viewable in Aperture, but I do know that it is mostly a Panny issue, not Apple's!Another kind of issue is why so frequently Adobe Camera RAW has the ability to do what Aperture cannot?Is Adobe preferable as a "super partes" partner than Apple? Someone here who can explain that once for all?
KevinO013: So this the end of month for January. Where is the firmware update?
It is there since a week ago... :)
it is all right with the final result of the software, but this software is seriously slow in opening and very lacking of makers and combinations of bodies and lenses...
I'll try to use it till its trial time ends. But then...
Just to add some noise... :)I was very sceptical about CX sensor e this new ecosystem made by Nikon.But I had V1 and J1 in my hands for few minutes last week in a shop here around.I was REALLY astonished by the construction quality they both show.The V1 has a SPECTACULAR viewfinder. and the J1 is solid despite its plastic body (what a NICE one!)I cannot say if they could compete with other cameras, as I previously said it is too early to know, but I also can confirm that the building quality of a Nikon is deeply within these two small masterpieces.
I am just a little bit of of topic, but what if we could talk about ACDSystems products for Apple's declinations of photography?I think that ACDSee for OSX is a big piece of junk, at a very high price.I still own several versions of ACDSee for Windows, which I think are good and probably the fastest viewers and tools to organise my pictures in foldersIf I "float over" the big issue of colour management I could say that ACDSee Pro is one of the best programmes one can have to deal with pictures and images without spending thousands of euros/dollars/mud pizzas for image processing software.But once again (already said in other threads and fora), WHY don't they listen to their users and work deeply for OSX versions???
Naaaah!I finally switched to Apple in these last days, after using both Windows and OSX for years, but mainly having pictures managed under PC.I just realised that I can't edit in Aperture 3.2.1 my FZ-18 RAW files!!!Still in this very bat situation? After years and several models marketed with almost the same sensor/image processor???Why hasn't my beloved Apple made an update yet for those best-selling bridge cameras like Panasonic FZ's? What a shame!OK, Aperture isn't the "very best" app ever made, but I do like the way it works; I am satisfied with it. And also, simply having a quick preview or seeing - within OSX's Finder - a meaningful icon of my RAW files miniature would be a superior grade of customer satisfaction instead of the horrible Windows way of managing pics which are not common JPG's or TIF's...
Its is also incredibly upsetting to see that the Nikon new V1 and J1 are already made useable with their RAW outputs... :(
poorfatjames: At the end of the vid the rep states the new power zoom utilizes "their highest quality glass." I was under the impression that the Lumix lenses were polycarbonate. Does anyone know where to find this info?
I own 14-45 and 45-200: I assure you that the ARE glass. Nice glass indeed. :)And I also had the chance of having managed at a friend's store ALL the Panasonic optics for G family: ALL of the lenses previously created of the new powerzooms are made out of glass.Also, I cannot confirm that the two new lenses have parts of the internal groups made out of polycarbonate, but sincerely I cannot believe they put down the quality of their top...