CaPi: My thoughts? Utterly lovely results. But looking at the size and weight of this machine: I'm out. Sorry
I had a similar thought. It's a staggering technical achievement and the portrait lens I've always wanted, but the size and weight are up there with the 70-200s on full-frame. Too much to take backpacking for sure. I'd end up splitting the difference with an 85/1.8.
How is it the best camera site is saddled with the worst audience? It's just a constant stream of negativity and complaining. No appreciation for the article, none for the product, and not five thoughtful comments in fifty. If you're all this unpleasant IRL, I wouldn't want to spend a moment with any of you.
* It's also missing a lot of small features. Many tools aren't nearly as flexible. Previewing options that you can get by holding down modifier keys tend not to exist. Some raw tools have inadequate adjustment range. Exposure is +/- 2 stops, for example, and there's no ability to set negative clarity.
* Speed is a problem on my late-2013 rMBP. In the raw converter, some effects (exposure, gamma, cropping, etc.) have immediate previews and reactions. Others (CA correction, gradient masks) can be more than an order of magnitude slower than Photoshop. It gets worse in the main program when you start stacking layers. The strain is mostly CPU. My system fan (that I almost never hear) was running full-bore for most of the testing period. To edit full-res files, you'd want a much more powerful machine (even for things like Gaussian blur).
Not like this. Adobe's had twenty years to teach Photoshop to cheat to keep it responsive. UI lockups for seconds at a time are frequent in affinity. Earlier today, I had to force-quit after waiting two minutes for it to close a 5D II file (that it wasn't even saving).
Aesthetically and in terms of layout and quality of effects, this software is great. Gimp and most everything else in this price range are way behind. But when you start trying to adapt a workflow from Photoshop, the limitations become apparent very quickly. If you do serious productions in Photoshop and you value your time, Affinity doesn't make sense.
But it might if you instead spend most of your time in Lightroom and only venture into Photoshop for the occasional one-off. Affinity is more than adequate for touchup work, face replacements, adding and modifying text, blending layers, and so on. It also appears to support Photoshop plugins. If you don't use the really clever stuff that makes Photoshop what it is, Affinity could be preferable to a subscription fee.
I agree with the above. I would definitely take this over PS Elements.
* The auto-mask tool is quick and well-implemented, as is the before/after preview mechanism for filters and the various histograms. There's a proper white balance tool in the main editor that Photoshop still doesn't have. The history mechanism has a nifty slider to flash through your changes in sequence.
* It's missing a lot of Photoshop's headline features. The raw converter doesn't have auto-perspective correction or lens profiles. The main program doesn't have anything more advanced than the healing brush for content generation. If you're used to using, say, Vanishing Point or Content Aware Fill, you won't find anything like them here.
I didn't catch that one, thanks for pointing it out. It's right up there with Content Aware Fill. Definitely enhances the utility of the program. Unfortunately I can't edit the comment to reflect this.
In my testing, it's superficially quick, but starts to lag quickly when you begin to use the gamut of features available.
Really not bad, but it won't replace Photoshop for most people. I just had a go comparing it to CC 2015 with 5D II files for the last hour. I scribbled down a few thoughts, and then they turned into a book. Erm, oops.
* It uses the Mac window model, so it's very snappy to move the window around and the keyboard shortcuts I have bound to maximize work as expected. Not so with Photoshop.
* It's very much an image editing tool, not a raw manager. You can open raw files, but there's no way to save your changes, close the file, and reopen it. Opening, adjusting, and rendering is a strictly linear process.
* The UI is polished for a program still in its first major version. More coherent in tool organization than Photoshop, and if you don't like it, the left toolbar is entirely customizable. Specialty tools like Liquify have their own customizable workspaces.
* Quality of effects is uniformly high. I'm particularly impressed with NR and sharpening, both in the raw editor and the main program. Likewise tone adjustments and liquify. A lot of programs duplicate the quick-and-nasty approach of Photoshop's legacy sliders in the Image / Adjustments menu. Not this one.
Alexdi: The film simulations are great. I've shot with all of those stocks and the samples are bringing me back. I wonder if ACR will have some way to emulate the profiles?
A lot of the appeal of this body is the combination of high-quality output, tactile build, the optical finder, and stellar AF lenses. As good as the A6300 is (and it is very good), it only has the first two. Canon's smaller DSLRs only have the last two. I think the X-Pro 2 is expensive, but that the cost is not totally unjustified for such a niche product.
To me, it's just a teaser for the X-T2. Can't wait.
Eh. I'm not much for life and dimension. The characteristics of film can described mathematically, so it can be reproduced. Personally, it's enough that what I see above makes me nostalgic. Doesn't have to be perfect. I appreciate Fuji for the effort.
If you really want the film look, you have to make the files look worse. A lot worse. Fuji's only done color and tone curves here, but you'd need to add the right grain for the ISO, drop the sharpness and introduce the weak corners typical of film-era lenses, and account for the second-order loss of dynamic range and sampling blur from your film scanner.
At 35mm, you can expect about 4-6 MP of actual detail with ISO 400 negative film and perhaps 10-15 MP (with lower accutance) from the best fine-grained color slide film. That's if you're looking through a loupe or drum-scanning. When I consider what doesn't look "film" to me, it's the incredible detail and smooth tonality of these 24MP files, not the parts Fuji has chosen to emulate.
Sure looks accurate to me. I don't see how it couldn't be with Fuji building the profiles, but I suppose it's been a decade since I've used any of them.
The film simulations are great. I've shot with all of those stocks and the samples are bringing me back. I wonder if ACR will have some way to emulate the profiles?
Fantastic results. Can't wait to see how it tests.
> One of the differences between us and our competition is the EF lens lineup.
Right, except it's not designed for mirrorless. Adapters won't cut it; you need to start over. When you finally release a competitive MILC, it won't sell because there won't be anything to put on it.
> So two priorities for future sensors are lower power consumption and increasing processing speed.
Where's dynamic range in this? Take your raw files and try pushing the shadows three stops. Then do the same thing with a Nikon, or any of a half-dozen other makes that use Sony sensors. That's another reason I'm done with Canon: you guys show no sign of catching up to everyone else in processing flexibility. For those of us who live in ACR, the difference isn't subtle. Between the A7R II, D810, and the 5DS, I wouldn't hesitate a moment before choosing one of the first two, megapixels be damned.
My hobby is rock climbing. Somewhere around the 30th pullup, I get bored. I don't think working out is the problem. Still, hiking thousands of vertical feet with a heavy pack has convinced me of the utility of counting ounces.
Here's where I started:
And here's an 80D kit:
The portrait lens is a Tamron. I've done a 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 in the past. Contrast and focus accuracy are both poor. I have no use for a 24, 40, or a long telephoto. I've found the 16-35 zoom range to be ideal for events and general use.
Here's my new kit:
Lighter, weather-sealed, better lenses, dead-accurate AF, and high DR. This is a winning combination for me. Canon isn't taking mirrorless seriously. When they do, maybe I'll come back. Or maybe not. We'll see how this Fuji pans out.
I also switched to Fuji, largely on the strength of their APS-C lens line. I agree that Canon has superior body ergonomics, but I can't get past the weight-- the 80D is 730g relative to 440 for the X-T1 and 380 for the X-T10. The 6D is 770g; given that Canon doesn't have any fast APS-C primes to further slim things down, I see little benefit to opting for the smaller sensor.
Adapters are one more thing to add size, weight, cost, and complexity. If I've got multiple adapted and unadapted lenses, I'm either buying multiple adapters or moving a single one between lenses while changing. No thanks. Another point: AF efficiency depends on more than just the electronics. I wouldn't take as gospel that an adapted lens will work as well as it would on an SLR.
> ... we try to raise performance across the board as best we can.
Your team needs to take a harder look at precisely what the "board" is.
The last time I was excited about a Canon announcement was for DPAF, because at the time, no MILC had comparable movie or stills AF and that was a compelling reason to continue stomaching the ungainly DSLR juxtaposition. Then all your MILC competitors integrated phase-detect. Suddenly the compromise doesn't seem so necessary anymore.
You're improving things you're good at improving, but not what the market wants. Do you think anyone shooting at 12 FPS is yearning to shoot at 14? Where's the innovation?
If you stay the course, Sony will eat your lunch. It won't happen tomorrow, it won't happen in a week, but it absolutely will happen.
Do you have any recent figures for that? This is the only thing I can find:
I'm not interested in press releases. We'll see how they've done when DPR has one to play with.
For my purposes, even if they've improved DR, the 80D is still much larger and heavier than any of the APS-C MILC bodies I'm interested in. I don't want to pack a DSLR, I don't want to play with lens lottery with focus calibration, I don't want to have two entirely separate focusing systems, and I don't want to chimp.
I don't think I'm alone here. The calculus was different when I was shooting professionally, but none of that stuff I listed is any fun.