mpgxsvcd

mpgxsvcd

Lives in United States USA, NC, United States
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 1376, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1167 comments in total)

The video test scene is pathetic for the 7D MKII.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 21:42 UTC as 230th comment

He is getting paid for putting his name on it not for the content of the photograph.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 21:34 UTC as 159th comment | 4 replies
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1167 comments in total)

I can’t help but think that the T6i will be a smaller version of this camera with a few critical features intentionally disabled in firmware and Wifi added in for half the price or less.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 21:31 UTC as 231st comment | 2 replies
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1167 comments in total)

If I had a bunch of Canon glass I wouldn’t even consider buying any other Canon camera but this one.

There. I kept it totally positive.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 21:25 UTC as 234th comment | 4 replies
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

tex: Hmmm...

"Create, reorder, merge and manipulate layers individually"

"Manipulate individual parts of an image without affecting another area for more precise editing"

LightZone has been doing those 2 things since 2006

"Apply filters and effects to layers"

"Apply Pixel Targeting to layers"

And these 2 things since about 2009 (if I understand it correctly).

ACDsee does some things that LightZone doesn't do, of course, but those 4 above jumped out at me. BTW, LightZone has also been free and open source for 3 years now. We share a problem with ACDsee, though: reliance on another source for part of our raw demosaicing (dcraw).

Now that both companies have those features it doesn’t matter that LightZone has been doing them for many years. All that really matters now is who does those better and more efficiently.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:43 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

thelooch: Hi, I'm a developer at ACD Systems and I think I should make it known that a RAW update is being worked on right now, and we should be releasing it very soon. I'm not making an official announcement for the company here, but I think the update should be out before Christmas.

I forgot the Panasonic FZ1000. Please at that camera to the list as well.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I have used ACDSee as my editing program since 1999. I think their software is the simplest software to learn that can still get the job done in a heavy editing environment.

That being said their RAW support is abysmal. There is list of cameras below that are supported by most other editing software programs but ACDSee does not support them despite the fact that they were given samples for some of these cameras months ago.

Adding new features does you no good if your camera’s RAW format is not supported. They will tell you that you can just use DNG Converter to convert all of your files before you bring them in for editing. That is a time consuming process that makes ACDSee unusable.

http://www.acdsee.com/en/support/raw-formats

These cameras are not supported. They typically add support for a camera within 1 year of it being released. That is not acceptable.

Canon 7D MKII
Panasonic LX100
Panasonic GH4
Canon G7X
Nikon D750

I got my Panasonic GH4 7 months ago and it is not supported yet. Not all of these cameras are brand new. However, most of them are relatively new. Adobe found a way to support them pretty quickly though. So could ACDSee if they wanted to invest some money into it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 18:49 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

thelooch: Hi, I'm a developer at ACD Systems and I think I should make it known that a RAW update is being worked on right now, and we should be releasing it very soon. I'm not making an official announcement for the company here, but I think the update should be out before Christmas.

@thelooch

We appreciate the update very much. That will help expand your user base tremendously. Can you make sure that the cameras listed below are on the list to be supported? If any of them are not on the list for the next update will you please let us know what we can do to facilitate getting them on there?

Canon 7D MKII
Panasonic LX100
Panasonic GH4
Canon G7X
Nikon D750

Keep up the great work. I have been a loyal customer of ACDSee for well over a decade now.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 18:32 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

riveredger: So much negativity in the photographic community ...

It isn’t negativity. It is criticism. Negativity is just saying unfavorable things because you want to disparage someone or something.

Constructive criticism is given in an effort to help the company understand what they can do to improve. Everyone likes their product. They just want it to be useful so they can actually try out the new features.

If all we ever said were positive things then companies like this would just keep everything the same. For ACDSee that would be a bad thing because unless they improve their RAW support they aren’t going to be expanding their user base very much.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 18:27 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.
I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.
(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)
P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.

I was able to download the trial from cnet simply by clicking on the download button. Nothing else was installed. I think they have to use other vendors for the download now simply because they don’t have the bandwidth. However, you shouldn’t need an installer or anything else like that to install this program.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)

If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.

I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.

ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.

Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 16:08 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)

I don’t know about everyone else. However, I definitely like to have my editing software be a good browser and a good editor at the same time. Lightroom was fantastic as an editor but in my opinion it is poor as an image browser.

ACDSee can accomplish that as long as your camera is on the list of cameras with RAW support.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 15:59 UTC as 12th comment
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (539 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I am not so concerned with who won what category as much as I am concerned about who didn’t win any categories.

The concern here is that Canon has always been seen as a leader in the full frame professional photography world. They didn’t even come close to getting honorable mention in this shootout. That is a really bad sign of things to come for Canon.

They won’t die out completely because there are still people out there who can make great images with Canon equipment and some of those people would never switch even if other competitors products offer huge advantages.

However, the Canon consumer photography group could find itself in financial trouble if they don’t make some changes soon. People that won’t switch systems no matter what competitors offer also don’t tend to upgrade often either. Canon consumer photography needs the recurring business to be successful in this market.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 15:56 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I have used ACDSee as my editing program since 1999. I think their software is the simplest software to learn that can still get the job done in a heavy editing environment.

That being said their RAW support is abysmal. There is list of cameras below that are supported by most other editing software programs but ACDSee does not support them despite the fact that they were given samples for some of these cameras months ago.

Adding new features does you no good if your camera’s RAW format is not supported. They will tell you that you can just use DNG Converter to convert all of your files before you bring them in for editing. That is a time consuming process that makes ACDSee unusable.

http://www.acdsee.com/en/support/raw-formats

These cameras are not supported. They typically add support for a camera within 1 year of it being released. That is not acceptable.

Canon 7D MKII
Panasonic LX100
Panasonic GH4
Canon G7X
Nikon D750

Basing the main part of your software on a program that has issues making updates in a timely manner is a bad business proposition. Without RAW support their new features are meaningless. They are touting this as a powerful photo editor which it is if your camera is supported.

The cameras in that list are all best sellers right now. ACDSee’s competitors support them so ACDSee should as well. They need to realize that without RAW support in a timely manner their product will remain insignificant in the photo editing world.

That is all coming from someone who absolutely loves everything else about their product. However, not having RAW support is a bit like getting a nice new Camera as a Christmas present but realizing that it didn’t come with a battery and they are on back order until late next year. Without critical components it is useless just like ACDSee.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 14:31 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)

I have used ACDSee as my editing program since 1999. I think their software is the simplest software to learn that can still get the job done in a heavy editing environment.

That being said their RAW support is abysmal. There is list of cameras below that are supported by most other editing software programs but ACDSee does not support them despite the fact that they were given samples for some of these cameras months ago.

Adding new features does you no good if your camera’s RAW format is not supported. They will tell you that you can just use DNG Converter to convert all of your files before you bring them in for editing. That is a time consuming process that makes ACDSee unusable.

http://www.acdsee.com/en/support/raw-formats

These cameras are not supported. They typically add support for a camera within 1 year of it being released. That is not acceptable.

Canon 7D MKII
Panasonic LX100
Panasonic GH4
Canon G7X
Nikon D750

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 14:13 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (539 comments in total)

I am not so concerned with who won what category as much as I am concerned about who didn’t win any categories.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 15:55 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (539 comments in total)

Adapted from Top Gun:

Canon just drew a Goose Egg on a shootout they needed to win!

Get control!

Let's get in there and help Sony bring down Nikon.

Let's get back in the game.

No, it's no good.

G0d d@mn it. Canons disengaging.

I knew it. Sh!t!

Get in there, come on.

What the h$ll are you doing?

Sony won't last down there alone...

Talk to me, Sony.

Canon!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 15:53 UTC as 13th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 First Impressions Review preview (296 comments in total)

The LX100 is simply a better option.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 13:59 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On Real-world test: Nikon D750 at the Museum of Flight article (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great work guys. Outstanding job making a video that is entertaining and informative. I have just one question though.

You state that the Dynamic Range of this Nikon camera far exceeds what you would expect. Do you feel that the Canon full frame counterparts offer the same latitude?

Yes I really want to add a full frame camera to my crop sensor cameras. Right now I am looking at the Sony and Nikon options. Canon got crossed off the list based on everything I have seen lately.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2014 at 02:56 UTC
On Real-world test: Nikon D750 at the Museum of Flight article (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I noticed that most of your images are at F8.0 or even F11.0. As you stated it was for detail and depth of field. However, I can't help but wonder if a crop sensor camera would be better in this situation?

If you are using a crop sensor camera you could get the same depth of field with a 2 stop or faster lens. In addition high end crop sensor lenses are typically better closer to wide open than their full frame counterparts are.

Now you wouldn't be able to match the dynamic range of the full frame sensor. However, shooting at 2-4 stops less ISO would improve noise significantly.

Just a thought for a future review. Could you compare a crop sensor camera like the Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100 to a full frame camera like this one in a similar scenario?

Everyone knows the full frame sensor would do better with a bright lens on it. However, when you have to stop the full frame camera down I wonder if it still significantly outperforms the smaller sensor camera in this specific situation

It really depends on if the noise response always scales linearly with sensor size. I would agree that the best m4/3s is about 2 stops behind this D750 in the noise department. However, I am not sure that the 1 inch Sony sensor in the RX100 is much more than 2 stops behind the D750.

The RX100 sensor technology is a lot closer to the D750 than the Panasonic sensors in the GH4 or LX100 are. The RX100 sensor may be small but its performance is outstanding for the size.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2014 at 02:54 UTC
Total: 1376, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »