The film company is dead.OK... but isn't this the company that made the first DSLR, too?!!
Solarcoaster: Fish and water drop look photoshopped. So much for real photography.
The drop seems OK to me. That fish is very small. It may be important to mention that the bird in dvmrp's picture is probably 10 times larger.
While I don't think it's PS'd and I think it's a great, great capture, I don't really think this is a great photo.
jhowell39: Long time lurker here and old film guy getting back into it.
Its seems like Adobe might be attempting the 'Netflix' solution -- a rather large caliber, metaphorical handgun is pointed directly at right foot.
The solution is quite simple and is a four letter word -- GIMP.
I agree. Actually, the only reason I still use Windows is that I can't find good replacements for Photoshop and Flash. I believe Adobe knows that too (and maybe they deserve to earn money for this).
Things may change... I didn't think there will be an Office Suite that could replace Microsoft's solution and then came OpenOffice (and now LibreOffice). GIMP is not ready to do this to Photoshop. Not yet but it will :)
ozan yigit: it is unfortunate that a sizable portion of the professional photographers and the comic book industry digital ink and color still depend on this beast and feel the need to keep up with the upgrades as if the difference between (say) cs4 and cs5 made *all the difference* to their art and craft. as more and more processing moves to capable workflow software, where adobe has good competitors, including a good open-source solution, it is not surprising adobe is trying to eek out as many dollars as possible from its rapidly shrinking user base. i'm kind of surprised that adobe hasn't introduced a per-core license for creative suite yet.
Thank you. I will test it tomorrow.... and congratulations / thanks for helping with the development!
Which open-source solution?(Anything that is close to let's say CS2 is good enough for me).Thanks.
dbo: Sigma is a very good manufacturer of even high end lenses (such as the 85/1,4 or the 70/2,8 macro and the 150/2,8 macro), but they seemingly have a problem with their quality level and the quality control.
Before changing to my Zeiss 24-70 I tended to save half the money by using the EX 24-70 from Sigma. I swapped three times due to decentering problems, and even with the correct working lens I was annoyed with the AF capability in difficult environments. Nothing of those problems I had with the Zeiss right from the start.
The same light and shadow in the wide range of Tamron lenses seems to apply. With the aim to save 400 Bucks by using the Tamron 70-300 USD instead of the Sony G I agreed to myself to reduce the haptic expectations to the tamron, but after testing it a whole day I almost went mad with this unreliable AF pumping around and around in low light environments.This happened on my APSC as well as on my FF. So it seems that it's the lens not the camera.
yabokkie, Zeiss means (much) better quality not worse :)
Roland Karlsson: To me enthusiast lenses are lenses that enthusiasts buy, i.e. lenses with exceptional qualities or other extreme properties. To me a "roundup" is a rather complete summary of something. Neither of those objectives are met by this article IMHO.
Fun reading nevertheless.
Scott, I'm not saying the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is not good (actually I never saw one but I'm sure it is). I'm sure it's sharper than the 30mm f1.4 (at least the corners should be much sharper on APS-C since it's designed for full-frame). I am only saying that these 10 lenses are not the "most interesting" for enthusiasts. This is how I feel.
You are right about the stats not including the new lenses. Fred Miranda doesn't even include the 2 year old Tamron 60mm f2. I still feel that enthusiasts would see the Sigma 30mm in the top 10 list and most enthusiasts would go for the much cheaper Canon/Nikon 50mm f1.8 instead of the 50mm f1.4 and also most would stay away from the 18-270 which is not really enthusiast level.
I also don't think these are the the most popular enthusiast focal lengths but I can't really prove that. I see the "enthusiast" as somebody who doesn't use the 18-270 zoom (at least not anymore) and is not really interested in the 60mm macro.
Using the stats from pixel-peeper (I already mentioned Fred Miranda and Flickr! groups tell a different story) you can see that:-Tamron 90mm macro is the most popular Tamron prime and it's 100x more popular than Tamron 60mm macro (you might argue this one is intended more for full-frame but then...- Sigma 30mm f1.4 is the most popular Sigma prime (and a great one for enthusiasts as we have APS-C sensors).
Andy, I don't think anybody suggests "no enthusiast would ever buy any of these lenses". If this would be true, this would be the worst article ever written anywhere and this is not the case (fortunately). However this is definitely not the the "most interesting" third party lenses list. Not for enthusiasts, not for anybody. You can check all the stats you want and you will find other lenses.
I don't understand how they chose these lenses.
They didn't choose them by POPULARITY (at least not based on Fred Miranda views or number of members on Flickr! groups).
They didn't choose them by PRICE (an "enthusiast" could do very well with a 50mm f1.8 or at least with the still cheaper, smaller Nikon/Canon/whatever f1.4)
I also don't understand how they chose the focal lengths. One of the most popular zooms is the 28-70mm (24-70, 28-75) and they don't even mention it while they prefer 8-16mm instead.
So how did they choose them?
I think 24MP is just too much (today, APS-C sensor) for high ISO.
dmanthree: 18MP? High-res? Really? Canon better really pray that Nikon doesn't introduced the rumored D800 with over 30MP or it will eat their lunch. I find it hard to believe that Canon is pushing this cam as their high-res solution.
If the D800 will have 36MP then my prayers go to Nikon :)There is no way a 36MP camera can compete with an 18MP one at high ISO.Also, there is no way I could afford it next year :)
makofoto: " includes such essentials as hard drive storage"
It's not a Hard Drive, it's a SSD slot, ie. Solid State "Drive," attached to the side of the camera.
@ mpgxsvcd ... No, Canon made their announcement first, RED later in the evening. The RED site was overwhelmed and down, making it difficult for them to get their info out.
@QuarterToDoom You are right about one thing. Most viewers will never need a RED camera nor a 20.000$ Canon. Also most DSLR users will not drop their cameras and start using their phones to take pictures because dpreview says it can change your photography. However, I think it's a very good thing that we have the chance to read some news about major developments in areas that are related to photography (actually more than 'related').
Paul Farace: Dear Faintandfuzzy:Quit your complaining!!! Three year old design?? It is a hellava tool (wish I had one!) -- the Nikon F was top line for 13 years, the F2 for eight years, the F3 was in the line up for 15+ years!!! OK, film was a mature technology, but digital tech has somewhat leveled a bit, thank goodness. New releases every 12 months just drives sales and marketing, not better product development!
Poss, thanks for your input. I never had the chance to use a D700. I envy you for that :). My first camera had decent ISO400. The next one had decent ISO800. The one I use now, D90, has good ISO1600. I paid the same for all of them. While I understand that the D700 has great ISO3200, since I'm not a pro and I can't afford to change it again after 3 years for the great ISO6400, I am thinking of waiting for the new model (or maybe even getting a D7000 before I buy my first FX). This is, of course, my choice :).
To make a long story short, I was just trying to say that the sensors are getting better and better and a 6 year old sensor (the D700 in three years) will not be able to compete at higher ISO with a current model (while it may still be very good).
Of course if Nikon announces a 36MP camera I'll just get a (then cheaper) D700 and love it for a long a time :)
Best regards, Andrei :)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I respect the D700 a lot and I would love to have it. I am struggling with a D90. If you have enough light, the D90 does a good job and I assume the D700 is perfect.
If you don't have enough light and you can't use the flash (even bounced) you could get away with primes most of the time. But sometimes you can't and sometimes you don't have the prime you need (I won't buy primes for 200mm and 300mm and even if I had the money I don't think you could really use them during the first 5' of a concert).
Better ISO will change the way we take pictures and the lenses we use. With clean ISO 6400 you could use the 70-300 VR for concerts. It doesn't hunt, it's OK to use if you can afford to lose 2 stops compared to the 70-200.
And yes, all my ISO6400 (HI1, taken with the D90) pictures are garbage and most of the ISO3200 taken in very low light don't look too good. How are yours? :)
Today three years old may be too old.The Nikon cameras you mentioned don't even autofocus. I think today we need faster upgrades because the electronics are so much better every day. While the body is still very important it's the electronics that matter more.What would you prefer to use? A D1 or the 5 times cheaper D7000 announced 10 years later? Or maybe you would like to compare apples with apples and instead of the old DX you would get the D3s which was still announced at a lower price after a decade (or any other FX).I think people realized that every other upgrade allows a full ISO stop with less noise even with the megapixel race still going on, so while we understand that the earthquake and the flooding had a huge impact on those companies we... still want newer models.I wanted to get a D700 and I decided to wait because it's too old to use for another 3 years from now on (for low light photography at least).
Vadimka: Looks like the story title is a bit misleading...
MIRRORLESS is DOWN 1%, but its compared to GROWS of 314% last year!!!
SLR year to date up 9%, while Mirrorless is up 36% year to date.
So mirrorless is still up 36% in 2011 despite tremendous grows in 2010, and these numbers are not even including coming soon NEX7, Nikon CX, (plus oly PM1 and nex5n were not really available in Sep)
It's not misleading. The fact that there is a 1% drop is important because of the huge growth last year!When you compare 314% with 36% you realize that while they are still doing good, they are doing much worse than last year.
wetsleet: "thanks to the generous depth of field afforded by the 1-system's small sensor"
It really is too bad that even DPR perpetuates the myth that sensor size determines depth of field, when the truth is that it is determined by the focal length of the lens (for a given aperture).
True, the sensor size will in large measure determine the the focal length used, but nevertheless it remains true that it is the focal length (for a given aperture) and not the sensor size which determines DoF.
"how much depth-of-field there is, even 'wide open' on the 10-30mm and 10-100mm zooms. This is no surprise at all, and a natural consequence of the 1 system being built around such a comparatively small sensor."
Again, No! It is a natural consequence of using a 10mm lens.
It is similar to the error of equating perspective with focal length, rather than with subject to camera distance.
I think DPReview know very well the theory and what they said was extremely clear and true. The only thing that some people may not know is what is 'large' and 'small' DoF and if 'generous DoF' (which sounds good) is what they actually want. I guess most amateurs believe that a photo is 'professional' if it has a small DoF (but they don't know how to say that) and they are hoping to get that small DoF which they saw from their friends with big DSLRs.Maybe it would be a good idea to explain these strange things like DoF, 'fast' lenses, etc. They used to have a section for that.
@Barney Britton, DPReviewThe 'learn' links don't work (here is an example):http://www.dpreview.com/learn/key=depth_of_fieldYou can reach this link from this page:http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm
Later edit: I hope there are no more typos :)
IeraseU: I think the larger screen is a great feature. It's almost like a 'mini-tablet'. However, I do feel that the 5MP camera will be a little bit behind the times when compared to the competition, in particular the iPhone 4S.
This phone doesn't compete with the iPhone 4S (I would get it instead of an iPhone but actually this is a much cheaper model). It is mentioned here because it's the first phone to get the new Android 4 (which I believe will kill the iPhone).
GeorgeZ: Wow, since when does dpr report on cell phones? Especially the new super-high-end GN is a little disappointment camera-wise: only 5MP and no camera button. I know, 12MP isn't necessary (even if Nokia showed with the N8 it can be done well) but 5 is not a lot today. And the Galaxs S II has a very good 8MP sensor. And no real flash either....So photography-wise I'm not so thrilled, all the rest is tops, but should not be relevant on this page.
@GeorgeZ, @seta666Actually it is about photography. Maybe it's sad, maybe people should respect this art more but that's the way it is.This may sound unbelievable but the number 1 camera on Flickr, in front of Nikon D90 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II is a camera phone (sadly not a very good one, Apple iPhone 4). People are using phones to take (and share) pictures more than real cameras. I think this is a bad thing but it's a fact.BTW, if somebody is paying them it's surely Apple and they announce this just to hide that. But it may not be like that.