Puddleglum: First of all, I am really bummed about this. I just tried Lightroom and don't like it at all. I have been a really happy Aperture user. But what really bugs me is how this is being handled by Apple.
This is a program sold on it's strengths of library management tools and non-destructive RAW edits. So anyone using the program in the way it was designed to be used has a big, organized library full of non-destructive (read: unsaved) edits. What organization features will be lost (if any) when moving to the new Photos app? What about the edits? Today iPhoto understands Aperture edits - will this be the case for the new app? Will the new app expose these controls in some way, even if only through plug-ins or additional apps? I believe Apple owes it's users at least some clarity about the situation. Releasing this information through news sites without any details is not a good way to treat customers.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The following features have little to no value in software that is end-of-lifed:
1. Organization / cataloging. There is no point in putting effort into creating orgainzational information that can only be usefully read for another few years. 2. Non-destructive RAW edits. There is no point in non-destructive, non-duplicated edits if the program that understands them can only be run for another few years. Might as well just duplicate and have hard copies of your edits.
Maybe the way Apple migrates to the new Photos app will alleviate some of these concerns, but I repeat my main issue: the way this was communicated with insufficient detail, and insufficient respect for their users with tens or hundreds of thousands of organized and edited images.
Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.
I certainly had my concerns but all the same, Apple owes it users more than a no-details blurb given to some tech sites. I mean for crying out loud they are still selling it in the App Store.
First of all, I am really bummed about this. I just tried Lightroom and don't like it at all. I have been a really happy Aperture user. But what really bugs me is how this is being handled by Apple.
nrantoul: Man, this really sucks. I've got several years worth of work on Aperture, 4 separate libraries and an heavily invested in Aperture and its wonderful controls. Thanks, Apple.
Yeah, it stinks. I have only 1 year invested in Aperture. I am just now finally starting to feel like I can really make a photo sign in a short amount of time. I just downloaded the Lightroom trial and didn't like it at all. Much prefer the way Aperture handles local adjustments (Brush/Mask any adjustment!) Ugh.
Boky: DaveE1 and dpmaxwell
The camera brand means nothing to me.
I want from Sony a P&S, pocketable camera that will make nice, vibrant photos with sense of perspective. The RX100III is far from meeting any of these requirements. Accepting this low standards as something out of this world, shoots a clear message to Sony that they do not have to invest in further improvement for a year or 2. This is not helping anyone. If you like the RX100III size, feel, menu structure, usability and blend, dull, blueish photographs - I do not.
And I found the right place to express my revolt. I also want to benefit form this nonsense publicity and dPreviews' once-a day / month-long review.
"dull, blueish photographs"
... respectfully, you just described every digital camera ever.
I like the ideas of having a little snippet of conversation / background about the person, it's a neat project. But honestly I was not blown away by the photos themselves. I couldn't help but compare them to a Flickr stream I recently stumbled across, if you like street portraits check this guy's work out:
(I am not the owner of that stream, nor do I know them)
Puddleglum: I didn't know of this concept of a clear pixel. Could, in principle, a sensor be constructed entirely of these, which would produce only black and white images, but offer outstanding SNR even at high ISOs?
Edit: I just saw that Leica has made a camera with such a sensor. Interesting.
I wasn't joking, I really didn't know that there was such a product as a true B/W digital camera.
I didn't know of this concept of a clear pixel. Could, in principle, a sensor be constructed entirely of these, which would produce only black and white images, but offer outstanding SNR even at high ISOs?
I am such a sucker for the retro look. This this is beautiful.
Please no more megapixels. Bigger files with no real world value.
Nicely done Fuji.
Cranky old photographer wants the kids off his lawn. News at 11.
Choose your own angry photographer comment! So many ways to play!
a) This app is a toyb) Social media is ruining photographyc) Get off my lawnd) Camera phones are ruining photographye) This app can't make artf) Composite images are not photographyg) I hate fun and happiness
Welcome to 2009 DPreview! :-)
It's neither a camera phone nor a phone camera, because IT DOESN'T MAKE PHONE CALLS. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Forget all the half-baked upload and sharing features. Just make wireless transfer to smartphones easy, and toss in GPS tagging over Bluetooth from a smartphone, and you've got a winner.