VadymA: I just don't get it. I always thought the main reason people switch to Apple is for such crative and user friendly tools like iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie, FinalCut, etc. But now they are ditching everything what made Apple such a success. How are they going to differentiate themselves if not for those applications? Personally, I don't see any reason to upgrade to another iMac now. If I owned Apple stock, I would sell it now. I haven't seen anything over the last three years from Apple to boost my confidence in their furture. I think it is going to be a repeat of Apple's collapse just like when Steve left it first time in the 90th.
Anybody who thinks that has their head stuck in the late 90's & early 00's when that may have been true. You probably could have made the switch to Windows at anytime in the last several years & been just as well off. Apple's stock, however, will be just fine without Aperture, I'm sure. They've been differentiating themselves with their music business, their tablet & phone business, their app business, and all the money they make off of the licensing that allows other companies to use all of the above.
Timbukto: What is happening is that the Apple platform has *long* shifted from a platform of mostly creative developers, to a platform of mostly brain-dead consumerism. Most of the money is now from consumers of images, movies, music, and apps, and not necessarily the development of them (although in that case it would be plain to see that its by far the apps and content providers that profit share here). But independent developers of content? Not much $$ there and an infinitesimally small piece of the pie Apple currently has compared to the bread-dead consumerism market.
Everyone over-inflates how much the 'creative community' supported Apple during their non-Steve Jobs days. Apple diversified their offerings too much in the early to late 90's, and they nearly imploded because of it. It took them nearly a decade to return to profitability, and it wasn't because of their support of creatives. It's because they had a dumb business strategy, and it took them a really long time to right their ship.
DotCom Editor: Here's the question no reporter has yet asked, so I will: What incentive did Adobe offer to Apple to get Aperture killed off?
Probably none. Apple probably did what they usually did: Math. Install base x competitive price ≠ Cost of separate development. (Yes, I am largely implying that the install base for Aperture is a lot smaller than what people think it is.)
They did the same thing when they killed off their Xserve division.
You may be shocked to know that computing, in general, has been rapidly trending towards consumerism since the early 1980's when the term 'personal computer' was coined. We're just seeing the tail end of that, at this point. If you're going to call out Apple for enabling 'brain-dead consumerism', don't forget to give Microsoft, Google, every mobile phone company, every wireless carrier, every ISP, and every manufacturer on the planet that has anything to do with modern computing, equal amounts of blame.
jaykumarr: Dpreview, There should be a measure at 500mm. After 400mm jumping 200 mm to 600 does not cut it.
My opinion is, for the price this lens is very good. But 600mm is mere feel good, since at 600mm it just provides 10%-15% more resolution than a 400mm prime. (even comparing with this lens itself, it will bring about 20-25% more detail only zooming from 400 -> 600)
The canon 200-400mm resolves 15% more throughout the range, but too pricey.
So, your complaint is it's not as good as a 400mm prime that would cost about as much - if not significantly more - than this lens? And, at 600mm, it's just not as good if you took a crop from said expensive 400mm lens? A $10,000 zoom lens out resolves a $1,000 lens?
Absolutely shocking. Do tell us more.
Nikon expects about $200 more for effectively the same thing, and Canon wants nearly $2,000 more. What's your point?
eastwestphoto: Unfortunately After market lens makers like Tamron banked all there sales on DSLR kings Nikon & Canon. When the Mirrorless cameras of m4/3 rds arrived in 2009 the lenses did NOT! Its been that way for years, Sigma, Tamron, etc. third party m4/3 rds and Sony e-mount FF series lenses are far and few between. maybe they didn't realize Mirrorless DSLM cameras were so terrific; whatever there EXCUSE is, there still FIVE years behind the sales curves. maybe they didn't WANT to pay the licensing fees? Never the less the marketplace is huge for Aftermarket in m4/3 rd's & Sony FE series, so its about time; well i been saying and posting this for five years! Even at the Javis center trade show of latest and greatest in NYC once a year, I told tamron, & Sigma too wake up! All I got was Blank stares from the sales Reps. Maybe its NOT a free marketplace and the KINGS are controlling optical capitalism? Don@Eastwestphoto
Sigma & Tamron probably gave you blank stares for a number of reasons:
• They both design lenses that are branded by Oly & Panny. They don't necessarily have to produce their own branded lenses to survive/thrive.• Sony, Oly, and Panny, all have proprietary technologies that they absolutely refuse to share. Sigma has mentioned this in more than one recent interview, especially re: Sony, and Panasonic mentioned this outright re: Their new DFD AF tech.• Getting large camera & software companies to build lens profiles for Tamron & Sigma has been an uphill battle. Nothing makes a competitor look trigger-shy than ensuring their lenses consistently look like garbage when attached to your cameras.
Good luck with your conspiracy theories & lack of facts, though. I hear they pair well with a fashionable tin foil hat.
chiane: Fuji needs to stop crying wolf with the words, 'fast AF'.
I'm sure they will... just as soon as Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax, all do the same. Because, y'know, marketing.
jonikon: Richard,You missed the Nikkor 18.5mm f1.8 in your list of enthusiast lenses. It's hard to take your opinions seriously Richard, when you don't even bother to vet your research before you go about bashing a camera system you don't use and know so little about. You are missing something else Richard: Journalist objectivity.
You are missing something, as well, and it was likely the part at the top of the page where it says "Articles > Opinions".
Objectivity was never the point.
Mystery Gardener: 'Canon and Nikon executives both mentioned that their professional users are increasingly focused on video, and as such they're very aware that they’ll have to react to that need when planning the next generation of high-end cameras.'
Obviously Canikon and the others would like to sell you 4k video or at least the idea of 4k video. Not dissing 4k video or video in general but I seldom see anybody actually shooting video with their prosumer cameras. Even less do I hear someone who is actually shooting video with their prosumer cam wishing aloud it was 4k video :-)
I know plenty of local professionals who shoot video with their DSLRs. I went to an AV convention in Las Vegas last June, and the company hired to do all of the video recording for the forums & meetings used nothing but 5D's and 7D's. Certain angle shots in Showtime's 'Dexter' were captured on Nikon DSLRs.
Rank amateurs & prosumers may never use the video functions on a DSLR, but pros do all the time.
I don't have much to add, but here's what I agree with:-Few people upgrade as often as camera manufacturers think they do.-Most ILC owners only have a few lenses, and they're not likely to buy more over time.-We've reached the age of 'good enough' photography where sales have plateaued & most consumers have the camera they'll need for the next several years, even if it's only their smartphone. New equipment is purchased only when old equipment is retired.-Iterative camera releases are mostly in vain, and hardly anyone in the industry is being innovative.-Compacts are a mostly dead market.-Mirrorless cameras should be having more penetration, but, as mentioned above, they won't really take off until DSLR users retire their old equipment & realize the advantages of mirrorless (though I still feel mirrorless has a little ways to go before the category as a whole is a suitable replacement for DSLRs).-Pros will buy the equipment they need, but they're the exception, not the norm.
I'm sure I don't speak for the average American consumer, but having owned m4/3 cameras & lenses before trading it all in for a DSLR, I can say there's more to it than 'the camera looks the part'. With the exception of m4/3, few mirrorless systems have a lens catalog on par with most DSLR cameras. This is to be expected with the age of most mirrorless systems, but it does give one pause before investing. The main advantage I saw in mirrorless was compactness, but that gets thrown out the instant most zoom or telephoto lenses come into play, or in the case of some of the particularly large, bulky camera models that have been released lately. There's also the value proposition. For example, I see more value & versatility in a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens for a full-frame or an APS-C DSLR than most available mirrorless equivalents. I also don't see value in most mirrorless cameras with similar asking prices of DSLR's that don't deliver at least the same image quality. There, a logical answer.
G3User: What a joke, all these cameras with no view finders. You may as well be holding up a cell phone with your head tilted way back and barley seeing the screen in bright sunlight. This is pathetic. This is the continued dumbing down of photography.
Let me know the last time you were able to see through a OVF tilted in any direction except for directly parallel to your face & still have any idea of what you were shooting.
Your rambling makes no sense.
whyamihere: Dear Nikon,
Maybe next year's model can feature such novel updates as, "Has an ISO button."
Just a thought.
Dyun27 & Arrr: Considering every other entry-level DSLR from Canon, Pentax, and Sony, has an ISO button (usually dedicated, easily found with your eye to the viewfinder, and not elsewhere on some odd corner of the camera combined with some other random function), I don't see why I'd have to pay nearly twice as much for a better body just to gain a common camera function. There's nothing 'advanced' about an ISO button.
whyamihere: Dear Olympus,
Remind me again: Why am I paying $1400 for the image performance of a 3+ year old APS-C camera? ('Portability' isn't really an excuse. Don't forget, you are in a joint venture with Sony, a purveyor of tiny APS-C M-ILC cameras.)
Everyone Confused By Your Price Tag (which should be just about everyone)
Macx: I guess? That might be a sale if you're heavily invested in older 4/3 gear. Otherwise, no.Chris96326: I'm just pointing out that Oly is late to the party in terms of image quality. Sony does have some laughably bad lenses. (And I've owned both, too. It's like we're connected... maybe we're twins :D )Mpgxsvcd: Nobody knows why Canon kept the same 18mp sensor for 4 years, aside from Canon. Also: Proof? (And don't give me any of that DxOMark BS.)Boissez: First, NEX 6 has phase detection, last I checked. Which means the rationale is: Weather sealing + mag alloy body = $500+ more? Uh, no.Photomonkey: ...You sure about that? Aside from Canon and maybe Pentax, maybe, everyone else has moved on to better sensors. See above about my feelings on 'better build quality' for what is ultimately still a big, bulky MFT camera that negates all of the advantages of the MFT system. Also, try pretending for a second that I might actually have some experience in photography.
PhotoPoet: Using a Sony RX 100, Nikon D7000 and of course iPhone5. I think I will pass. I am even with all the reading I am doing still confused as to "why" I want to switch. For me the D7000 (any DSLR) is speed. I will have to read a bit more to see if these four thirds cameras perform in such as way as to dump my D7000. Any one that is a user of this equipment, not just a "mine is bigger so its better" shooter, feel free to provide insight
Kimchiflower: You sure about that?
I used to own a GX1 (same sensor as G3) and a couple of primes and zooms (some of the same lenses you are using), and I just bought a Nikon D7000 and a couple of primes. There's plenty of difference, even if you're not pixel peeping.
Perhaps you're not using your camera or photo editing software correctly. Either that or you're exhibiting what psychologists call 'compensation bias' in order to justify your purchasing decision.
Either way, at least at an empirical level, I'd disagree with what you said with the exception of the point about portability. Mind you, I'm using the same bag as I was with my MFT gear for my Nikon DSLR with plenty of room to spare.
As an artist of different mediums:
If you see no artistic value in these images, then you are not truly an artist.
If you consider yourself an artist but still feel they have no value, then I suggest broadening your narrow-minded definition of art to include just about anything and everything, including these photos.
If you have taken photos like these and deleted them, then they were simply not appealing to you. Artistic expression is an extension of emotion. Always has been, always will be. You can't hate on someone for finding an emotional quality that resonates with them in these photos.
If you see these photos and don't like them but are still willing to call them pieces of art, that is understandable. I see art all the time that I don't like or don't understand, but I never tell someone that it's not art.
Grumble all you like about how how someone may have achieved popularity with these photos. Popularity is usually not the goal of most artists. Expression is.
Central Fla: Does this take into account that the lenses are heavier than most and each time they are rented they have to be shipped through the dreaded 3. I cringe having to ship my stuff once let alone a hundred times and that does not even take into consideration the "rental car" mentality of the customers. The big 3 shippers in the U.S. are terrible, and the fact that a heavy lens last 100 weeks is a testimant to their build.
If you read the last third of this article, you would know that they already considered weight as a possible factor. The significantly heavier telephoto primes aren't repaired nearly as often.
I've rented from Lens Rentals, and their packaging is well padded enough that even the worst US shipper would have to go out of their way to damage the contents.