Marcus Beard: Lovely to see.
Some good, and some great images. Personally I think the B&W blue shark is stunning, and the gnat deservedly chosen for a fresh take on such a subject, and the gannets shot is simply beautiful and well executed. I personally find the no. 1 and 2 shots quite well executed but not that interesting. No. 4 is an interesting subject but a bit lacking in interest and technical execution.
But that's the beauty of photography - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Subjective as I say; for me the shark image from above IS great. Pure nature as art.
Lovely to see.
Oh no! I've been the optimist hanging in there for ages. I'm really disappointed. Having tens of thousands of photos beautifully managed, tagged, in Smart Albums etc for years. Seems to have been rather a waste of time. Very upset indeed and not impressed with Apple.
I need to think of a sensible strategy from here on. I knew it was risky relying on managed photo storage in a proprietary piece of software but still - annoying in the extreme.
I really like this article - can't understand all the hate. Would be much easier to create such an image with a tilt shift lens (using the shift then stitching undistorted panoramas). In fact it's inspired me to try
Fairly interesting but is a good demonstration of the subjective nature of the "art" in photography. I'd have deleted these shots had I taken them!
Pretentious nonsense. There are millions (literally I expect) of amateur photographers who take vastly more interesting pictures in my opinion. I'd have deleted some of these if I'd taken them.
Unlike many others I think there are some wonderful provocative images here. I do agree though that the themes are a little narrow. I'm a Brit and we had some pretty spectacular positive stuff going on here this year - anyone remember the Olympic Games or the Jubilee?
I use Hipstamatic more than any other camera app on my iPhone 4 due to the quality of the results. I find it hard to achieve a similar look by post processing normal Camera app pictures, plus there is still an element of fun in seeing what the image turns out like. The new multiple exposure feature is a lot of fun - but quite hard to get good results with (although this is probably due to my lack of skill).
I've no experience at all in using a TS lens but this intrigues me. I've often thought about the wonderful Canon TSE lenses but they are WAY out of my budget. If this gets good reviews and the price is right it could well be my next lens!
Light Pilgrim: I think these Zeiss lenses are not relevant anymore. They do not work properly with modern DSLRs and Manual Focusing is extremely complex on bodies like 5D MKIII as an example.
I think Canon will introduce 135 F/2 very soon and it will have AF...will be cheaper. The existing Canon lens is just stunning and is costs 50% of what Zeiss is asking for this lens.
I think Zeiss will need to change their business model very soon....of offer AF.
Have you tried to manually focus with a Zeiss lens? It is far from complex - turn (beautifully weighted) focus ring, job done. You can of course even use focus confirmation lights and beeps if you want to "check" that you've done it right. I use a manual focus 35mm all the time and love it
liquid stereo: How do people manual focus? I can't imagine doing it with the default finder/focusing-screen.
Manual focus is pretty easy - I have a Zeiss 35mm and manually focus comfortably at F/2. In fact it's my default walk around lens.
steve_hoge: Sad that this bugfix release requires you to dump a solid OSX install (10.6.8) and upgrade to a buggy new OSX release (10.7.4).
It's interesting that some people have this experience / view. It is the same whenever a "new" upgrade to OS comes out (I remember the ranting when 10.6 came out over 10.5, and 10.4 before it). Personally I've found 10.7.4 the most stable release and fastest in all I've tried.
Mr Fartleberry: That's right, no longer works with the popular Snow Leopard 10.6.8. I for one am not turning my photo desktop into a phone so I'm glad I abandoned Aperture and switched to Lightroom when 3 came out.
Now that the 30" is gone, the 17" laptop looks dead, along with the Mac Pro you have to wonder if Apple are still in the graphics business.
I'm not going back to running PS and pallets on a 15" laptop screen no matter how many magnifying glasses you're going to need to see your work.
Have you actually tried Lion? I've used Leopard, Snow Leopard and Lion on an iMac and MacBook Pro and find Lion the most stable and fastest of these. Yes - I'm not a fan of Launchpad - so I don't use it.
Marcus Beard: To my eyes (and the varying opinions below show that this is apparently quite subjective!)(1) the jpeg engine in the MkIII is amazing. There is a vast difference at high ISO - 12800 and above. However, to most people shooting cameras of this price, this must be of relatively little interest as they'll shoot RAW
(2) in RAW it is less clear. The resolution advantages of the D800 are clear at lower ISOs. As ISO increases the MkIII perhaps has half a stop or so of noise advantage per pixel compared to the D800?
(3) I own a 5D MKII and find it interesting that there is about a one stop (to my eyes) improvement of the MkIII over the MkII at high ISO in RAW. No more.
This suggests that, as ever, the RAW converters for these cameras will be very important in delivering the best from the sensors.
Yes I saw that, and can conclude only that it's interesting how opinions are varying so much. I suppose some of it is subjective, and some depends on how you've used the camera, conditions etc. I'm not in the market for a new camera - simply interested in all these developments.
To my eyes (and the varying opinions below show that this is apparently quite subjective!)(1) the jpeg engine in the MkIII is amazing. There is a vast difference at high ISO - 12800 and above. However, to most people shooting cameras of this price, this must be of relatively little interest as they'll shoot RAW
thx1138: This will be the successor to the 1Ds III and will much dearer than 1D X. It won't have the same capabilities and features of C300 and very few would buy the new cine lenses, sticking to existing EF lenses. I'm guessing $9-10K.
Ok Canon you've announced products ranging in price from the sublime to the ridiculous. How about looking at the end of the market for those that don't earn a few hundred million a year. 5D III, 3D, 7D II per chance. Hello is there anybody listening.
Just because they've announced lots of videography stuff doesn't mean (hopefully) that the 5D MkIII etc are never going to come out.
evogt500: what are we going to watch 4K videos on? Current HDTV is only equivalent to about 2K.
I presume as well as cinema 4K projector at sensible prices are only just round the corner. Everyone bought 1080p tellies before there was anything to play on them
dgc4rter: I'm sure this is good news for many but I'm a photographer, not a cinematographer. Video has never held any attraction for me and I can't see that it ever will. There are many with the same feeling too and it feels like we're being dumped on the wayside at the moment with so much attention to video technology and hardly any in the development of high MP, high ISO sensor technology for still photography.
The best thing Nikon could do now would be to announce that 36 MP dedicated SLR with better low-light, high ISO performance than the D3s. That's what would get my vote and my money.
I agree that many share your view, but let's assume here for a moment that Canon knows what it is doing in terms of a business strategy. Amateur film maklng is massive now - you only have to check Vimeo. It makes total sense to me that they want to dominate that market (like they already do with the 5d MkII) and push it into pro territory too. I thought I wouldn't be into video either but am loving it on my 5D MkII with a decent lens (Zeiss 35mm is my favourite).
If you don't like it - go to Nikon.