meanwhile: You only have to look around the Photos package a bit to realise this is just the beginning. It's not a replacement for Aperture, but they never said it was.
Agree in part
Apple have stated that this is the first draft of a new interconnected (OS X - iOS - iCloud) framework for images within the Apple universe - they expect third parties to add to their environment and have been open with the structure and dev tools - and that is likely to include the development of a proper managed library/DAM to eventually replace Aperture - so no crisis for now but....
they have also stated that this IS the replacement for Aperture. Photos is no replacement for the robust DAM type tool that Aperture is - that IS a problem
that Apple can already do keyword searches across logical structures means that the parts to create the extended Aperture function within OS X exist - I just need them combined into a slick and functional shell to replicate my Aperture requirements
I will wait - but apple MUST make sure that OS X updates do not overtake the availability of functions
Image quality comparable to other still camera at same ISO, worse at lower ISOs, only exceptional by availability of previously unattainable ISOs - still a gold award
I've never been a big worrier about dpr award colours but there is a rather obvious discrepancy here - are we to see other average cameras with niche features also getting golds?
oh - the video - I'm sure it is impressive - but it is video - not stillsj
The Squire: It feels like I'm trolling Canon today but...
Seriously, when is Canon going to offer decent video in their pro/enthusiast bodies?
1080/30p? Is that it?
No high speed, no high bi-trate HD (whatever 'standard' compression is), let alone 4K.
With this raft of announcements it's like Canon have said, sorry we're not doing video....
(Yes *I am* calling these Rebels 'under featured'!)
Every new camera sees the same bleatI want what they've got (pro's in same brand, other brands, other technologies)I want it nowI want it for free (or peanuts, or cheaper)
If you need 4K, buy it now.If you want 4K but can't afford it - save up and wait - savour the day you get and make sure you really know what you're buying
There are no other states - wanting it but not being willing to pay for it is childish fantasy and doesn't count in an adult conversation
Enthusiastic videographers either need the tool or want it.Want it - buy it - its availableWanting it but bleating that its too expensive isn't wanting it - its just pretending
as a manufacturer of 'proper' video kit that is a pretty rational position.
james_the_first: What is the value of this piece? She wasted her time writing it (though no doubt was flattered to have been asked) and I certainly wasted my time reading it.
So a top-line sports pro well served by the top of the line camera designed for sports pros is less well served by something not designed for a top-line sports pro doing pro sport. I'm astonished (I'm also British and that's sarcasm)
I guess it says something about the camera that her main/only gripes were the lack of the very features that distinguish the 1DX - sounds like it is perfect for everyone other than top-line pros at American football
So who is responsible for the waves of negativity flowing out of this articles that says so little and wasted my time
Well she's a photog, not a writer so she gets a pass - that the piece points out and emphasises inevitable deficiencies of a camera not suited to her work, and then repeats them MANY TIMES was her fault - but like all non-pro writers repetition when you've nothing more substantial to say is common.
No the fault here is with DPR for either editing this poorly, or not editing it at all. This was on a par with a forum post of this type and I don't read those because they are usually as badly aimed and written as this
What is the value of this piece? She wasted her time writing it (though no doubt was flattered to have been asked) and I certainly wasted my time reading it.
The sky is blue
the fruit looks like you'd want to eat it
Canon should do something better - different - special
I want purple skys, unrealistic representation and random unintended effects changing my pictures - not this accurate hyper-real megapixel stuff - everybody's got cameras that do that and this is just another one
just smaller, lighter and more convenient for holidays - pah who needs that?!
Spitze: I don't understand the negative comments either. Please critique image #0101 for me and teach me where the IQ is lacking. I'm an older gentleman and my eyes may not see what you are seeing. Please compare apples to apples as this is, after all, an APS-C sensor camera.
I'm traveling to Europe in about five weeks and would like to know what you would recommend in its place. I have been using full size Canon DSLRs. I was hoping this would be available before my trip since I'm comfortable with the Canon OS and would like to travel with a lighter kit.
Spitze, don't listen
I'm not sure what pinxit's agenda is but other than the occasional CA (and its not terrible by even modern standards) these are better than fine - all the texture you'd expect to be there is and for OOC work the few examples I looked at (including 0101) don't look 'overprocessed'
there is a trend amongst commentators to expect every new camera to be better than everything previously, regardless of market, intended functionality or price.
No these are not better than a Nikon D800 but are comparable with even recent cameras of comparable sensor type in the 16-20 MPix range. If the size is right and the price is right there isn't much to choose between a whole raft of sensors and output - its all about the getting of the image these days - if high speed and weather proof is important - don't buy an entry level cam. If price, size, weight and value for money are - then do