AbrasiveReducer: Took them longer than Adobe, but then I don't pay Apple $20 a month.
Point taken. These endless operating system upgrades and their tendency to make your existing software obsolete are a money grab, just like an Adobe subscription.
Another similarity is that new operating systems rarely add genuinely useful features. But then, these things are about Adobe's welfare and Apple's welfare; they're not something customers are asking for.
Tried it over the weekend. Conclusion: Adobe should be thankful there is no PC version. Will it hurt Photoshop? In the worst case, some angry $10/month users will drop off, but the folks who can't wait to buy everything Adobe produces will continue to do so. Microsoft's dominance proves that building a better mousetrap or giving more value for money will not make people change to something better.
The video is very impressive. The person working with the software moves really fast!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kjell Lagerberg: My camera is affected with both the flair and shutter problems according to Nikon. I have not seen any of these. I did send it for repair in the first place and got it back after two weeks. Now when they ask me to send it back again, i got really angry. What about QC? Is this what to expect fr.o.m. 2000 dollar camera?The problem is that this is a fantastic imaging tool, and I have not seen the problems. But at every service there is a risk for implementing new potential problems.In my opinion Nikon ought to replace the affected cameras to keep the brand where it should be. Of course to expensive for Nikon.
I have given myself a second thought and despite the above, I appreciate Nikons service advisory, as it came prior to discussions on the web. In my opinion this is a sign for that Nikon really tries to get control over the QC process. I hope they will be successful as their cameras are top class when whitout flaws.
The tit-for-tat nonsense ("brand X has the same problem") is not relevant, but realistically, if you're going to buy a complex digital camera, chances are pretty good that somebody will find some situation where something can go wrong.
These are not failures of quality control but failures to magically predict a set of circumstances. What is knowable in advance, and people pay little attention to, is how the manufacturer deals with the problem. If your $3000 camera is malfunctioning and the manufacturer says "what problem?" all the dynamic range in the world is no use.
It seems Nikon has learned the hard way, but they've learned. The D600 was probably a blessing in disguise for all concerned.
Not that they have a choice but its nice to see Nikon getting out in front of this.
I don't care who voted for what but I'd like to know which European countries allow you to stand outdoors, include a building in a photo, make a small amount of money from the image and not be in legal jeopardy? Wikipedia has a map but a list would be better.
Took them longer than Adobe, but then I don't pay Apple $20 a month.
Barry Goyette: I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.
But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?
It may be that extended dynamic range results in a smoky HDR look but even if it doesn't, many scenes that include the light source in the picture greatly exceed what any digital camera can do, at least in a single exposure.
In theory, it would be great to have full detail from inisde a room with the blinds closed to the center of the sun, outside the window. Or a night scene with a row of floodlights where you can see the filaments in the bulbs. But even if it was possible, it wouldn't look natural. Like Ansel Adam's demonstrations with Pyrogallol. Interesting, but not realistic looking.
lawny13: I mostly do photo editing and simply use LR. I sometimes dive into PS but I do not by any means take full advantage of what the software can do.
At $108 a year or here in the EU €147 ($169 a year) I am certainly not going to switch to the adobe CC band wagon.
There is a reason why companies DO NOT upgrade their CAD software (or any software) every time there is a version/revision release. The added features do not justify the cost to benefit. They always wait for when the incentive is big enough. I have a feeling that for a lot of people this holds true for adobe products as well. I had upgraded from CS3 to CS6 because I couldn't be bothered with CS4 and CS5.
Adobe is simply taking advantage of their leading position. As for updates for CS6... no need. I am fine with the way it is running now. I hope affinity progresses so it is an option in a year or 2 when I would consider an upgrade. Rent software? Haha... those who want to get locked into the product further go ahead.
Before this cloud business, Adobe sent surveys and for the question "How often do you upgrade?" one of the possible answers was "Every other version."
Now, what does this tell us? It tells us consumers didn't see enough value in Adobe's "innovations" to automatically buy new versions just because they were new versions.
I'm sure there were meetings at Adobe where they looked at upcoming "innovations" and somebody said "That's it? Really?"
And that's how Creative Cloud was born.
A generous helping of the obvious, from the scientists at DxO. There is no reason why anyone using Nikon or Sony would consider switching based on these "revelations" and who else is in the market for a 50mp FF camera?
Thom Hogan has a thoughtful piece today on how he always wants the best but darned if lots of great photos have been taken with cameras that aren't, at that exact moment, the best.
Ok, so DxO has told us what we already know. Will this public shaming cause Canon to produce a better camera? If they were in Sony's position--a distant third, maybe.
CameraLabTester: This is seriously a serial problem.
Panasonic must catch this serial killer...
I'm waiting for someone to explain that these rub-off serial numbers are in fact a cutting edge high tech improvement over those old engraved numbers. Nothing whatsoever to do with making stuff cheaply.
zodiacfml: Because the launch price was not in touch with the current market. The current change puts it similarly to an a6000, but that comes with an EVF, better AF, and better video. Still, it seems that the a6000 is a better buy.
A modest launch price should put it at $100 more than the GR.
Previously, I suggested a 24MP Sony sensor for the GR2. Yet, I realized it doesn't add value, only to improved the 35mm crop mode feature and will make the camera a bit slower due to the larger files. High ISO improvement is not practically huge.
The GR is a compact camera with a a fixed focal length wide angle, thereby being smaller and sharper than a zoom. I don't know what a imaging hardware platform is, but 16mp with a really sharp lens is plenty and the Ricoh screen and interface have always been very good.
snappur: Panasonic Manufacturing needs to rediscover the fine lost art of ENGRAVING.
Engraving costs money. Manufacturing in Japan costs money. Machining metal instead of molding plastic...you get the idea.
Its not all bad. Say you pick up a gray market camera and they don't want to honor the warranty. Just give the s/n a "cleaning" and you're good to go.
I remember when cameras, even the cheap ones, had engraved serial numbers. And then they filled in the engraving with paint so you could read the number.
Just wild speculation but maybe the fact that the Coolpix A hung around for months at $300, might have influenced their decision.
justmeMN: [Insert random anti-Canon diatribe here.]
The funny thing is that all of what zorgon says is true--but everybody already knows these things. Even if you had never seen the camera, even a picture of it, you would already know that (a) the files are huge, (b) Nikon/Sony has more dynamic range, (c) people who like the Sony really like the Sony, (d) the D810 has more dynamic range (see item "b"), DxO will run some essentially meaningless test that will score the Canon way below the D810.
All of this is already known. None of it is news. But there's more. People who own Canon lenses will buy Canon cameras. People who own Nikon will buy Nikon and put up with the company because they are loyal fans. People who own the Sony will say it's a breakthrough until Sony replaces it in a year.
Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.
Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.
Deliverator: Vanitas and nixda, you are replying to every single post expressing concern over these new laws, saying there is nothing to worry about.
Asking for permission, while a gigantic hassle in a scene with multiple copyrighted objects, is not necessarily an unacceptable burden. It's the fees that would need to be paid to the owners of these trademarks or copyrights.
It's reasonable to ask a movie studio to pay huge sums to make a film in a private lobby (and what isn't private these days?) But for an average photographer who already makes a meager living, to pay a fee because somebody's copyrighted object appears in the background of a photo taken in a public place is not workable.
Mathias Japri: came here for the comments, but it still empty....
I think it needs more resolution. Especially for portraits.