I do not get it. Are newer software versions not supposed to be better than the old ones? NX-I seems to be a scaled down version of NX2 or even NX. Capture NX-D is a shrunk version of Capture NX2.
At the same time Apple takes its time to release "Photos" which will be an "Aperture for Dummies" product.
What is going on here?
Ok, I realise that it is costly to adapt software to new platforms and APIs, but should there not be at least some advantages with the new software?
Niala2: Zeiss Macro 50mm f2 is systematically forgotten on the web..(makes me crazy lol. Same with the Sigma 70 makro)I don't care about the macro. If You can accept its absence of AF,and will use f2 until f11 really full-frame without missing wider aperture,then this lens is the only one (next to Otus and indeed the Art 50) worth mentioning. (Alll the other 50mm are a shame -except Leitz and the Sony's 7's 50 - including the TS-E 45, canon 50mm f 1.2, ...)
I'm also surprised that the Zeiss 50mm f2 is mentioned so rarely. It is the lens I use most. But "the only one (next to Otus and indeed the Art 50) worth mentioning"... Without sources, I take that as just your own opinion. And do you limit the statement to Canon? And only 50mm?
Good try. However, how would it judge JPEGs generated from RAW files, where the RAW files have changed white balance or other things? The end result depends on which RAW converter you use. If they can solve that, then it will be a very useful service indeed.
And what about importing RAW files on your iPad and using this app to transfer them to your Desktop via the cloud?
neo_nights: One more thing: did anyone actually read the WHOLE study?
Anyone who has done an academic research knows how frustrating/infuriating it is to spend months/years reading, reasearching and such, write pages and more pages about something and then the press just publish a couple of lines about it, about its conclusion, and then everyone starts b*tching about it.
Be careful with pre-judgements, people.
If the authors had released the entire study for free, I would have read it. However, to pay $35.00 to read an article of possibly dubious quality - nope.
I'm afraid that they just have to live with being misquoted, if only quotes are available to the general public for free.
None of the above. Manual mode and control of aperture, ISO and shutterspeed. That and nothing else.
There are loads of people with impressive skills in different areas, who are unable to make money from their skills. Your dentist may be an excellent violinist. Your bus driver a wonderful painter. Your bank clerk a magnificent poet. It is just that they are not quite good enough to make a decent living from it. That is tragic but that is life.
My deepest respect to the skills of the laid off photographers, but time seems to have caught up with their jobs.
I assume you have to have tried all of them for a few days to qualify to vote?