clicstudio: I am tired of people complaining about having to pay just about 10 bucks a month for Photoshop CC.Just a few years ago, Photoshop alone cost about $700. At 10 bucks, that's 70 months or 5.8 years of usage. Most software is obsolete within a year or two. So having the latest version updated frequently is a great thing.If you are professional, then you need to use the best professional tool available out there.I've been using it for 21 years, and I still learn something new about it every day.As a full time professional photographer, this is my bread and butter and I can live without it.So, stop complaining and start creating.
If you never bought the full version good for you, then the subscription model may not be as bad of a deal. For those of us who did and invested the $700 for Adobe to pull the carpet out from under us and take away our discounted upgrades and we get to pay the same amount as someone who never paid full price, not so good a deal, so yeah we are bitter.
Peter Del: CS6 costs £650, if one keeps it for ten years it costs £650. If one rents it at £9/month for ten years that's £1080. I would sooner have the £430 in my pocket rather than theirs!However, I'm still using Elements 3!!!
Adobe use to upgrade about every 18 months, upgrade cost $189, I would skip every other upgrade, the old Adobe mode cost me less than $75 a year and I owned it, the new model costs $120 per year and I lose it if I discontinue.
Photoshop has been dead to me since they changed to a subscription model.
Michael S.: What a nonsense putting 50MP on an 36x24mm sensor. There is no Canon lens that is capable to resolve those tiny pixels.
It is the same pixel density as the Canon 7DII
Is it hand holdable or will I need a tri-pod?
I predict Black Friday 2015 pricing of $59.00
Mike FL: The price is the same but "The Sony mount does not include the VC image stabilization functionality".
I would also think that the production volume demand might also negate the price difference.
MarioV: A rather ordinary effort by Tamron.
I really wanted to like this lens, but the image quality is "ok" only if viewed at normal screen size (maximum pixel density) or reduced size.
Nothing compelling enough to make me want to upgrade from the Sigma 18-250 macro.
Glad to hear Sigma's quality control is improving, I have had more issues with Sigma lenses and no Issues with Tamron. Yes this Tamron does have more CA than I would like, but I'll tale the extra 2mm at the wide end.
photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.
Tom, I just picked up this lens, It is actually quite sharp with good contrast for a consumer lens. It's only real weakness is CA, which is to be expected with this amount of zoom range and can be removed easily these days.
ozturert: She thinks 7D's shutter is loud, but 1Dx's is not? She thinks 7D's high ISO performance is not good enough, how big does she print them? She thinks 7D's AF was slow and cluncky, has she used other APSC sensor bodies? 7D's AF unit was the best and is still one of the best in APSC bodies (bested by MarkII now), though slow and less precise compared to 1D bodies.She needs to tell her reference point when she says "bad", "slow" or "noisy".She is a very young pro, I need to wait for others who have been in this sector longer and used 10s of bodies.
@jennyrae I do not believe there has been any sensor revolution, only noise engine processing improvements. Of course this is important because of time savings, but I believe one could use good noise reduction software on a original 7D raw image and get extremely close to the same results of a 7D II. That goes for any other APS C size sensor. I believe Sony still has a leg up on Canon when it comes to their noise processing engine,
mikesco: I've got to say, I think the ISO improvement reported on are over rated. I think all they have done is improve their noise reduction processing engine. I can take a ISO 12800 image with my 7D and use some good noise reduction software and get at least the same quality image as the ISO 12800 images posted here.
There is a balance of course between removing noise and loss of detail. I do not see the need to reduce any further noise from the images samples shown here, however the detail that has been lost through the noise reduction is just as bad as what I could post process with the old 7D. Perhaps the production model will be slightly better especially with Raw, but this is not a stop better performance as some people are claiming, this is primarily a heavier handed noise reduction. not a huge sensor improvement.
I've got to say, I think the ISO improvement reported on are over rated. I think all they have done is improve their noise reduction processing engine. I can take a ISO 12800 image with my 7D and use some good noise reduction software and get at least the same quality image as the ISO 12800 images posted here.
I don't think the 7D is quite that old, it was announce in 2009 not 2007.
Joseph Black: In order for art to exist, artists have to exist. If someone wants to create artwork for free and distribute it to the unwashed masses they should be commended for such charitable work. If someone wants to devote their life to creating art they should have the ability to use that work to fund their continued existence in the form of purchasing food and shelter.If someone is going to create a situation in which art can be created then by not protecting that type of art the law is effectively disincentivizing anyone to create it. The language in the above article says to the world that you may own the camera and you may own the physical image by association, but nobody on Earth owns the intellectual property rights to it. If this image could have kept the artist in clothing, fed, and housed to create more art another day then the lack of rights to the image also means he lost that money and the ability to be a professional artist. Great pictures, but you get no credit pal. Go starve.
Anyone can take enough closeups of an animal that will eventually turn up a cute funny expression. The only reason this photo was remarkable and turned viral was because it was a "selfie" taken by the monkey, after the monkey stole the camera. This decision is hardly going to cause the incentive to create future works to diminish, unless you plan on lending your thousands of dollars worth of gear to a monkey. I do not believe that that was this photographers intent, even though he has tried to shape his story a bit over the last few weeks to make one think so.
Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.
@Lee Jay, the word indefinite only means until they change their mind. It is not a promise. Note, they did not use the word forever.
While I agree that integrity of an image is important, in this case I see no difference from the function of cropping and cloning, it is simply the removal of unrelated content. Cropping in some situations could do a lot more to remove context from a photo than the cropping did in this case.
Hadarmil: Frankly, I'd give up some mm on both ends if they could make a faster super tele zoom. Oh, and keep it for crop sensors. We still don't have fast super telezooms for crop which would probably make them cheaper and lighter.Maybe Sigma will understand the market hole(as they occasionally do) and act to fill it. Right now I doubt the Tamron will be as good and cost effective to become a serious success for serious photogs. feels more in line like the old tactics of shoving larger unusable focal lengths to catch press attention. 200-500 f/4 sounds a little better even if you can't upgrade with it to FF.
Heck, why doesn't anyone make a crop fast prime? A sharp 2.8 300 for crop will get my money and probably a lot of others'.
Rant rant rant. Sure do hope I'm wrong.
Most could not afford a 200-500mm F4 and the size and weight would be huge. My guess is that this lens will sell in the $1500-$2300 range and the quality will be decent and the focus speed much better than their old model, I don't think Tamron would invest in this as a loser. The lens you are talking about would be in the $8,000 range at a minimum even from Sigma.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Why not make it f/5.6 at the long end, then at least all focusing systems would be within their working range! At f/6.3 nobody should buy this lens as it will not focus reliably on all but the top of the line DSLR...
The 6.3 is only a third of a stop difference, I owned the Tamron 200-500mm and it also had 6.3 at the long end, it focused fine on my Canon 20D and later 7D. I sold it in anticipation of Tamron coming out with a VC version.
For typical photos 300 dpi is overkill. Many photo labs only have equipment that prints at either 240 or 256 dpi. It is rare for 210 dpi not to give great results and with larger prints you can often get away with 180 - 150 dpi.
What can you do with them? They are all essentially someone else's copyrighted work. If some one wants to keep them for another 50 - 100 years for the copyright to expire perhaps then they will have some value. In reality he has a duty to his past clients to destroy them.