Something between elements and Cloud that comes in a box.
Or just an elements based on the PS code-base that does not suck.....
communicat: Just taken a look at Corel's products after years of ignoring them:
The raw processor "After Shot" looks great and the process seemed to make more sense to me than Lightroom. The PS replacement opens existing PS files and also seems to work just fine . . . although I can't figure out how to isolate properly yet.
The the programs have demo downloads to try out.
Corel's after shot pro is Mac Linux and windows....
"How do you justify the price increase to photographers?
Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers."
The question was about creative cloud or photoshop. Shame on dpreview for not calling him on this non sequitur
Guidenet: The problem with trying to stay with CS6 and a perpetual license is what happens when you need a new version of Adobe Camera RAW and it won't work with CS6? That's where they've had us by the short hairs in the past. I had to upgrade every version to use ACR because the older ACR wouldn't support a new camera and the older version of Photoshop wouldn't support the newer version of ACR. It's like that now. If you have a D800, you have to have CS6 to use ACR 7.4. CS5 won't allow ACR 7.4 so won't support the D800.
So what happens with a new camera? They'll announce ACR 8 and it won't work with CS6. Stuck. I suppose I should start looking at Corell products after all these years. I'm not going with subscription, period.
But lightroom stays a physical non-cloud product you can always buy the latest LR for the latest ACR. Then you import your raw to LR, do basic edits, then export to CS cloud for the heavy stuff.....
67gtonr: I was expecting the video functions to be tested as well, any plans to do this?
Isn't Seattle supposed to get daily 10 mile long trains hauling coal for china? When they start that up , you can just sit at a railway crossing and shoot comparisons 4evah
jl_smith: Here's an idea, pay the $40 or so for a Smugmug or Flickr account and share whatever size you want without having to jump through some stupid hoops. And Smugmug looks about 50x cooler than anything Google has ever created.
Trey already had that idea:
He's had the smugmug site forever with original download sizes so I don't know why this is important to him.
50% faster and can do 14FPS at full res?
That's pretty sweet.
The F6.8 on the long end????
Not so sweet....
In your hands on I'd love to see how this compares to one of the ollder/smaller rebels.
Is this truley something new or just cannon getting back to iwhere it was a few years ago?
"once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch'"
And this is reason #5 why I am dropping canon after 20 years and too many cameras to count. Idiotic management.
How can anyone in canon leadership make such an inane statement given the popularity of the S90/S95/S100/S110? All four cameras were certified hits, and all use a sensor bigger than 1/2.3 inch.
And if he would take his canon blinders off just for a second he might notice that M43 cameras have taken over nearly 20% of camera sales in his own country:
What an amazing statement. Right up there with you will never need more than 640mb of ram.....
No mention of price? Or did I miss it?
It's $599 for those that don't feel like clicking around.
30 specifications on a new camera and no mention of aperture?
Or did I miss it?
Phil must be turning in his grave!
According to IR (who seems to care about minor details such as aperture) the 520 " Maximum aperture starts from f/3.0 at wide angle, and falls to f/5.9 at telephoto"
Not stunning but it is a bit better than canon's SX50 (F3.4-F6.5).
This article has still not been updated to reflect that dpreview has an affiliation with DXO.
The response given a couple of pages ago is completely inadequate. Publicizing it on a post that has long since vanished from the homepage and not including that relationship in this review of a DXO product is not exactly "transparent".
Original response: By Amadou Diallo (4 days ago)We incorporate DxO Mark test data in our lens reviews and smartphone camera reviews. We publicized the announcement on our homepage and include their logo on the relevant review pages. So we're being as transparent as we reasonably can.
Isn't it standard practice to include the fact that y'all have a relationship with DXO when reviewing DXO products?
Thanks for reviewing the SX50
I agree that the final score seems a little low. Hand-holdable 50x is a fairly amazing stand-out groundbreaking feat. With the zoom and a better sensor than the FZ200, I'd think the scores would be a bit closer. I'm not suprised by all the complaining here.
Deja-vu all over again.
I'm surprised there is no mention of Casio's tryx?
Maybe because no one remembers it?
It even has an LED lamp instead of a real flash (just like the tryx) and is premiering in white.
What's with the knobs on the side? I often prop my cameras up sideways but it looks imposible with this camera?
Could someone explain what's the point of loosing a shutter release so you can shoot with the camera upside down? What's the point of that?
Canadian Eagle: Eight months with the OM-D and I still revel in the ease of use, the terrific 5-way stabilization – and the great low-light rendition. Eleven days of shooting all over Cuba gave me, and the OM-D, a workout. It's not a big luggable beast –- not that size really matters – only to sore shoulders. It was just fun to shoot with such a sturdy, but light weight machine. The viewfinder is so very sharp. I've even put some old half-frame Pen-F lenses on it and used it in aperture mode. God, I hope this doesn't sound like a commercial. It's not. It IS a fan letter to the folks at Olympus who have put together a GEM of a camera! Bravo for a deserving win!!!http://www.flickr.com/photos/89996031@N04/8179999315/in/photostream/
Real world samples look about the same as the 350D.
Also throw a TC on a 200 lens and you can get the entire package with the 350D down to about the same weight or at least within a pound. The $1000 you save on the body can go a long way towards getting the lens.
If you have to have D7000 IQ get the K-01 (same sensor) for $300.
There's a lot of accusations of ballot stuffing that could be cleared up really easily:
Publish the results deleting the input from accounts created after the poll was announced.
How about it dpreview? What are the results from actual community members versus accounts created for the purpose of the poll?
It's still a mystery that dpreview would create an article such as this without at least linking to the results.
Also, if the K-01 is not in the poll, why is it mentioned in the front page article summary? The IQ is great and the current cost is 1/2 the price of the cameras on the list and 4 times cheaper than any of the winners. It's like slamming a Kodak P&S on the front page of a 5D review. What's the point?
Olympus OM-D EM-5 23.3% (3457 votes) Nikon D800/E 22.1% (3273 votes) Canon EOS 5D Mark III 14.4% (2133 votes) Nikon D600 7.8% (1156 votes) Sony Cyber-shot RX100 7.1% (1056 votes) Fujifilm X-Pro 1 6.2% (914 votes) Sony Cyber-shot RX1 5.6% (831 votes) Sony Alpha SLT-A99 4.2% (617 votes) Pentax K-30 3.3% (485 votes) Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 2.2% (328 votes) Canon EOS 650D / Rebel T4i 1.8% (266 votes) Sony Alpha SLT-A57 1.2% (172 votes) Olympus PEN-Lite E-PL5 .5% (79 votes) Olympus Stylus XZ-2 iHS .3% (40 votes)
keeponkeepingon: So if this is a poll with 15,000 votes.... what are the numbers?
Exactly what percent of the vote did the OM-D/5DMKIII/D800 get, and where's the rest of the data?
Or is this simply dpreviews pick based on suggestions by the readers?
But you have to wonder why it's not included in the article. Looking at the numbers the Nikon and Olympus are practically tied while the Canon is a distant also ran
Heie2: The Pentax K-01, while many hate on the basis of looks alone, is BY FAR the greatest value for money to hit the world of photography in a very long time.
The Pentax K-30 mirrors that sentiment for DSLR's.
" sure wouldn't buy it. it's ugly as hell. plus, for old lenses compatibility, I'd much rather use an adapter that I can remove,"
yes because more of a hassle is better and we all know your camera has to look good to take good pictures.