Dougbm_2: I have been using viewpoint 2 for quite some time now for my Real Estate work but as with DXO Optics Pro it is far too slow. If I want to use Viewpoint to open files from a folder it will often refuse to save the file and I can't close the file. Also the way the keystone lines are implemented is much slower than the way it is done in Optics pro - but that is also flawed by insisting on a side by side before and after window making it awkward and forcing you to zoom and pan all the time. And we trust (?) these guys with sensor ratings. Hmmm… I am giving up on Viewpoint 2 and just using Edit/Transform/skew for all but the most awkward fixes..I don't have the time to wait for the plug-in app to open EVERY TIME or for the Desktop app to never save.
I do real estate photography too and I use the tools in Camera Raw to correct for the distortions. But some of the time, CCPS makes them worse. That's when I go to Viewpoint 2. Yes, it's slow but it works when LR and PS lets me down.
Rick DeBari: These are release candidates and NOT final versions! Personally I will wait until the final versions are released. It most likely will only be a few weeks until this happens.
They ARE the final versions!
aris14: It is said that in the WW2 when Goering inspected the first shoot down Spit and saw its nuts and bolts he said that these screws could be the reason why Nazis will loose the war.Sony and presumably Pana, no matter what they bought/cooperated or whatsoever (Minolta, Leica, Zeiss, Schneider etc) seems they went back to to the drawing board and started from a blank sheet of paper and a pencil, so t say.Older firms just tried to put it in, producing a huge batch, I think that they divorced their original creativity in enginnering.No matter the gentle memories we have some of us from some of them, it's more than obvious why they are quickly disappearing as brands.I think this is called natural selection, no?
Minolta disappeared because Honeywell sued them for patent infringement on the auto focus system in 1992 and Minolta lost and had to pay $121 million. It made no difference that Honeywell could not make autofocus work well and Minolta did. Minolta was the most innovative of all the camera companies but because of the millions they paid, there was nothing left for new designs. Many of the Minolta designers went to work for Sony and that's part of the reason Sony is moving ahead with so many changes.
I have a Sony A57 and I needed some extra batteries to carry with me but I could not afford to purchase the original Sony batteries. Amazon had some no names for $5 and I bought 3 of them. What's so amazing about them is the Sony battery gives me about 450-500 shots and the cheepos are giving me around 650. They work perfectly with no problems and the digital % readout is right on.
This reminds me of Polaroid suing Kodak for infringement over instant film and camera twenty years ago and winning. Then in wasn't long before Polaroid went under. About the same time Honeywell sued Minolta for infringement for their autofocus system. They both went out of business. Honeywell could not make it work well and Minolta did. Minolta paid 121 million for that and ended up selling out to Sony ten years later.
It seems like the end results is they all go out of business. Is Nikon next?
mosc: Another topic: Flange distance! The heart of the mirrorless sales pitch is removing the space between lens and sensor (along with it's bulky optical viewfinder). We've seen the advantages in size and weight (as long as your in the EVF >= OVF camp) but it does have a pretty big impact on lens design as well. What are the positives and negatives of shorter flange distances on lens design? Are there reasons why today's mirror less cameras are at a disadvantage due to a shorter flange distance? If not, might we see even shorter flange distances to further cut size/weight?
It use to be rangefinder cameras had sharper lenses because the lenses were easier to design than SLR lenses because of the flange distance. Now it seems the lenses for mirrorless camera lenses cost more than the same F stop/FL for DSLRs.
Personally, I've seen many of the CreativeLIVE! workshops and I've learned quite a bit from them. I've even purchased a few for further study. I'll be there, 10AM MST!
This is great and beautifully photographed!
I have many Minolta Maxxum lenses going back to 1985 that work perfectly on my A57. Yes, they have a converter for those lenses which to me is ugly and ungainly. It sounds like Sony wants to forget about all it's Minolta heritage. I'm sure they could have put full frame sensors using the existing body size and with steady shot inside too. Unless Sony changes coarse, my A57 will be my last Sony. I can easily switch back to Canon which I already have many lenses and accessories.
It seems to me with all the directions Sony is going, it two years they will have a totally new system. And two years after that.....
By the way, I love my A57, the image quality and handling is superb!
About the duct tape thing. Do you know what duct tape and the Force from Star Wars have in common? They both have a dark side, a light side and they both hold the Universe together!
jwkphoto: I have two Lensbaby lenses I bought nine years ago. I never got the look I wanted. In Jan. 2006 I was looking around a dollar store and I came across some magnifying lenses that were made of plate glass, 60mm Di. and 200mm FL. I bought two of them and went to an auto parts store, bought a generic rack and pinion boot that look like a very large Lensbaby tube. I took the two lenses and squeezed them into tube, stuck a T-mount adaptor in the other end making a 100mm F2 lens.
Twenty years ago, I was at a telescope making convention, Stelaphane, and bought an iris diagram for 5 bucks. It was used on the front of a telescope to stop down the lens. I used it for burning in prints for many years in the darkroom. This thing fitted perfectly on the front of my homemade Lensbaby. From it I could adjust the lens from F2 to F8. The more I stopped down, the sharper the lens became.
When used wide open to F2.8 I get the most wonderful blur and when I twist the lens like the LB lens it changes the the way light goes through the two lenses giving even more distortion. I get all kinds of color fringing and when converted to B&W I get the most wonderful bokah I've seen. All of this for an investment of $25.
I have two Lensbaby lenses I bought nine years ago. I never got the look I wanted. In Jan. 2006 I was looking around a dollar store and I came across some magnifying lenses that were made of plate glass, 60mm Di. and 200mm FL. I bought two of them and went to an auto parts store, bought a generic rack and pinion boot that look like a very large Lensbaby tube. I took the two lenses and squeezed them into tube, stuck a T-mount adaptor in the other end making a 100mm F2 lens.
Kodachrome200: I still dont get this. Again we are simply achieving the performance of 2.8 zooms on full frame. And in order to do it we are handicapping the zoom range and making an aps rig big and heavy and expensive. why not shoot full frame. and if you have an aps c body wouldnt you rather have a lens that was pretty good on dof and low light but had a normal zoom range? I mean if you really want lovely bokeh you should look to standard zoom anyway they tend to not have as nice a look as prime lenses do in these ranges. And they are already plenty of primes that offer f/1.8 and even faster.
I had a full frame camera once, a Canon 5D and it was a piece of junk, the shutter release button fell apart at 8000 shots. I may never have a full frame again, at least not until the price fall to less than $1,000. I happen to love my Sony A57 and the quality I get from it.
Who was the idiot that assumes all cell phones have cameras in them. Mine doesn't and I don't want one that does!
oselimg: Since it's meaningless to pass premature comments on these two lenses I think that it's equally meaningless to call lenses of this type full frame. Are the other sensor formats half/quarter frame. Aren't there bigger formats than 35mm format then, what should we call them? I know this term's found it's way in everyday photographic language but many people who own cameras of any kind don't even know what it stands for. It's non-descriptive. At least, when 35mm film ruled everybody(almost) knew what it was and how big it was. What now called full frame is same size as single 35mm film frame. Can you guys at the Dpreview at least start to challenge the current misleading and non-descriptive trend, may I kindly ask?
Edit- I should have said, 24x36mm frame size!
Continued - A few years later, Leitz invented a camera for testing the movie film for proper exposure. This is how the Leica camera came about. When it came on the market, it had a frame size, 24x35mm, double the original movie film. It was called double frame. After a while it became full frame and the original size became half frame. Many other film sizes came and went and today nearly all consumer roll film is either 35mm or 60mm wide. When the term full frame is mentioned it means 24x35mm film or sensor size. There was never, as far as I know, any other film size that used that term.
Way back in the olden times, nearly 125 years ago, Thomas Edison was inventing a motion picture camera. He needed film for it so he went to his friend, George Eastman, who had just invented the Kodak camera. Eastman said his only roll film was 70mm wide and he could split it down the center and make it 35mm wide. Also he would put holes along the side to transport the film through the camera. The holes took up space so the usable image size would be 24mm wide and about 16mm deep. This is the original 35mm frame size.
The shape of the a99 reminds me of my 20 year old Maxxum 9xi. I loved that camera and it was a pleasure to handle and use. But there seems to be one thing missing. I've looked at the Sony Store and read two reviews and I see no mention of Super Steady Shot! Sony has removed it from the a99! Somebody, please tell me it ain't so!
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I've tried Lightroom 4 and DxO Optics Pro 7's demos and I can tell you Lightroom distortion correction is not that good, at least compared to Pro 7. What you have here is Pro 7's distortion correction tools made available as a plug-in. It will be useful for Lightroom and Cs owners, as it complements and optimizes the software's editing capabilities. Shame about the price, though. €79 is quite steep for a plug-in, but I guess if they made it less expensive, the package of Lr4 + this plug-in would eat into DxO Optics Pro 7's sales - and that wouldn't be very clever.
DxO has very few camera-lens combinations for my Sony a300. When I shot with Canon and DxO there was very little problem other than my 5D was junk and I switched to Sony. With the 5D the shutter release button fell apart after 8,000 shots and cost over $200 to fix. Because of being a Minolta owner for 40 years and loads of lenses, I went with Sony. The a300 has over 30,000 shots on it and still works perfectly, the besrt camera I've ever owned but DxO kind of forgot about it.
I tried over 100 times to download but it hung up every time. A good idea that didn't work for me.