I like the perspective warp a lot. It is pretty smart.But then again, I am definitely not going to pay a subscription fee for any software.And it isn't even a subscription, it is RENTAL.The biggest reason for me s not to give them or any other company approval that this is the way to sell software, because then soon, everything else will be a RENTAL, Lightroom? Windows? MS office?Once the dollar signs appear in their eyes, the companies will not stop.
Danny: This update does not make any sense. WHO ON EARTH is going to use a 3D-printing option from inside Photoshop? If you are, like me, into 3D-printing, you are using 3D software for that, NOT a 2D photo-retouching application!! It sounds so sophisticated, "hey look- Photoshop can do 3D-printing too"! Yeah, prehistoric simple objects like a coke-can, that's what we print all the time.. It shows that, again, Adobe makes pointless updates on a product that has been finished years ago, and now it's milking it's users money with their Cloud. Who wants to be part of that? I'll keep working with CS5 for as long as I like it, then jump towards the competition.
(btw, I am a professional Photoshop user for more than 17 years).
Watching the video I was thinking the same. I kind of don't see any reason to do 3D whatever in photoshop. they should direct their development to the 2d photo manipulation. I also don't know many people (actually none) who use photoshop for anything 3d.Weird.
The normal US price is high, but for some reason in Europe I constantly found places that were selling the original for 50% few years ago when it was new.I bought mine for about $60 in Fnac, right in the central of Milan, Italy. Some with other accessories like cases etc, while the cameras themselves are usually more expensive.In general it is good, but I think the full price is overblown for a piece of metal with rubber.
Another of Nikon's problems is that the bar for "good camera" is easily reached these days. Name me a 16mp or higher interchangeable lens camera that's offered by anyone that isn't capable of excellent images in a wide range of conditions when used well by a serious user. There are none. Sure, we can niggle and naggle over some details, such as how it shoots at ISO 12,800, or whether the focus is adequate or good in low light, or how long the battery lasts. But personally, I can't think of a 16mp+ interchangeable lens camera I couldn't be happy with the results from in most of my shooting needs. Indeed, it's really only pure action photography in low light where I'd start to weed a lot of the entries out, but the Df might probably be one of them, despite using the D4 sensor ;~).
I'd say if you can't make good photos with D700 then it is time to change the camera operator or find perhaps another hobby.It is really pointless to list how much df is better than previous FF nikon, because you could either make good pics that sell well with both or neither and it isn't the cameras fault.It is interesting concept but the primary factor is to look very retro. I think this may be the main feature people will be buying it or not and it has nothing to do with photography but lot of with vanity which is a bit sad.But hey Nikon can afford this, they seems to be doing well.
BarnET: the cons............1.In-body stabilization not available for image composition.That's only an issue on long focal lengths. Most of these lenses have in lens stabilisation that DOES work for image composition2.Camera tends to use small aperturesThen use aperture priority mode. 3.no sensor is in movie modeWell got to give you that one that is kinda annoying since fast primes that look great in movie are mostly unstabilized(20mm f1.7, 45mm F1.8 and so on)4.Strong 'rainbow' tearing effect in EVFTried it in the store, and it's not that bad.5.EVF is hard to see outdoors, adds bulk to camerahard to see outdoors?! if your not wearing glasses this is just plain nitpicking.adds bulk?! it's the smallest solution with an EVF this is a pro on this camera.6.No in-camera Raw conversionRaw is meant to be processed on PC anyway.7.Lacks headphone and external mic ports for video shootersThis is not a video tool. And the on board mics are good.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQ3hVb9qug
Sadly plevyadophy is correct. I know too well.
kentwosheds: When the reviewer states he would rather use the rear screen than the viewfinder, he doesn't take into account wearers of reading glasses.To use the screen would mean having to wear glasses, whereas the viewfinder means no specs required.
Nah, it is the same...
Pretty much nod to fuji xe1 in styling, but definitely a modern camera. And I guess the focus speed would smoke the fuji for breakfast.. The m43 format is doing well.
Looks great on paper, but why they think a pro gear needs retro styling.It is either geared to very old people or lomo steam punk crowd. By the price I'd say the first as it is quite larger than an iPhone. Why the mee-too retro styling, why?
Idea may be good, except the panorama wow factor was like a decade ago. I know, I was making them. Since then I realized that nobody else from my circle really wanted to see them....
EFC11: I have an A7 and an X-E2 at home right now and have taken numerous shots inside and out (admittedly kit mens on both). I can't find a reason to spend the extra on the A7 and in fact i prefer many images from the X-E2 (oh and with same lenses its half the price. I really wanted to like the Sony but i just don't see it in the images and i think the X-E2 and especially the lenses are better built. I shoot JPEGS as i don't have time to mess with Aperture etc.
I think it is because fuji has so more reasonable lens follow up. It takes a lot to make excellent FF lens. I guess if you somehow mount the sony FF lenses on APS-C you would be surprised how sharp and solid they are.Unfortunately while FF sounds great, people will be let down by lenses - either pay a lot or be disappointed.
Dgeer: Lol....hey m43 is my choice for the same reasons as many others but I went from Nikon D90 to lumix G2 and now G3 simply because the Nikon wouldn't take ready to use shots from camera in daylight situations anywhere in the world. Nikon claim there is nothing wrong with it and friends always used there's in manual and raw and spent time in Photoshop or similar. I don't spend time touching up as I was originally a film user and you got 36 expensive shots only so you want to get it right in camera. You can take many more digitalis but at the end of the day you want the best compositions etc rather than anything else so I try to get exposure etc correct in camera. With the Lumix M43 and even their Tz smaller cameras they do this very well. The iA button lets u slip in and out of auto and now I rarely need to use A or S or other settings. Portability is another major reason for choosing m43 and the lenses quality from Panasoic and of course Olympus is awesome.
This is why I went with fuji. Excellent image straight from the camera, no fiddling with computer, no so called "developing". I think holiday shooters have more time on their hands than I do.
AlexRuiz: Here is my own experience for what it’s worth, as the EM-5 and EM-1 are fairly similar.
In early 2013 I purchased 2 cameras, a D600 and an EM-5. The D600 I bought with my fingers crossed based on all the baggage and negative reviews about oil spots and stuff. The EM-5 I excitingly purchased based on the extremely positive reviews.
Almost a year later, the D600 never had any oil spot issues (or whatever) and it has surpassed my expectations. The image quality is just superb. Regarding the EM-5, I found all those overwhelmingly positive reviews to contain a fair amount of exaggeration. While being a good camera, the EM-5 image quality is not as great as many would want you to believe; definitely not on par with the D600.
Verdict: I take the D600 any day of the week and will be keeping it indefinitely. The EM-5 will be sold (as will be the pana 14mm f2.5 and pana 20mm f1.7). Anyone interested let me know.
I agree with you on d600 being superb, but it is weird to be comparing them. I know the OMD does look like dslr, but that is where it ends - with looks.
Actually the execution and lighting is top notch.
fooddudeone: Most awesome thing I've seen in a while!
Was never a fan of all these iPhone lens attachments (might as well use/buy a p&s camera) ..but this is something else! They're actually giving us something that isn't even possible without having to spend $1000-4000 on your dslr/mirrorless camera. Not to mention SIZE. A dslr/mirrorless anamorphic rig will be Huge - camera, mf lens, adapter mounts, anamorphic adapter, possibly rails and extras.
This gives us a real anamorphic lens and aesthetic that truly fits in your pocket - the aspect ratio, the slight distortion and most importantly the vertically stretched bokeh and the flares.
Iphone video IQ is decent and easy to use...especially just for home/travel/hobby videos..and this anamorphic adapter, will make a killer street anamorphic video camera.
Anamorphic lens is ok, but the question is what you going to do with IPHONE and an anamorphic lens. Look I am a pretend-filmmaker?
peevee1: Very poor result from Df's JPEG. Change comparison from default cameras with many more pixels (and smaller pixels) to Fuji X-E2 and Olympus E-M1 with the same 16 mpix. Surprisingly, Df's JPEGs are worse than both even at ISO 12,800, both in detail and especially in color blotchiness. How have Nikon managed to screw up such a huge sensor size advantage?And in the test Df got 1/3200s of exposure @f/5.6 while E-M1 got only 1/5000s (broken DPR testing strikes again), and E-M1's result STILL looks brighter (compare middle grey where DPR logo is) - easily 1 stop testing advantage to Df which STILL did not help it to win or even get close. Wow. Just wow.
I am looking at iso 100 and the nikon is very soft with a lot of moire. Looks worse than any half price APS-C - maybe the samples are wrong? Can't believe that this are results from newest FF camera.
Normally I am all for retro look, but this seems to me a bit too much self serving. Well maybe some people will be all over this... also the samples seem very soft with lot of moire. Bad samples?
Michael_6: I seem to recall the biggest weakness of the X-E1 was low light autofocus. Does the on-sensor phase detection mean this has been addressed, then?
My x100s has those and, well, it works like the old x100 with latest firmware...so it is a placebo effect.
David Smith - Photographer: Not much of an improvement over the X-E1. I don't like the Fuji processing. When you compare the image quality to a camera like the Olympus E-M5, you can clearly see that the output is softer, more processed. At higher ISO's there's less noise, but also less detail. I prefer to do my own processing rather then let the camera do it for me.
I thought I am the only one who thinks panasonic images are dull...Fuji seems to give the best overal look, but if you process the raw files badly you can get in a trouble. The OOC JPG are awesome.
Woodlink: November 15 release date.
Just in time to take turkey pics
Just to compliment PS4 release.
Wingszero: It is rather a dilemma for me to order a X-e2 because of its price compared to X-pro1. $999 is even higher than its bigger brother now, though it is lighter, smaller(and maybe a little faster?). I'd rather wait for the next generation of X-pro1...
Once you put a lens the differnce is not that big. XA1 or XM1 are the smaller option.