desaint: Oh my freaking g#d...a lot of people complaining here..10 dollar a month three beers less and you are there.I'ts a ver expensive product to make,you pay thousands of dollars on camera gear but you don't want to pay for your software??Normal you have to buy it once in the three years and now you pay monthly,i think at the end it's about the same...And for the illegal downloaders there is enough other software builders you can use for"free"and then can complain about it:)
It isn't $10 a month, it's my photos being held hostage. The edits and database are part of my work and CC makes them hostage to the marketing whims of Adobe. They change the deal and all of a sudden 10 years of my work is useless.
ImagesToo: Quite well explained except for one major mistake. You talk about sensor size as being important. It is only part of the story. The real issue is pixel size. A FF sensor with 4 times as many pixels as a 4/3 sensor is identical in noise performance as each pixel is now only 1/4 the area so it captures the same amount of light.
The other thing which has been omitted is that because of shot noise a raw file only contains about 250 levels of brightness for a pixel which is what a jpg file has. Virtually all the extra information in a raw file is nothing more than digitised noise. You can do the calculations quite easily remembering that noise is the square root of the number of photons.
Shot noise is the amount of light per unit area. This applies to an individual pixel and an entire picture. For the same exposure (i.e. the same intensity and same time) the noise will be the same for a given area. While a single pixel may have more noise (because it is smaller) the overall signal-to-noise will depend on the area. So larger sensors produce lower noise because they collect more light - for the same exposure.
For an equivalent DOF and equivalent focal length and the same shutter speed there is (in theory) no advantage to a larger sensor.
A m43 25mm using ISO 1600 produces the same (shot) noise as a FF 50mm f2.0 at ISO6400 using the same shutter speed. (in theory) and at the same time should produce the same field of view and the same DOF.
There is no free lunch however, because building f1.0 lenses is difficult, heavier and more expensive. Zoom lenses even more difficult and heavy - and expensive.
My view is that Canon took mirror seriously right from the start. The original EOS-M has outstanding build quality, the best touch screen in the business and very well made high quality lenses. You do not build a camera of that high of quality if you are not taking it seriously. Even the strap attachments, although non-standard, are very well thought out and an improvement over standard camera offerings.
Canon mis-read the market and didn't supply a viewfinder and Canon failed completely by letting the sub-standard AF slip though the testing cycle. Aside from that, the original EOS-M is just about all a mirror-less camera should be. The lack of lenses is only because of a lack of interest on the part of the consumer.
Joo Prates: The numbers are cold, but show the facts.
Let's go to DPR ratings. In interchangeable Lens Cameras, ordered by rating, in Gold Awards, we find in the 10 first best cameras:
- 1 Canon Camera (EOS-1D Mark IV- 89% / Feb 2010) ,
- 4 Nikon cameras (D3S - 89% / Feb 2010; D610 - 87% / Mar 2014; D600 - 87% / Nov 2012; D7100 85% / Apr 2013)
The new Canon 70D - 83% / Oct 2013 in 13 position Gold Award
The new 7D MarkII - 84% / Dec 2014 Silver Award
So, after 5 years...it's the best Canon achieves with their 7D Mark II? the same sensor...low DR...no Wi-fi? are you joking with us?
For instance in lens...how is it possible that Sigma makes a 50 mm 1,4 Art lens, for 950USD (price droping), and the top Canon L 50mm 1,2 that sells for 1600USD is worse in all levels, compared to the Sigma?
I've been a canonist all my life, but I'm disappointed with Canon Cameras and lenses, and I'm considering making the big move - changing to Nikon.
I have the Sigma 50mm Art, I have the Canon 50mm f1.2. My preference is the Canon. Not everything is about sharpness.
smafdy: I believe it was the sculptor, Rodin, who said (not verbatim), that if a work of art came out of his studio, created at the hands of a subordinate, it was still authored by him.
I would not be happy buying a "Rodin" and then finding out it was done by a subordinate. This statement sounds more like a pitch to increase sales volume.
Canon 1Dx for comparison? Maybe it is too new?
Someone finds a way to migrate my LR work to different software and I'm gone.
jimkahnw: Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
It isn't the army of coders that annoys me. its the army of accountants, lawyers and MBAs.
Zoom71: Softness everywhere... Typical Canon agressive noise reduction even at base ISO.
I AM BROKEN
xeriwthe: i purchased an upgrade to lightroom and subsequently received a letter from adobe apologizing for losing my data and offering free 'ID protection service' for limited time only!
gah.. why did they automatically store my credit card info? why why why i didn't subscribe to anything
Turn a negative into a positive (for Adobe) - the genius of the corporate socio-paths.
MBA managers will be the death of civilization.
Talked to a camera dealer. Stuck with old D600 stock with the same sticker price as the new D610. Nikon didn't even give them a head up. He is not happy as he will take a loss on the old stock.
guyfawkes: Fraud is a crime, and the perpetrators need to be punished.
The Japanese legal system simply gave them a rap over the knuckles. Justice for US, UK and other nation's citizens needs to be seen to be done. Think of those whose pension funds were hit, or whose savings were affected, and the impact on long serving employees' pensions.
So peevee1 and others with a similar twisted sense of duty, please take note.
YEH! All those Wall Street types rotting in jail after plunging the world into financial chaos with shady mortgage deals. Methinks Japan's record, as miserable as it is, is better than either the US or the UK.
This photogrpah did not represent a real situation. It was placed and captioned such that the viewer would have thought it represented a real situation. It does not represent reality any more than an action movie represents realisty. It is a work of fiction.
Journalism is suppose to make the world a better place. This photograph, the story and the award destroy trust between the public and the journalism profession. This is a dis-service to the community. This does not make the world a better place.
I am appalled.
MichaelKJ: The Oly scandal was of some interest while things were unfolding, but now it is yesterday's news. Woodford has his money and will soon be forgotten. I can't imagine why anyone would want to read his book and the comment in the article about a possible movie is nothing more than PR.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Corporate governance is obsure or completely unknown to the majority of people. A review of how these monumental mistakes or possibly massive fraud occured will be very valuable for anyone who with a stake in the corporate world - which is just about everyone since at a minium corporations have a significant impact on our commuities.
Amtext: I had my 7D stolen in March, have been using an old, beat-up Nikon since then and was anxiously awaiting what Canon would release so I could spend the insurance money that's dying to be spent. Would love to go FF and thought the 6D would be it but.... no. No fill flash is a deal breaker for me, slower frames per second a huge disappointment, and the layout - more like a 60D - not appealing since I'm used to the 7D, though this is not a deal breaker. As for fewer auto-focus points, it remains to be seen, but it sure seems underwhelming on first glance. (I never had any problems with the 7D's auto focus.) The 6D is a huge disappointment on paper. Nice though they are, I don't really care about GPS and WiFI. I'm leaning toward replacing the 7D and am even tempted by the 5D MK II (and welcome any advice) given the appealing prices for each,
I have used the 7D in the past and all three models of the 5D.
The AF on the 5DIII is much better than the 5D Mark II and better than the 7D. It has to be experienced to be appreciated. It is worth the premium just for the AF if your photography leans towards action, journalism or weddings.
The second feature of the 5D III that I really like is the silent shutter mode which is really very quiet compared to other cameras.
tominhk: re Leica glass... Is it not possible for Canon or nikon etc to make the same? Maybe an L plus lens? And match with a body with no aa filter?
I have the 50mm Summilux and the 50mm f1.2L. I like the L images more. Although the Lux is sharper across the frame, bokeh is nicer with the Canon. Both are excellent lenses.
The ORBless X10? Should be given free to all the early beta testers.
Pixel envy always seem to be in the background but I know from my Pentax 645D that getting the most out of 40 megapixels is not easy and rarely happens if you arn't using primes, optimal f-stop and a tripod. Moreover, at 13x19 print size it is difficult to see any difference over about 16 megapixels.
The improved dynamic range and colour accuracy at high ISO is worth the trade-off in megapixels for my style of shooting. That said, at low ISO the extra megapixels of the D800 arn't going to hurt!
I am very happy about the improved AF and programable ISO although one may argue those should have been in the Mark II. The 5D has always been long on IQ but short on features. At least that is rectified now.
Absolutly one of the best colour photographs I have ever seen. Stunning.