Picasa may have seemed to kinda align with Google's overall product line and core services 10 years ago but it just doesn't anymore. And, it was free, so there's little motivation for them to continue maintaining it.I am curious if they have considered selling it. There has to be some value with it's popularity, which is not only because it's free. Other companies that currently have image editing / raw processing software with no indexing organization functionality could benefit, or some of the camera manufactures?Having used it for many years now, I started trying to migrate myself to lightroom last year. But, I still find it's often quicker for me to find something in picasa at times, and am disappointed at seeing it phased out.
stevo23: Why must they all be significantly more than the competition?
Because enough people are willing to pay that premium to make it successful for them. So they can. (wouldn't you?)earlier this month there was some financial information about Sony reported on dpreview, number of cameras sold was down, profits were up. If they were selling the lens for the same price as everyone else they'd make less money...
lotuz9: Sony product release meeting:" this is it guys we are about to announce the most advanced aps sensor a6000 follow up ever, fastest af..check..most advanced 4k check.. Most advanced ef viewfinder..check.. Tilltable screen check.. Touch screen......wait we forgot touchscreen!!........meanwhile at Canon product planning:...good news, we thought Sony will put our Eos M division out of business with their A6000 follow up...they didn't!..we got touchscreen!..
Sony used touchscreens on some older NEX cameras. They weren't very popular. I'd have to assume Sony believes that all the people complaining it doesn't have touch screen probably wouldn't actually buy it if there was one. And, all the current users who have actually bought one of their cameras don't want one.It's kept them going this far since dumping them.
Tower: Use a diesel car to compare a patrol car. Too complex!
I wouldn't take my diesel truck to the race track. And I wouldn't start towing my RV with the "petrol" car. But they'll both go the grocery store, take me to work, friends house, kid's swim lessons. Objectively, one is going to work better for these every day functions most people use their cars for. One will be cheaper, easier to park, quicker to start, easier to operate safely.I may have uncommon usage that falls outside what's typical (towing a 28 foot RV with a 1 ton Diesel pickup) or a subjective desire to have something I like (a '74 land cruiser), but if people ask me what's a good car, I recommend a Prius. Because that fits what most people need.
gidgetto: sex ob·jectnouna person regarded by another only in terms of their sexual attractiveness or availability." The main subject must be young, have a photogenic face, a lean toned figure and beautiful legs"???
But those beautiful legs can be cropped off!So, why bother requiring them???
justmeMN: Canon cameras are good enough for professional sports photographers to take photos at events like the "Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and a few World Series", but they aren't good enough for DPR Measurebators to take photos of their cats. :-)
Picking up the fine detail on a black cat is no laughing matter and requires a very good ability to capture contrast. (maybe not so much dynamic range, except maybe if he's got a white spot?).Capturing Golden Tate's winning reception of the final pass in the Seahawks victory over the Packers in 2012, pretty much just have to be there and focus quick enough, it's obviously so clear he caught that ball himself and brought it to the ground. Should have been able to get that with his Holga!!!
KodaChrome25: This article seems biased in favor of Seattle teams..... Go Seahawks!
Says the photographer is based in Seattle.So, ya, Go Seahawks!!!
AdamT: Yep, it`s lossless compressed that`s needed - like canon and Nikon have had for decades
They were compressing it long before they began selling mirrorless cameras, and the evaluations of them could find no issues or reasons not to use the compression. And the comparisons were much easier, with some cameras offering compressed and uncompressed RAW. The issue with the compression was that it was loosing data with the new, 14 bit output, which only some very new sensors support.
The Davinator: My goodness....what will some Canon users complain about now? Good news though. I wonder if DPR had somehand in Sony making this change.
They'll complain the 36MP files are too large.
Lightcapture: Will the uncompressed RAW be updated in RX (10ii, 100iv etc.) series cameras, eh, eh, eh??? ;) I recently bought the RX100iv, so I am interested to see if these humble series will get the 'totally RAW' option too...
It's only an issue with the 14 bit sensor output. The older (12 bit?) sensor output worked fine with the compression algorithm, the A900 offered both compressed and uncompressed and everyone that's discussed it used the compressed, those that compared never found a difference to bring up.So, unless those cameras support the 14 bit output, the only reason to have the uncompressed RAW is to waste disk space.
BeaverTerror: Looks like they got lucky. Here's what Half Dome looks like on busy days:
I assume there's less of a line on the other side?
DavidKennard: And what "damaging effects of flash photography on artwork" would that be?
Modern flashes output virtually no UV. Even a flash modified specifically to output UV fired at full power only outputs the equivalent of a few seconds worth of UV sunlight.
While most modern flashes apparently do filter UV, there are probably some that don't. And the tour guides can't exactly make up a decision about which do and don't. And even if only a few seconds worth of UV sunlight... The number of visitors, and maybe only half actually take pictures, but those that do, none are going to take just one picture. Pretty soon, might as well just put the art out in the sun...
artnaz: Can someone tell me how is life for Sony FE users regarding remote flashes? I have been using Nikon's CLS, Phottix Odin, Pixel King Pro (and a bit Canon RT), but I have no idea how it is for Sony...
I am seriously considering selling my beautiful Nikon gear and buying this Sony, but the flashes are very important for my portrait photography!
Sony does have a flash system, and at least on the SLT (DSLR style) bodies it supports wireless via optical with TTL and HSS.It's not the best flash system, far from it. And I know that without even using Canon or Nikon's before. But it is somewhat capable and does work, and is pretty easy (at least on the DSLRs / SLTs)The hotshoe on the body will take an ISO standard trigger. But the flashes will not fit in most cold shoe / stands due to the pins on the front of the connector they've added, you'd need specific stands / cold shoes for them.
Cipher: Canon and Nikon execs aren't going to be sleeping very well tonight.
Well, it sounds like it's advertised to deliver solid performance with the LE-EA3 and an SSM lens like the 70-400G. So it's shouldn't be that hard to find good telephoto glass and a adapter to make it work. Now if only I could track and focus on bats... Never mind, not interested. But since you seem stuck on tracking quick objects in low light, the only bat photos I've seen posted on DPR were from a guy with a M43 mirrorless. Guy that posted claimed that with a DSLR, you'll loose enough light on the mirror and prism in the OVF you'll never even see it.
ptox: What's the downside to the electronic shutter? -- I assume there is one, or why would they bother with a mechanical shutter as well?
@Wally626, At least on the Sony APS-C E mount camera I have (and can't imagine why it would be different), the aperture adjusts as you change the setting. It doesn't stop down via a spring as the picture is taken like a DSLR.
at $3200 a body, there's gotta be a lot of profit built into these. It's little brother is less than half that... If they sell as fast as the comments here indicate they might, Sony's likely to hold onto that money for a while before sharing the new sensor tech with third parties (i.e. Nikon). And when sales do slow down, there's probably a lot of room for competing "on price". Canon oughta be terrified of that idea.
cgarrard: It would be very interesting to re-visit the overall numbers when Mirrorless cameras can match or exceed the continuous AF performance of the big DSLR brands.
Sony adding pro support to the overall package has helped appeal as well. But they know, and need to work on, a greater lens line up for the system to stay in first position.
Its a heated race.
"And im wondering cplunk, could you link the data on that 90% of amateur's photos?"I just made it up.But go look at flickr, any other photo site, and look at the percentage of photos of buildings, monuments and landscapes as opposed to sports. Your 4 year old daughter will sit still longer in a couple years.And I'm not aware of a DSLR that can identify and focus on a face like a mirrorless (or Sony's SLT) can, without using live view (which is going to turn their AF tracking to awful, if not altogether off).
whumber: I'll go out on a limb and say the 66% boost in mirrorless sales had something to do with Sony practically giving away A6000 and A5100 bodies during the holiday season.
"generate 66% more income from mirrorless sales"Giving things away does not generate more income.
Fabio Amodeo: First point: mirrorless (or whatever they call them) are up. True, more in Asia, quite in Europe, not so much in the USA. But still true.Second point: mirrorless are earning money. True, maybe. The industry has gone from “with these numbers next year we'll go bankrupt” to “with these nunbers we might survive”.Third point: all mirrorless are unfinished work. What they still need is a huge advance in processing power/reading speed of the sensor. Let's talk when the work is finished (if the cameras will be able to disperse the heat involved).
"Let's talk when the work is finished"It's never "finished"... Even the technology for AF and metering in film cameras was constantly improving as digital cameras came along and disrupted that. Now that technology is still being used in DSLRs and is continuing to be improved on as mirrorless come along.Once the mirrorless become as good as today's DSLRs, they won't be finished, they will continue to make them better. Just as the DSLRs will continue to get better as long as customers are buying them.So, I guess we'll never talk. Probably better that way...
Robert Holloway: I've been a Canon SLR and DSLR user for 35 years. Look at my avatar. I've used an A7 and A6000 and am now selling my entire collection of L glass through 2015 and switching.
I'm not a Canon hater or a Sony fanboy.
Canon has a huge 12 months coming up as their innovation seems to be more driven to protect the status quo and their position within DSLR. I learned in my corporate life that if fear of cannibalization is your driving force, you simply open the door for others to do it for you.
The numbers from NPD are not inaccurate. NPD tracks all sectors and is not affiliated to any one company. I'd been scoffing at Sony for years as I strutted about with my Canon and 300/2.8L IS. It's now gone and I'm another data point in this market shift.
Over recent months I've read and watched countless videos and reviews and the world of mirrorless is a fresh and very exciting place to be.
Canon makes great cameras, but Blackberry also made great phones.
I do wonder why someone would run right out and switch because they found it to be "new and exciting".When I had my blackberry I kept seeing people with their new iphones, and they sounded neat, but hey, new and exciting wasn't enough to cut it for me. And then someone let me used their phone, and it gave me a map with directions (still not turn by turn nav back then, but better than anything my bb did) and a web browser that, while not easy and fast, generally just worked. I had my new iphone at the end of the week.Switching from Canon to Sony cause it's new and exciting? Sound's downright foolish to me, even as a happy Sony user (who started in digital there after realizing my 3 ancient MF Nikon lenses weren't a good reason to get a new Nikon DSLR, and really always kinda liked Minolta better).