davidit: Always be nteresting to hear the "who has the best editing platform" argument. Should be the who can make my photos look better argument. Seriously how would you guys even have made a living in the film days with your heavy reliance on post editing? If you cannot use one of your photos straight out of your camera without running it through software then you should give up. The only editing i do is cropping.You should all take a step back and learn how to take good photos rather than waste your time arguing about editing.
There has NEVER been a situation where you used your photos straight out of your camera, but the Polaroid and positive film are the closest. Here are some possible scenarios:
1/ B&W film. Result will depend selection of film, how you develop the film, on how you develop the positive image what paper you chose etc. These are done in LR today using filters, exposure change, color temperature etc.
2/ Color negatives in a cheapo shop - the development process would change the end result, and in cheapos it would vary from shop to shop and day to day. Also, film selection - same as LR with a clueless LR user.
3/ Color negatives in a good shop - same as above, same as LR with a user with clues.
4/ Color positives - changes in film, development etc would significantly impact end result.
What most photographers do today they ALWAYS did in the film days too. Claiming there is such a thing (even in digital) as straight out of camera is just clueless nonsense. Even JPGS are processed heavily.
>> If you cannot use one of your photos straight>> out of your camera without running it through>> software then you should give up
MAN. YOU ARE A GENIUS! You were able to use your photos straight out of camera in the film days? I never was. If it was a B&W film, I had to go to my dark room and develop the film. A process where I had tremendous control over pushing etc. After that, I had to develop the resulting negative into an image, and in that process I would frequently use tools (and my hands) to doge and burn to make the image exactly as I wanted.
I am AMAZED at your abilities. How did you do it? When you pulled the film out of the canister, how did you prevent it from being destroyed instantly, and how on EARTH did you show the result to people?
Brian Mosley: This could be used to create a simulated narrow depth of field... Finally demolishing one of the last FF features without having to carry heavy, expensive and bulky fast lenses.
Well done, keep going Panasonic!
No, it could not. The feature will only shoot with the depth of field that the lens can handle.
This feature could be "replicated" today with any camera, Panasonic or not, by shooting a series of images while changing focus (which is what this firmware update in reality does). If your subject was entirely stationary and your camera on a tri-pod you could achieve the exact same thing even using manual focus. You could just shoot 30 different images each with a slightly different focus point and then chose the picture you wanted to use afterwards.
This does NOT enable any type of new depth of field possibilities.
ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:
1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.
2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.
3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.
The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.
The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.
>> The apps will be there when the hardware is there
From whom? Apple? They can't even created a decent browser when most of the work is done by others. Safari today is the Internet Explorer 6 of the bad times. Apple Software Quality is in free-fall.
>> The Surface Pro is nice but is still just a PC.
"Just a PC"? In the same way a Mac Book Pro is "just a PC". Do you think the iPad pro will be competitive with a Mac Book Pro? Seriously?
There is a HUGE difference between generic benchmarks and real-world software. I develop software for a living, also iPhone and iPad apps. According to the benchmarks shown, the 6S is closing in on the Surface Pro 3. In the real world this is not true. Not even close.
wansai: For light editing, sure. For on-the-spot editing, sure.
The main problem is one of workflow though. Then there's the problem of the software. This does not run the adobe suite. It runs the basic mobile apps. You can do some pretty basic things, that's about it.
Get a Surface Pro 3 or 4. That is far more suitable with enough horsepower to do most things a creative can need. I do photo editing, processing, digital art, desktop publishing and graphic design on my surface pro 3.
The surface pros also run full blown adobe suite and in desktop mode, have multitouch trackpad so you can use the suite quite comfortably.
In touch mode, I open photoshop, click 1 button to apply my custom action. Or just set it to batch process. Or just use lightroom if that's more to your workflow.
The ipad pro will be a better illustration tool than a photo editor's tool. It's fundamentally no different from an ipad.
>> new generation of apps
Doesn't change the fact that the CPU in these things can not keep up. That's not what they were designed for.
Priaptor: You want a "tablet" to do real work, wait till Oct 6th and get the new Surface Pro 4, which is what the iPad Pro should have been.
If only Microsoft understood sooner how much more advanced their hardware was than Apples, we wouldn't have had to wait so long for the ultimate combination of Windows 10 and a Surface Pro 4 that perform real computer tasks, rather than apps
>> The iPad will have the advanced photo>> editing apps.
No, it won't. Ever. The horse power simply isn't there. It's not an accident. The ARM chip is designed to be power efficient and capable of running presentation devices and phones.
>> Microsoft....well, the selection will be limited.
Really? So, Lightroom, Capture One Pro, Photoshop, Premiere Pro are limited apps? Why do you feel that?
You do know that the Microsoft Surface is a full-blown, "bog-standard" Windows PC right? Anything you can do on a laptop or desktop you can do on the Surface Pro. You have been able to for several years already. I edit and color correct 4K video on my Surface Pro with Adobe CC (albeit with 1080p proxies). You'll never do that with an iPad.
Raintitan: The article is spot on. It is all about the software and I believe memory constraints will prevent a full Suite from running. However all new apps will pop up.
For now, the Surface Pro 3 is a great tablet like solution with stylus. I really like using it to edit.
It's not all about software actually, it's also about hardware. The ARM chips are simply not up to the task. This is not a flaw of the ARM, it wasn't designed for that. If they were they'd run the battery down in a couple of hours.
Add tons of RAM, it won't help.
Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
jorg14: I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW. Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster. Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.
So, back in film days you developed your negatives and, when the prints came back, you just threw the negatives in the bin?
Frank_BR: What the article did not say was that the picture of the luminous sign was pushed 5 stops in post-processing! If you doubt it, compare the picture in the article with the picture taken with ISO 200 and shown here:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study
No surprise that some artifacts appeared after such extreme PP. But a photographer does not need to push 5 stops, unless he has committed an extremely gross exposure error.
The article seems to ignore that the compression used by Sony is very effective in reducing the size of files. For example, the RAW files shown in DPR Studio Shot Comparison for ISO 200 have the following sizes:Sony 7RII: 41.4MBNikon D810A: 74.3MB
It is clear that the Sony 7RII stores RAW images at higher efficiency than the Nikon D810A, for example.
Any compression algorithm incurs a tradeoff between efficiency and appearance of artifacts. If you look closely enough, you will always find artifacts.
If size is a concern, shoot jpeg. I want my RAW, and until Sony delivers, for some of us they are not an option. Who cares about some minor space savings, if you use a $3000 camera, you can afford both bigger disks, SSDs and good-sized memory cards.
The main problem here is that Sony is demonstrating an inability to understand the pro market, which is an issue.
Sarge_: Until they offer pro grade fast zooms and primes for this lens mount, I can't see this as more than an expensive toy. 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, etc.
As a pro, I don't hate the idea of the smaller body, as long as the ergonomics (buttons for quick adjustments like other pro bodies) and lens lineup are strong...
Lets see. As a Canon user, what can I do...
Sony 55mm, the sharpest auto focus lens in the world according to DxOCanon 24-70 F/2.8L ii - works well on my 5D, I'll use thatCanon 70-200 F/2.8L - still a good one for me, works on A7RSigma 35mm F/1.4A Canon mnt - I love this one, works. on A7and so on
To me there seems to be no shortage of lenses for this mount, and considering even adapted lenses has auto focus, it seems like this camera has more, not fewer, professional lens options than my 5D and 6Ds
My main concern is ergonomics though, so I'll spend a good bit of time shooting with it before committing.
DavidNJ100: Still has the weak compressed RAW format.
According to reports, that is no longer the case. 14 bit clean raw for the A7r ii.
Scales USA: I see this as Apple's view of the demise of DSLR's in favor of the cameras on smart phones. They are right, sales of high end cameras are dropping, so Apple is just anticipating that their users will be making simple edits with their Iphone images.
Fortunately, there are other choices and for a few dollars, ACDSEE Ultimate 8 does everything and even has layers. I use Lightroom / Photoshop, but I have used ACDSEE for simple edits for years, in fact, since before the world wide web. I bought their flagship version last weekend for $49. Its quite capable and, like Lightroom, it has a database to keep track of your images.
My only gripe is that ACDSEE has been slow to update their RAW support for new camera models.
You are actually wrong. The data shows that the DSLR, which had a huge surge in sales a couple of years ago, has dropped down to a more "normal" level. The main drop in camera sales comes from mid- and high-end compacts.
JMCO: Lightroom has never been the only option. As probably mentioned in comments here, I think the best paid alternative to Aperture now is Capture One Pro. If you only shoot Sony, it is a no brainer as it is free. You can also just BUY COP not rent it like LR.COP also had a way to move a collection from Aperture *or* LR over to COP before Adobe did!Regardless, for the poor photographer, the software that came with your camera or that you can download for free ain’t bad either. Nikon Capture NX-D with View NX-i are quite nice now. But, the organizing is done in NX-i with editing in NX-D and, basically, it is only for Nikon files. But, maybe accessing your family photos only in Photos is better anyhow?Like it was said, Aperture is still working. I use mostly plug ins to edit in it so, I’ll keep using it. But I do admit, the image organizing is still confusing. I moved to all vault but now, I think I’ll need to go back to referenced because of its demise. I have no idea how to do that!
For the record, you can also buy Lightroom. No need to rent it.
Maverick_: A fixed lens? 1" Sensor? 3.8fps? No viewfinder? for $2500?
Why would anyone want to buy this, where they have so many other options? Just the fact that you can't change the lens will keep many away from this camera.
Also it's not that small to make it a great drone camera. Who puts a large zoom lens on drones?
As a Panasonic GH user, I am in the market for a new camera, but it will not be this one.
>> Any larger and it would be a super-massive camera
So, is the GH4, with twice the size chip, a "super-massive" camera? No, it is not. It is tiny. It also beats this Canon in every single area.
>> 3.8 FPS is fine
I don't think anyone cares about the FPS for stills, this is a video camera. As a stills I would prefer my S95 over this any time.
>> $2500 for a 1" sensor dream camera?
How is this a dream camera? It is a souped-up GoPro. For 3K!
>> If it was a DSLR, it would be $2500
If this was a stills camera, with this chip and this zoom it would be about $500. This camera doesn't come anywhere near a $2500 DSLR. This camera, as a stills camera, is a joke. Completely useless. Seriously. It can't take pictures with a blurry background. In other words, no decent portraits. But hey, you're right, nobody ever used a camera to take portraits.
>> You wouldn't buy this camera.
Nobody in their right mind would buy this camera.
myung keun: Jony Ive's frenzy for minimalism doesn't only affect aesthetics but also functionality. I can live with less visual clutter, but not less functionality. That being said, there is of course a more sensible side to this:
This is just a start.I assume that Apple is working hard to widen their photography platform capabilities. They just needed a strong grounded foundation to built on.We all know that Apple is serious and passionate about photography.Aperture was a good software but it was trying to be a separate entity on its own and was not connected to the existing Apple infrastructure (at least not as well). The platform lost its merit to be expanded any further. Apple wanted a clean slate. A fresh start. They knew it's going to upset many of the existing loyal Aperture users. But they also knew they couldn't do that without sacrificing at least something.
About 2000 years ago there roamed a dude on this planet who was eventually executed on a tree structure by the powers that were. Before he died he told his followers: "I'll be back". No, it wasn't the dude played by Arnold. He also said: "I'll be back and some of you will still be here when I'm back". For reasons that defy (even) belief, his followers are still waiting. Though the original dudes are now long since dead.
Apple fan boys remind me a little of those guys.
Here is a dose of reality: Apple has long since realized that the pro market, once a main source of income, is no longer so. In fact, the pro market is expensive to maintain, an ungrateful bunch of miscreants, and cheapskates to boot. No point in dealing with them anymore.
Final Cut X was a warning and should have been a wake up call. Aperture should have been the final message. Now it is "Photos will probably be great. Soon". Goodness. Macs are great computers. Apple makes crap software! End of story.
Gollan: This was an interesting article. I was surprised to hear that Photos was going to be the Aperture replacement and I'm impressed that Jeff Keller even gave it a try. It seems to me that Apple has always catered to creative enterprise and it is somewhat surprising to see them back away. (Frankly, Apple has a history of blowing hot and cold in other areas too, such as the use of iPads in Education). My friend is a professional artist who uses iMacs, but she also uses a DSLR to produce much of the raw material that goes into her work. What message is Apple sending to her when they have taken away one of the powerful tools that is in her workflow?
Honestly, I think you are making your decisions on VERY old data. Seriously. Windows today is rock solid, has been for years. Now, if you buy cheap-ass hardware, sure you'll get bad results, but the remedy for that is easy enough.
Honestly, if Apple software was anywhere near as reliable as Windows, why is the iCloud infrastructure on Windows and (partly) Linux? No matter how much data you push through your computer it doesn't come close, to a tenth of a percent, of what the iCloud infrastructure does, and that runs on Windows.
Lightpath48: Since 2007 I'd worked with Aperture almost exclusively, editing and organizing almost 12,000 raw files. The 10.10.3 upgrade with obligatory Photos app devastated me at first. Now I'm trying to make the fullest possible use of Photos, in parallel with Nikon's NX software. But a number of key Aperture 3.6 controls are just missing. What were they thinking? I'm not sure where I will go from here.