domina: That's a good thing for photography and videography, it means now everyone will be able to sell to them on the strength of their current images rather than be employed by them permanently because of personal connections or past reputation. However, it's sad for the photographers as employees. Perhaps the newspaper should offer them free support to set up their freelance businesses.
I think we have far enough of low quality stuff already. I guess the next step is they fire journalists because there is enough content on Twitter.
I thought the whole point of paying for a newspaper or a magazine was to have some quality content analyzed, written and documented in a professional way...
Mister J: Snake-oil suit talk.
I guess we're all now looking for a Photoshop replacement.
Pixelmator is some of the way there, but still crashes and hangs, so development needed. Even so, they must be drooling at the market opportunity.
As for Lightroom, Aperture is the excellent alternative.
FCP is now a pretty good video editor.
InDesign? Quark is improving by the day, and is well priced.
I can't think of an Illustrator alternative, but maybe there's one I don't know about.
There's plenty of alternatives that may suit the hobbyist market, but probably not a professional looking for an integrated workflow. But let's face it, CS was never priced for the hobbyist market - and most of the individuals using it probably used it without a valid license. And Adobe seems to think that consumers will still find a way to do so with CC ;-)
OTOH I can't really understand the bashing about Lightroom. It is not subject to the new pricing and remains a very strong option. Aperture? I think it has its hare of issues (very long update cycles, lack of consistency of Apple in supporting its cloud-based services...).
EssexAsh: now capture 1 pro has added catalogues there is zero reason to stick with lightroom and CS5 is still more than capable if i feel the urge to do more than remove spots. Cheerio Adobe.
Capture One Pro is still more expensive than Lightroom, although the upgrades are about the same or cheaper.
I have C1 Pro but have not updated since v5 as I now almost exclusively use Lightroom. v7 has caught up but why should I switch?
Good news and reasonable price... at last! I must admit I had never been a fan of those expensive plug-in suites that were not always doing a convincingly better job than the host software.
I only bought Color FX a while ago, but as a plug-in to Nikon Capture NX. Not sure if I qualify for the free offer!
Interesting. This looks like an easy and low cost way of improving dynamic range in small sensors.
Hopefully RAMBUS will be more successful than when they provided the proprietary and expensive RDRAM technology for the first Intel Pentium 4 motherboards.
mpgxsvcd: These look like very interesting new cameras. You can't argue with how small the NEX-3N is. That is really small for APS-C. It will sell very well.
It is much smaller than the F3 but hardly smaller or lighter than the 5N/5R.
noegd: Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?
Can anyone confirm the 3N has an accessory port and takes the optional EVF? If the top cover hides the accessory port, where is the pup-up flash hiding?
It indeed looks like this 3N has no accessory port, according to other previews.
Still, an interesting kit with the 16-50, at less than half the price of the NEX-6 kit, if I believe the list price announces in Europe.
Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?
Mike99999: This is all I have to say about NEX: the size advantage is an illusion, you get big lenses with clumsy small bodies.http://camerasize.com/compact/#325.90,393.321,ha,t
The 16-50 collapsible zoom makes this a very compact kit. Many entry-level users would not buy any other lens.
Peiasdf: Got a feeling Sigma's 50 f/1.4 is going to be better than the Zeiss.... hmm. Zeiss aren't that impressive lately.
The Sigma 35 1,4 is impressive and seems better than every other 35mm 1,4 out there, apart maybe from the current Leica M Summilux.
But the Sigma 50 1,4 is a slightly older design. It has its strengths and supporters, but it is not the technological breakthrough the 35mm 1,4 is. In particular, corners are nothing to write home about. See here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/5
One thing the CZ and Sigma 50 1.4 share is a huge filter size for a 50mm prime (72 and 77mm respectively).
marike6: The UWA Nikkor looks quite nice, and is smaller than I expected (as small as lens with a 77mm filter can be). Since I have the 28 1.8G as my only wide, if the new 18-35 is a good performer, I'll consider it.
Regarding the "increasingly rare" inclusion of a lenshood with new lenses, every Sigma lens I've ever purchased has included a hood, and all of the newest generation Nikkors come complete with hoods. But there are some vendors (cough, Canolympus, cough) who feel hoods are optional, for whatever reason.
"Increasingly rare" may refer to the mirrorless market: Panasonic includes hoods for all of its lenses apart from the pancake ones, I think Sony only includes one with the higher-end lenses. Same for Nikon 1 lenses. Olympus does not include hood with any m43 lens afaik.
Impressive results but I'd be interested to see how the adapter works with really wide angles, like 24 or 20mm full frame lenses.
Because, for 35mm equivalence, we have already the nice 24mm Zeiss lens in E mount.
bobbarber: RawTherapee is not the only free option. The "engine" in RawTherapee is dcraw, a free command line converter for raw files written by Dave Coffin. dcraw is also the guts for many, many other free converters. I use UFRaw.
As far as limited functionality in RawTherapee, UFRaw, etc. goes, all you have to do is use those programs (or the command line) to convert your raw files, and complete processing them in other software, like Photoshop or gimp, if the functionality is too little for what you do. For me, it's like one program. When I open a raw file in gimp, gimp automatically presents the file to me in UFRaw. I make whatever tweaks I want, click a button, and the photo is converted and passed to gimp.
Yes many software developer re-use dcraw source code for raw file decoding purpose (incl. Adobe), but develop their own demosaicking algorithms.
I too used to use different software for raw processing, image editing and cataloguing (IMatch back then), but I was tired of the different software UI logic, the need to manage intermediate files and the potential different rendering of the same raw files in different software (IMatch, Capture One, Nikon Capture and Photoshop).
In that respect, an all-in-one solution such as Lightroom has been a life-changing (and time-saving) experience for me.
noegd: I liked the review, and having both C1 Pro, and Lr4, and having occasionally tested DxO, I cannot disagree with the conclusions.
I'd add one thing: the default rendering of Lr, which is indeed quite flat, can usually be made much more pleasing by selecting camera maker profiles, when they exist. You can also tweak the look and profiles to your liking, and define them as the new default settings to apply to that camera on later imports.
What is interesting, is how close these three programs are getting. 6y ago, Lr, C1 and DxO were much more different software that they are today.
Finally, RawTherapee is a great converter with leading edge demosaicking algorithms. It is however not as features rich as the above software: it is still primarily a raw converter (even if the compatibility with Adobe's DNG color profiles and lens profiles extends its usefulness). And more importantly, it is still a beta product that has some serious stability and memory management issues.
I only have 32bit Windows installs, and there is no 64bit build for the Mac yet. Too bad as I guess it would fly on my 8 cores, 16 GB Mac Pro...
I liked the review, and having both C1 Pro, and Lr4, and having occasionally tested DxO, I cannot disagree with the conclusions.
LittleMonkeyMojo: Would I then be able to connect something other than a lens to the camera for capturing data which may or may not be visual?
Like a digital TV receiver? Cool... or not ;-)
No functional prototype yet, confusing specs and they are supposed to be shipping finished products this quarter?
I have a BlackBerry Playbook . It was an impulse buy, my main tablet remaining an iPad, but its Tablet OS (pretty close to what the BB 10 OS will be) is really excellent. Great multi-tasking, excellent browser, mail, contact and productivity applications.
The few games that are available show the potential of the platform. Having had a quick look at the SDKs, there seem to be more ways to develop proper apps for the platform than for iOS: C++ native, HTML5, Java, Adobe Air...
The current Playbook has some hardware issues (average battery life, poor WiFi and GPS sensitivity) but nothing that can't be solved in a new generation of device.
If RIM manages to attract enough developpers, its platform could attract a lot of consumers. But that's a big IF...
That's actually a good surprise, considering the price of their 50 and 85 1.4.
Hopefully they will now turn to their 20, 24 and 28 1.8 and update them to state-of-the art optics and AF.
noegd: Would be interesting to see how this new 24-70 f/4 compares to Nikon's 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 (which in practice is no different than f/4 constant).
Maximum RR of the Nikkor is only 0.22x, but I'm not sure how many people would use a 24-70 for macro work.
The Nikkor may be "plastic fantastic" but I think it is very well made.
I note that the Canon 24-70 f/4 preview says it is "decently-built" but makes no mention of actual material. Putting a red ring and L on the lens does not make it automatically better.