These "best camera" reader polls are a bit silly. You don't see gourmets voting for "Cooker of The Year". A camera is only a tool. It's what you do with it that matters.
rrr_hhh: Speaking of Adobe products : who took their special CC offering for photographers ?
I thought hard about it, but no : I will drag CS6 as long as I can and own LR5.
I'm still angry about the way they deals with long time customers (I have it since 1996), updated to CS6 just a few months before CC was launched and felt that last update was wasted. Then came a special offering until the end of December for owners of CS6, then a few months later they made it available for anybody, and shortened the delay to the 2th December previous owners included.. Then they prolonged the delay until the 8th December. Then their servers were hacked and my credit card number probably stolen. How can I trust such a company ? They don't know where they are going.. Apparently their offering wasn't getting as much success as they hoped, or why would they make it last longer ?
Far from the offer not getting as much success as they hoped, it has, by all accounts, proven to be spectacularly successful: http://petapixel.com/2013/12/11/survey-reveals-adobes-photography-program-bringing-tons-users/#more-126860
If you want to see some of the best photographs of 2013 or any year head over to 1x.com. I flicked through TIME's selection - the usual catalogue of misery and destruction.
"For anyone simply looking for the best image quality from a compact, the RX100 II is the answer." You can stop reading after that. IQ is what it's all about and the RX100 (versions 1 and 11) delivers that in spades. I have the original RX100 and I am constantly amazed at the quality it delivers.
srados: "Adobe", what a person should do if his/hers computer IS NOT 24/7 connected to internet?I have my workhorse AWAY from viruses and other garbage. Keeping me disconnected saves me money in antivirus software...By the way I am boycotting subscription based software.Still happy with my CS 5...and yes when I can not install it on my new version of operating system software I will look up Corell line of products.
Srados: you do not have to be connected to the internet 24/7 to use PSCC. An attempt will be made to validate your licence once every 30 days so even if your'e online for only a few minutes per month it will be sufficient.
I think it's a very good offer and I have signed up. For €144 a year I have access to the best image editor there is with automatic updates as they arise. Already, ACR's Radial Filter and Automatic Perspective Correction - to name just two of CC's innovations- make it a very attractive option over previous versions. People may whinge about the concept of renting rather than owning the software but, like it or not, that is the way it's going to be and you either stick with your existing version of PS - which will become increasingly dated as time goes by - or you accept what Adobe are doing and go with the flow. Yes, you could also, of course, opt for another image editor but for me, I am so used to PS that a change was never a realistic proposition.
pekr: 10USD, 12 EUR - what kind of idiot can set such conversion rate?
The USD price quoted does not include local taxes.
It's like an FM2 with buboes.
I've seen several photos of abandoned houses done in a similar style to this and I have yet to be convinced that there isn't a huge amount of stage management - placing objects such as pictures, statues and the like - even bringing them to the shoot in some instances - involved. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong in doing that - it's all for aesthetic effect - but suggesting that the scenes are "as found" stretches credulity to breaking point. I can't imagine anyone leaving so many items behind in their former homes and if they did they would have been robbed very soon after.
SlickBK: Man, I just bought a 7D which I got a huge discount on($959). Do you folks think it is worth returning it and purchasing the 70D? I guess we might need to see how the image quality is with this new technology.
SlickBK: why on earth would you want to change your just purchased 7D? It is an outstanding camera and the IQ is superb. Do you seriously think you'd see an improvement in IQ in the 70D? You won't.
oselimg: If this camera doesn't bring my slippers, make me breakfast in the morning it's boring, yawn. What was Canon thinking for god's sake!!! I want 42 inch EVF which will work in absolute darkness. Puh!!! optical viewfinder. Boooriiinnnng. I don't want anything that will potentially leave me in a compromising position to justify myself amongst my gear head, techno-junkie local photography society friends. Why, why!!!
My sentiments exactly. It's actually quite funny reading some of the nit-picking going on here. I strongly suspect that were we to see a sample of the work of those photographers we would be very underwhelmed indeed. When I was young and impressionable I recall being awestruck by a man who was an expert on everything Nikon. He could tell the year of manufacture from the serial number of a lens. He could explain the detailed workings of the Nikon F Photomic head. He was a gear expert to his fingertips. Then I saw a sample of his work. Oh boy, what a disappointment. He totally lacked a photographic eye. Ever since I have been suspicious of photographers who appear to be experts on the finer details of the technology. My view, until proved otherwise (and it rarely is), is that they are compensating for lack of an artistic sense.
They can keep it.
This is a joke, right?
Louis_Dobson: Well, I have no dog in the fight - I got rid of the D3 for an OM-D.
But I'm baffled by the review. Look at page 23 - feeble sensor DR (as picked up by DxOMark). So this camera is a one trick pony - low noise at high ISO. Who wants to carry around a brick to get that? Wedding shooters. And a very high proportion of wedding shooters want their shots out and paid for with minimal PP, which means JPG. The camera's other weakness? The JPG engine.
So it's not really terribly good, is it? It's only good at one thing, and in the end it isn't very good at THAT either.
Nonetheless it will sell well, because people are foolishly obsessed with using "what the pros use". If they bought their cars the same way they'd have delivery vans and taxis.
Me, I'd like a D800, but the OM-D is too good to justify having both. This, I'd not touch thanks, unless I decided I wanted to shoot weddings and couldn't afford a D4.
Wedding photographers shoot jpegs? Not in my neck of the woods.
Dan4321: A printer? How about a review of the 5d3 or the latest olympus u4/3 (forgot the name). Something people actually use -- I haven't used a printer for photography in the last 5 years and I honestly only know one photographer who still makes prints, out of around 50.
Really? In the camera club I belong to I am in a small minority of experienced photographers who do not make their own prints. I am still in two minds as to whether to take the printer plunge or not but there is no doubt the control, quality and the ability to use a range of fine art papers is a strong argument in favour of doing so.