bobbarber: I'm surprised more people don't use gimp.You can work with layers and layer masks, dozens (hundreds?) of filters, etc. and it's free. Raw files are opened via UFRaw, Rawtherapee, etc. The gimp user interface needs work. It's clunky. But hey, if you guys want to pay $1,000 for Photoshop, go right ahead. Photoshop squeezing more out of their customers is an angst-free issue for me. I dropped Photoshop in the 1990s, because it froze up my computer all the time.
@ BobbarberThanks for taking the time to reply. For your usage the GIMP version is more than adequate. I am hoping somebody will fix the save for web features, the GIMP might be enough for me too.
As for most Lightroom user who look for a tandem Photo Editing tool with Layers and more features than Lightroom GIMP will be powerful enough. However, as far as I know GIMP does not have the lens correction function. I just upgraded from CS2 to CS6 and started playing with it. Seems quite useful to squeeze the last IQ out of your images.
Michael de Ruijter: It's software rental.
You pay.Then at the end of the day you have nothing.
And if you've saved a quantity of your files in PS format and you stop renting - yes it's renting - the software, your files will be inaccessible.
I'm not really fond of the idea of giving my money over and having nothing to show for it.Which alternatives are there? I think I'll start looking around.
If I am not mistaken GIMP opens PS file format. So in case you stop renting PS you still can continue using your files with GIMP. Anybody if there is a SW which opens Premiere projects ?
@ bobbarberThis is my personal experience. I made a comparison some time ago between GIMP and PS CS2. I need images for the web and they need to be optimized in size. I work with photos which are saved in jpeg and with artwork, which I save in PNG8. The workflow in GIMP is by far not as smooth as in PS. E.g. you do not get a preview that when you choose your quality settings how your file will look like. And when working with PNG / GIF ( indexed ) you have no say how many colors you want to use. For many line art 4 ... 16 colors is very sufficient, GIMP seems to always use 256, which bumps up the file size significantly. If you know of a plug in for GIMP that has similar features as "Save for web" for PS, or any other way to have these features in GIMP, I am very interested. Please let me know.As about JPEG, I am no programmer, but I noticed that there are many different ways to encode your image to JPEG, which result in different quality at same file size.
Final Cut Pro once was the leading program for Video Editing. Then they released a new version which no longer could open their own old file formats of previous release. Adobe reacted and offered special upgrade prices when converting from Final Cut to Adobe Premiere. Within a year Apple lost its market leadership on Video Editing. I wonder if this cloud thing one day will be looked upon as the thing that lost Adobe the leadership in Photo Editing?
GIMP also has some gaps. E.g. saving files for web for me frequently results in files that are 30% bigger and still not as good image quality as when done in PS. As for most photo editing it is sufficient indeed.
Henry M. Hertz: the real NIGHTMARE people will face is .... when they decide to stop paying for the subscription and suddenly NOTICE that they CAN´T OPEN THEIR OWN FILES ANYMORE.
all the proprietary adobe files are only usable as long as you pay for subscription.
after effects, premiere projects.... etc. how will you use them if you dercide to not pay adobe anymore?
not a problem today.. you still have a working CS version.but CC will stopp working when you don´t pay for it.
Yikes. I did not thought of that. Just wanted to start using Adobe Premiere. I will need to think this over again. You would be able to load the original files with other editors and you would be wise to export your complete project in any standard format anyways, but building a library of clips and edits is now less motivating.
Paulo Ferreira: Ridiculous if not illegal by trading standards. The amount of data going back and forth is going to be beyond comprehension. The idea that to use editing software you have to be online and give Adobe full access to every single step of your work is... well illegal!! There are serious privacy issues with this "new" "vision". It is just another "Instagram" type of idea. Back off!
@ HenryThanks for your informationNo thanks for your attitude.
Please note that CC is used as abbreviation for cloud computing, which behaves as the poster expected, sending your data to processing to the SW running on the cloud server and then receiving the manipulated data back. Maybe the reference to the Cloud is misleading from Adobe Marketing ?
HubertChen: For people living in countries with unreliable internet connection this is simply more than unacceptable. It does not work satisfactory at all.
I live in China. Internet Connection goes through the great China Firewall. Internet connection is simply not reliable. Sites you can access today maybe blocked for the next 60 days and then come online again, or not. I have a huge library of files which I need frequent access to for my work. If this access is combined with the daily whim of the great china firewall it is simply very upsetting, and as I said before, more than not acceptable. I have this problem already since Adobe switched most documentation to online and online movies, which most of them are blocked here. Very, very upsetting. I guess I will stick with CS6 for a while and sit it out. I just upgraded from CS2 to CS6, so maybe by the time I feel the itch again to upgrade this problem is solved.
@ KennethAmericans never can imagine that internet connection is a very different thing in other countries. The lack to understand this reduces their competitive fitness.
the Mtn Man: In other news, the GIMP remains 100% free. :)
I use GIMP and Photoshop side by Side. Can't say one is more logical than the other. I love though that since PS6 UI it is Lightrooom style.
No doubt there is that GIMP is far less powerful.
For people living in countries with unreliable internet connection this is simply more than unacceptable. It does not work satisfactory at all.
It seems the problem is not with google glass but with western society which thinks it is normal or even necessary to be duplicitous. Then google glass appears like a threat to unveil it. If you are consistent and ethical you would not care to be published at any time. And in case you have to deal with confidential information, you have to trust the other side anyways not to publish you. You do not need google glass to secretly record a conversation. Plenty of methods available already. Google glass is simply a new gadget aiming to make communication more easy. That is a good thing.
sportyaccordy: The more I look at this lens the less sense it makes. It should have been a <20mm 1.8 prime
I love my NEX C3 but DX just can't compete with FX in the realm of speed. This whole exercise is a testament to the futility of it all. Better to stick with cheap glass and focus on better utilizing sensors. I forget which company it was that came out with those security camera sensors that were like ISO6553600. They could implement tech on APS-C sensors that would be cost prohibitive on FX sensors to cover the gap.
I mean I have been playing with an aperture equivalence calculator. f/2 on FX is like f/1 on DX. There is no comparison.
I am using "Cheap" sensor with good glass and beating my friend's setup of expensive sensor with cheap glass. If you live on a budget and care about image quality, spend as little as possible on the camera and as much as possible on a good lens ( expensive not always means good )
Please somebody explain Snap Focus. Many folks here get excited about it, seems very cool but I can not find what it is. Even not in their press release. Thanks in advance!
Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.
Then there is the question of pricing: D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000
Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.
So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.
Thanks Martin, interesting thoughts. Here are some more:
a) 18 ... 35 mm might be a very useful range.If you make statistics most people will shoot > 80% of their images in this range.b) Great combo: 18 ... 35 mm + 50 ... 150 mmThe little gap from 35 ... 50 mm can be afforded. I rather would have this gap than mushy image quality in my most used focal range. Again 18 ... 35 mm seems very practicalc) Resell value of Sigma lensesI am expecting that for Art lenses the resell value will be soon very similar to Nikkor or L-Glass. It simply deserves to be and there are already Sigma Art lenses who best Nikkor and L-Glass.b) Your case only considers people who would buy into a new system from scratch. Actually very few people do. Instead most people own a APSC system already. For them to switch to a FF system with all lenses purchased new might cost 4000+ USD versus just buy this Sigma lens. So instantly this Sigma lens becomes a winner, no matter if priced 1000 USD or 2000 USD.
HubertChen: In my experience, going from f/2.8 to f/2 dramatically increases lens aberrations. A lot of sigma lenses have excellent center performance but abysmal border sharpness. This lens is sure interesting and sigma is applauded to innovate a lens which on paper looks very practical and desirable. However, before getting excited about it I like to see a serious lens test and real world images. Last but not least combining wide angle with open aperture and nice bokeh has been always difficult, but doing this in a zoom has been close to impossible. Who will be willing to shell out 1000 USD for a lens will look for nice bokeh too. If Sigma can pull this one off they will sure impress many.
Thanks for everyone's comments!
Relevance of corner sharpness @ f/2Corner sharpness @ f2 does not matter at about 50% of my f/2 shots, say portraits, flower macros, etc ... So thanks to Jun2 to point this out! However in my other 50 % corner sharpness is very important. Say street photography at night or landscape photography at dusk or dawn. When you have foliage which is perfectly sharp in the center and smeared in the corners it simply ruins the shot in my book. Your mileage may vary!
Group portraits @ f2As it so happens I regular shoot these. I hate flash and love the light indoors or at dawn. As long as you line everybody up on a line ( focal plane ) and your camera axis is perpendicular to that line and you are 3 ... 5 m away ( 9 ... 15 feet ) there is no problem with depth of field. It is important though ( as always ) to nail the focus. In low light i focus manually to be certain.
In my experience, going from f/2.8 to f/2 dramatically increases lens aberrations. A lot of sigma lenses have excellent center performance but abysmal border sharpness. This lens is sure interesting and sigma is applauded to innovate a lens which on paper looks very practical and desirable. However, before getting excited about it I like to see a serious lens test and real world images. Last but not least combining wide angle with open aperture and nice bokeh has been always difficult, but doing this in a zoom has been close to impossible. Who will be willing to shell out 1000 USD for a lens will look for nice bokeh too. If Sigma can pull this one off they will sure impress many.
HubertChen: @ dpreview: What is going on with lens reviews ?This is the third format of a lens review introduced in the last 2 years. This makes comparing lenses within your lens reviews almost impossible. You have few reviews only to begin with and the lenses I am interesting in comparing are in different review formats, leaving me with no useful content at all. Lens- reviews is a systematic business which requires commitment and consistency. If you can not do it it systematically, it might make more sense to not do it at all and invest the saved resources into camera reviews, where your reviews often come out way too late. In case anybody feels the same, you might find the following place useful: http://www.photozone.de/ Significantly larger lens portfolio and all reviews in the same format.
This is now a week later and there has been no response. Very sad.
arscii: Call me when Lightroom supports layers. Until that time it's being deliberately crippled by Adobe to protect Photoshop revenues.
To me the separation into two program makes sense. One is for Photography workflow offering all features you need, the other one is for intensive image manipulation, which most photographers do not need. Splitting these functions into two programs allows Lightroom to keep its price low and its learning curve still manageable. Since I have Lightroom I rarely use Photoshop anymore. If an image requires such massive manipulation I rather prefer to toss or re-shoot it. If I need Photoshop, I almost exclusively use it for product photography. As such integration between LR and PS is OK. However, I am not happy that once being in Photoshop the file size explodes. Is there any way around that ?
Jan_Shim: Would be nice if Adobe releases a version without its cataloging engine. Not every photographer, pro or otherwise, want or need to catalog their pictures. I come from Corel Paintshop Pro, ACDsee camp where you would just browse to the folder containing the images and edit away. Paintshop Pro saves image thumbs in each folder so loading those hundreds or even a thousand images is really fast - very effective without a cataloging engine hogging computing resources or risk database corruption. The PSP way has been very effective unfortunately Corel still hasn't released a 64-bit version so I'm contemplating LR5 especially now it has a one-stop photo editing capability.
I am combining the best of both using Lightroom:a) Make Imports into folders. I am naming the folders as per my shoot topic, so they are easy to find even when simply browsing folders in the OS. All my edits and developments are done on images in the folders. So in case something happen to the database, my images ares still reasonably organized in folders I am familiar with and can browse without Lightroom ( also making backups of the catalog data base can be done automatic and increases safety )b) Once Editing and developing is done, the keepers are associated to catalogs. This has the advantage, that one image can show up in several catalogs. Say you took a trip with the family to the zoo, you could have the same image show up in catalogs for say: ( Family | Zoo | Animals ). Really useful!
In short you can live with folders just as with ACDsee or you can use Catalogs or both.
lighthunter80: Is it likely that I - one day - can get a new view finder for my Oly Pen with that module and it fits into my hot shoe? I don't see any issues with that...? Would be great!
I am taking a guess here but I would think it is not likely. The Image processing engine in your camera has to be fast enough to deliver the images to the display. Bigger display requires a faster = more expensive and more power consuming imaging engine. To safe cost and battery life it is likely your camera maker has chosen to build in the engine with just enough resolution for the available EVF at the time of design.