bmoag: Photoshop like Word, Excel, Quicken et al essentially has no competition as, for whatever reasons, productivity applications have devolved into near monopolies. Enough griping: Photoshop is an astounding program and the CC model has worked better than expected. However if GIMP had good color management what would distinguish the core functionality of the programs?
A bloody cheap, but good PS Alternative might be PT Photo Editor, it does support 16bit Color, unlike Gimp which is OpenSource, but that feature is for aeons into beta stage, PSD File support, and you can work with layers, too. Still, no PS Plugin System, which is bad, but the program is 64bit already & stable. If you need to extract RAWs, just use RAW Therapee, and/or Dark Table, if you're on Linux, but RT works as native Linux Version, too. I do use PT Photo Editor sometimes when i don't want to load the huge Photoshop program. It's GUI is equal to Lightroom, in some way.
chriscotec: Photoshop is fantastic software but Adobe is obsessed with controlling the market. They can afford to, as there are really no direct competitors at the top level of it's capabilities.
I am one of those who will not pay the cloud fees. I don't need any features that were introduced since I upgraded to CS6. I really could do my work with CS5 in fact. The developments in Lightroom's image processing have been more important to me. My needs are basic compared to some other users but I will not pay the cost Adobe charges for a subscription, for updates I don't need.
Adobe hate people like me. They have already ceased support for my software. I source third party information when I need it. I would love to see alternative software give them some serious competition. I would jump ship in a heartbeat.
+1 fully understandable, i think exactly the same way as you.Well, i'd guess we'd see more powerful options during the next 2-3 years, and perhaps into the next couple years, there would be a software with features like CS6, or even more powerful, but without the abo model...time will tell, which company would do it. think positive. As long as there is no real alternative, there is still CS6.
Congrats Adobe, for developing PS over such a long time. Back into the 90s, the 1st Picture Program i've ever installed was Paint Shop Pro 1.0, PS was at Version 3.0 Level, when i 1st used it - but switched back to PSP, and fourth...i finally stayed with PS when CS4 came out, and it was also the first Photoshop Version with full 64bit & also 64bit Plugin Support - back into 2008, i was personally disappointed with PSP, whileas it became 32bit Support with 4.12 way fast, the jump to 64bit took ages, long after all others. Into the early picture processing beginning, i've had a flatbet scanner to get the Files into the PC, and have had also used Aldus Photostyler back into the day...well...i'm feeling really older now...
Peter Del: CS6 costs £650, if one keeps it for ten years it costs £650. If one rents it at £9/month for ten years that's £1080. I would sooner have the £430 in my pocket rather than theirs!However, I'm still using Elements 3!!!
Exactly, and that's why i also don't go the Abo Model Route with CS/Adobe.
iudex: I see no reason for critisizing the photographer; the pictures are OK given the light situation. Shooting RAW is also desirable, since OOC JPEGs can hide a lot of flaws and I want to see exactly how the lens performs, not showing the most pleasing pictures I can get out of the cameraMaybe if I desired something it would be more portraits at maximum FL and f2,8.Anyhow the performance of the lens seems fine, but not extraordinary, just slightly above the average. And I think we can expect more from a lens of this cathegory (a lot of glass and high-end features), especially considering the high pricetag. Costing 50% more than the Sigma 18-35 Art it should also perform better, but according to these pics it does not. But I am considering only few real world shots, so I better wait for judgement for regular studio test.
Also no critics from my side. The samples are okay. But like Samuel said, i think Fuji developed this 16-55 lens with the X-T1 in mind, because from the pictures i've seen onto the net mounted on a X-Pro1, it does look optically somehow unbalanced, and way too big, heavy...but on the X-T1, it just looks way better, for my eyes & taste.
matthew saville: Nikon finds themselves in a similar situation, with the D3300 and D5300/5500. The D5300 / 5500 buyers probably should just get a D7100/7200 if they're super serious about photography, and the ones who THOUGHT they weren't serious enough about photography to buy any more than the D3300, will eventually regret not getting a D5300/5500.
In short, the bottom-of-the-barrel camera is only there to entice, it's really not a camera that anyone serious enough to actually buy an ILC system would be OK with in the long run.
IMO Canon and Nikon could both benefit from just consolidating this "baseline" DSLR lineup to one model, charge as little as they can for it, and put the rest of their energy into working harder on a MILC system...
I don't need 24 MP, that's all - and the D7100 Buffer is too small, also the D7100 does have Sensor banding issues. The D400 would be nice, if it would ever see thel light of day.I never said that the D5300 is a bad beginners DSLR, but it's not something somebody ever from a D90 or D7000 would downgrade to - and that's all, then JD became rude, and i replied into the same way, he might only understand - period.
AngryCorgi: Can't compete with Nikon and Pentax's entry-level IQ? No problem, we'll throw an LCD panel on it! That'll do the trick. :-P
Tactically, you're right @BarnET. But the sad real story is, Canon just can't compete with the whole competition into DR terms, ISO performance, Color depth, it's always lacking, and i don't understood why is this brand not being able to do it better. If i'd be a billionaire, i would just buy the whole Canon brand & crush it after, because that's what they deserve for making iteration after iteration the same story. And then i would rise Contax from the dead, because Contax have had been always innovative - since their early beginnings, unlike Canon.
I'm wondering what this Tokina 24-70/2.8 would cost, and how it compares to the great Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC....if it would be that good, and also cheaper, Tokina would sell many of them...even without some kind of VR/VC.
You completely misunderstood my post, so let it be..it seems you doesn't understand a single word out of it - therefore please don't comment what you don't understand, because that is way silly.I do own & use the D90 AND the D7000, so did i make my things clear? Your Post is really senseless. And further, it's no need to shout around in here.
for your needs, not for mine. I can't deal with the mediocre viewfinder, missing 2nd dial, and and and...too many compromises. And i do own the D7000 for ages, too...so what the heck you wanna go tell me? The 5x00 Line just doesn't cut it, or making sense for my own needs. Your needs may be different, period.
Anastigmat: The 28mm f/2 seems to be a reverse telephoto design. There are advantages and disadvantages to this design. The advantage is that it will not have as bad vignetting problems, but the disadvantage is that it is not as sharp or as compact as the Leica M series lens approach.
Of course, Becjsvart +1. But i do have my doubts, that lens would "good".
TrapperJohn: This may answer the question as to whether entry level DSLR's are still viable. They were in the 2000's, when the DSLR was the 'tech toy du jour', but most of those buyers have moved on to smartphones, with their portability and rapid share ability. The finer aspects of photography didn't matter to the tech set then, doesn't really matter now. That market is gone, and won't be back.
Still... Canon or Nikon or both need to get on the ball, because the game is changing with or without them. Most of the exciting, new innovations are coming from elsewhere.
Well said, EOSHD. +1 And therefore, these Guys are using perhaps their smartphone, or any type of compact digicam, or an beginners DSLM perhaps, but mostly their phone cam or just an old compact for that task. If your DSLR/DSLM lies 99% onto the shelf per year - you don't thread this hobby photography passionate enough, it's simple as that.
You don't have to be "super serious" for going the D7x00 route, but instead just knowing of what you want. For instance, that small Mini OVF inside the D3x00/D5x00 series, c'mon it's really unbearable! I've just looked last weekend through the OVF from a friends D3100 Body, and have been really shocked that it is even smaller then my 2006 D40 6MP Body OVF - in fact, it's exactly 10% smaller - that is a joke, you really can't work with this sh.t when you come from a K-10D Pentax with a big, bright pentaprism viewfinder, for example. I've arranged myself with the D40, still love it, but with the D3100, i simply can't work with the OVF, and that goes for the whole D3x00/D5x00 series, perhaps Nikon thought: should they use Live view, or upgrade to a D7x00 series!
I hope that day would come when Nikon would threat DX as mirrorless, and -of course- serious for the real deal. But Nikon still does have too less lenses being introduced since the DX Format came out to life. Where is the cheap 23 or 24mm/1.8 AF-S DX? It's still not here...even after zillion years...felt. Where is a high quality DX zoom, which is far better and cheaper than the 17-55 DX AF-S? That one is from 1999, when Nikon haven't had plans for FX. But therefore we've had a flood of 18-xx something Zooms from Nikon, to the max.
The Problem with Nikon is, that you don't have a choice *if* you want to have a decent DX Body, apart from the D7000/D7100.
Whileas the D7200 seems to be far away onto the horizon, a D90 User, for example i was and still being, won't "downgrade" to a D5x00 Series Body, even if the Sensor would be Generations-newer, you'd just loose too much, if you choose sth different then a D7x00 Series Bodies. The D3x00/D5x00 Series don't have a built-in AF Motor for older Lenses, no 2nd Dial, no Glas Pentaprism, no Top LCD Display, no DoF Preview Button, etc, etc....and that's just a bit...so an enthusiast D90 User wouldn't downgrade ever to a D3x00/D5x00 Series, because it would hurt too much, not only from the body handling, but also way much in terms of features - what gives?! Just a better sensor, and you'd loose an otherwise excellent Body & Handling.
Or otherwise: You'll be stupid to "upgrade" from a D90 to a D5x00 Series Body, because apart from the Sensor, everything else is a mess.
marc petzold: The 750D is nonsense, because it's a feature-restricted Model. Seriously, why selling the 750D, which is compared to the 760D only sh.tty 50 bucks cheaper, but without Top Display, and many other things. So it's a joke - if you have 699$, you can also wait a bit and pay 749 for the real thing, instead of a flattened DSLR. Or: the price difference is so neglible, it's a joke. If there would be about 200-300$ difference between the 2 models, it would make sense, but just 50$...geeez...it get's a debile smile, nothing more, nothing less. Enthusiast DSLR without a glas pentaprism? Way funny, indeed.
but for that price point, canon is making too many limitations, so the 750D in comparsion is another unlogical market iteration.
The A500 was a beginners DSLR, the A700 is an enthusiast DSLR.
The 750D is nonsense, because it's a feature-restricted Model. Seriously, why selling the 750D, which is compared to the 760D only sh.tty 50 bucks cheaper, but without Top Display, and many other things. So it's a joke - if you have 699$, you can also wait a bit and pay 749 for the real thing, instead of a flattened DSLR. Or: the price difference is so neglible, it's a joke. If there would be about 200-300$ difference between the 2 models, it would make sense, but just 50$...geeez...it get's a debile smile, nothing more, nothing less. Enthusiast DSLR without a glas pentaprism? Way funny, indeed.
marc petzold: bad humor, guys...you can do it quite better...can you?
fully agreed, Barney. +1
The 28mm/F2 is useless, if you can live with F2.8, just buy a 10 bucks adapter, and get the Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm/2.8 lens! Because it's a very good lens, and i hardly doubt the new Sony 28mm/F2 could match it, and also it's not a Zeiss lens, neither with T* coatings, too. Many Vintage lenses are GREAT, you just have to figure it out...that NEW doesn't always means BETTER...
So into the End, that Distagon 28/2.8 is much cheaper with an adapter to fit Sony eMount than this 500 "Teuro" priced 28/F2 Sony Lens.
bad humor, guys...you can do it quite better...can you?