ManuelVilardeMacedo: I tried Lightroom 5.7 last week. Adobe's website would only make the trial version available as part of CC, so I doubt new version 6 will be sold as a standalone application.Apparently Adobe succeded in dragging every Lr user to CC, despite it being outrageously expensive. You paid less for the standalone programme even if you updated it every year. I knew this would happen.As for the 5.7v I tried, it is exactly the same as Lr4, which I tried some three years ago, save for some presentation details. Lr6 will undoubtedly have some fancy features added, but I have no reason to believe it will bring any real improvement over previous versions.
graybalanced: of course. It's just that I wanted to download the trial version. You need to log on to Creative Cloud to try Lr. Ultimately that was what misled me into thinking the standalone version wasn't available anymore.
Kim Letkeman: Anyone who is running the latest versions of LR on a 32 bit machine it probably a masochist. Limited memory, limited bandwidth ... nothing is good about that combination. So Adobe is dead right to make 32 bit system obsolete. Heck, when was the last time you saw a 32 bit system for sale (that wasn't one of those crap brands created for suckers.)
Aha, String, you're such a cheeky child...
It probably is. I only found it after using the website's search engine!
I've been doing a lot of research on Adobe's website. Turns out Lr is still available as a standalone product. It is very hard to find it, though, and someone seeking for Lr can easily be fooled into thinking only the CC app is available. (How cunning!)I was wrong, then. Thanks for the constructive replies. I really need a programme that opens the TIFF black and white scans from my film rolls. DxO doesn't, but Lr does.
string, how old are you? 12?
ihv: that's EXACTLY what I meant. In Europe the monthly subscription for Lr only is €12,29, which amounts to €147,48 per year. As a standalone programme, Lr could be purchased for €129,00. In my books that was less expensive than €147,48, though I accept some people might think otherwise...
I tried Lightroom 5.7 last week. Adobe's website would only make the trial version available as part of CC, so I doubt new version 6 will be sold as a standalone application.Apparently Adobe succeded in dragging every Lr user to CC, despite it being outrageously expensive. You paid less for the standalone programme even if you updated it every year. I knew this would happen.As for the 5.7v I tried, it is exactly the same as Lr4, which I tried some three years ago, save for some presentation details. Lr6 will undoubtedly have some fancy features added, but I have no reason to believe it will bring any real improvement over previous versions.
FRANCISQUAN: Wow, I'm amazed at the thought of people rushing out to the Apple store this minute to queue up for a £789 I-Phone 6+ 128gb to shoot all these fantastic photographs.
Problem for me is I don't use a phone, don't do Apps or Twitter or Facebook or I-Cloud or play games or talk to Siri and I'm quite happy to sit here using my huge dinosaur of a desktop computer to surf the web in an attempt to decide which actual camera I should buy. Any photos I take are backed up to external hard drives and I have no inclination to "show off my 5,000,000 pictures on social media" ..............like ;) or indulge in selfies.
That cash would buy a Canon EOS 7D while another £100 would buy a Nikon D7100 but now I am being told that I will be better off buying a phone.
............... I don't get it.
Shiranai: not to mention long exposures, pannings, (intentional) motion blur or wildlife and sports photography. I wish this glorification of the iPhone 5 as a capable camera would stop. It has a good JPEG engine, that's all. Great for casual pics and selfies, but not much else.Yet things can get even worse, given the quantity of people I see taking pictures with phablets!
Deardorff: Contrast and drama for no reason. Looks like cheap knockoffs of Mitch Dobrowner done poorly. Too much appearance of "I have a computer photo manipulation program - look what I did".Why color in the midst of B&W? Only detracts.
Not really, Eric. You can't compare what is essentially a critic to a picture set (as Deardorff did) to a personal remark such as "And just how many photographs have you sold sir?" That's what I found hard to accept. If Carl Garrard had written "you're a nobody so shut up", it would have meant the same.It's curious, though, that the talent of a photographer should be measured by the number of prints he sells...
No, Carl, you didn't question his entitlement of an opinion. You just tried to humiliate and diminish him.
cgarrard: maybe Deardorff's opinion is in the minority, but he's entitled to it. That's called 'freedom of expression.'
I don't know whether any of the pictures shown was made with the Honeywell Pentax, but at least in the black and white ones there's a definite 'analogue' feel to them that rather pleases me. (And I could swear there are orange - or even red - filters involved, or at least emulated in post-production.) While I wouldn't go as far as to compare Mr. van der Galien to Ansel Adams, I'd place the former over any of the landscape photographers recently featured here at DPR. These pictures are just more expressive.
I tried almost everything that can take a picture, from compact cameras to full-frame and from mobile phones to film. I'm not one of those who claim a smartphone is comparable to a half-decent camera on the grounds of image quality - it isn't -, but there's one thing I know: these point and shoots will get you nowhere. Some mention the advantage of the optical zoom, but the lens is generally badly executed: too much barrel distortion at the wide end, too slow for telephoto. These lenses have very conceivable kind of aberration. Resolution is nothing to write home about, DR is narrow, colours are inaccurate and autofocus is erratic and slow. In consequence, image quality is very poor. My first camera was a point and shoot; it took me only two months to get fed up with it. You're better off with a smartphone like the iPhone than with a point and shoot. These cameras are on borrowed time - but none the worse for it.
Roman Korcek: "The lenses [...] will be available in [...] MFT mounts initially, with the company promising [...] Micro Four Thirds at a later date."
I assume this is a typo or am I missing something?
Roman: of course. And, like Dimitris, let's hope they don't forget m43.
No typo. It will also be available in Micro 4/3 mount.
That's all very well, great pictures, but the equipment porn (5) and the DPR Connect reader (4) were unnecessary.Just kidding. This is really great stuff.
I neither agree or disagree. The message here is 'buy what you need.' It's up to the reader to determine what he/she needs. It makes no sense to buy a Nikon D750 if your main interest is street photography and you probably won't be satisfied if you bought a Fuji X100 and like to shoot wildlife. What I learned from my evolutionary path is that beginners should buy the best equipment they can afford, rather than starting with budget gear and keep upgrading. It is much worse to quickly reach the gear's end-stops than to have a camera which potential you can't fully explore for the moment. In the latter case you'll end up learning how to take advantage of what you have and ultimately you'll have saved a lot of money.
mpgxsvcd: What are we all complaining about? Just 6 years ago we had pathetic burst rates, 12 Megapixels was the Max instead of the min available, Video was non existent, Quiet shutters were almost unheard of, Auto Focus was only slightly better than manual focus, and the cameras cost more than they do today.
If you can't take great pictures and videos with the latest cameras then you really can't blame the camera anymore.
James, you forgot about the bundled 24-1200-f/0,95-1.8 zoom kit lens.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Somebody should have told Casio people who take selfies don't give a damn about cameras. They do selfies because they have smartphones with front-facing lenses. They won't buy a camera solely to take selfies. That'd be too fussy.And no - the fact that this camera has a mirror doesn't make it an SLR...
That would depend on how you interpret it, Eric. This is a saying that's been on the internet for years. I didn't quote it as a means to insulting anyone; I was trying to make a point about the uselessness of arguing on the internet. After all, that's what the saying is about.English language often employs "you" when addressing to a generality of people, so I didn't even realize the person I was replying to could take it personally. That was not my intention anyway.