ManuelVilardeMacedo: It's big, and some aspects of its design could be improved, but it still looks better than any DSLR by Canikon. It reminds me of Pentax's medium format cameras previous to the 645.
Yeah, right. Take the red ornament off a Nikon DSLR and it will be virtually undistinguishable from a Canon counterpart. You have to look pretty close to tell the difference.
It's big, and some aspects of its design could be improved, but it still looks better than any DSLR by Canikon. It reminds me of Pentax's medium format cameras previous to the 645.
Horshack: This is all fine and good except that a MFT drone @ f/2.8 is really equivalent to a full-frame drone @ f/5.6. I like the shallowest DOF possible when my drone is invading the privacy of my neighbor's yard.
The inability of people to understand a sarcasm never ceases to amaze me.
I've always said Micro 4/3 would fly high, but I didn't mean to be so literal...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.
What's there to read about a camera? It's just a tool. In two years it will be obsolete. Anyway, I think you missed the point. It was about the relative importance of bodies compared to lenses.
(Wrongly placed reply. Sorry...)
I see your point, but... what good is a body for without a lens?
Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.
lotuz9: This camera is such a disappointment that 10 people already had it, and only 1 still have it, according to gear numbers above:)
Time travelers, perhaps?...
"Quod abundat non nocet." Gimme more latin, please!
(unknown member): "All statements are true unless proven otherwise."
Zerg2905, just remember: "Iuris praecepta sunt haec; honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere."
"There was a time when Canon led the high-resolution large-format sensor..."There seems to be some conceptual mix-up here. 36x24 mm is not 'large-format.'
(unknown member): I used this lens last week, walked around my back yard taking photos, and of course of my cat. The lens sucked so I sold it on The Bay last week to some guy named Putin#1.
The lens has high distortion compared to others of similar resolution (Tokina has one for half the price while sacrificing only about 10 percent resoltuion, but its construction is more "plasticy") on the market. Flares and ghosts were an issue. Spherochromatism was unacceptable as were focus breathing (leaving Imax production useless for creating 3d video to market the lens) and lateral color fringes.
However, most optical issues will be corrected post processing using software developed by NASA, the NSA, and Google (all of whom are recording your whole life in 3d from all angle simultaneously, in real time).
Like many reviews posted around the "net" by people who never owned the product.
What about image stabilization? That point didn't come out quite clear from your review. Does it work at all? Does the lens actually have OIS at all?And how about bokeh? Is it creamy or what?
I don't know what's dumber - having your body tatooed with Instagram snaps or buying a product named 'Picattoo.'
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.