There was a time, pre-rental scheme, when I thought of Adobe as a paragon of what corporations should be. Now they get as little of my money as I can manage—a version of LR every 18 months or so.
DanteRecknagel: I have always hated sony products dating back to Betamaxand DAT. They have been the most locked down proprietary systems in electronics history yet, I am glad they are in the camera business even though I don't like their cameras? Why? Because they can force Canon and Nikon to persue thinner margins and actually compete both on pricing and specs. Canon and Nikon have been complacent and overpriced for WAY too long.
I agree--but only to a certain extent. Speaking of Canon, I really haven't seen very much movement in terms of pricing or innovation in response to Sony. Perhaps in the high-end compact market. But I think Canon will eventually have to respond or find themselves left behind. Sony's sensor tech is amazing but I prefer to access it through a third party as I don't have much confidence in Sony's commitment to their customers.
ChrisH37: Between the v3 and v4 firmware updates there are easily enough new features to justify a full new model release, and certainly far more than some incremental camera upgrades we've seen in the past. X-T1 v4 would quite comfortably be an X-T2 in some manufacturers books and reviewers would no doubt be very complimentary about the scope of new features.
So regardless of the opinion by some that they should have put this all in to start with, Fuji should be applauded for their approach.
Nothing was 'broken' at release, the vast majority of updates have been enhanced or new features (Electronic Shutter, being a big one). As a Sony RX1 owner previously that received no post-release support whatsoever (despite some easy to fix bugs), I'm in a very comfortable place shooting with Fuji X gear now.
This is customer service at its literal best. They will offer a new model when the hardware becomes the limitation. In the meantime, it's kaizen, baby!
OldDigiman: Well, the last FW update for the X-E2 was a small subset of what the T1 got, so I'm not expecting anything this time. I like the E2 form factor a lot but not the T1 at all. Fuji's abandonment of support for the E2 has me beginning to wonder if there will even be an E3, which has me holding off of buying any more Fuji glass.
Fujirumors has previously reported that there has been internal debate as to whether or not there will even be an X-E3. So apparently Fuji doesn't even know the answer to this question.
Adrian Van: While the Fuji brand has great image quality capture with the X-trans line, now the company needs to work on improving the video capture quality which is behind the quality of m43 and Nikon / Canon or Sony. I owned and sold my XM1 (Xtrans sensor) model, but if they improved video quality, I could be back with a higher model. Photo images are very sharp and detailed in X series, and great to see the AF speed is much better now for XT1 update. If video is not important, this system is a great one to use for enthusiasts and pros.
According to Fuji mgrs speaking on multiple occasions, the video quality issue has to do with processor power; not the X-Trans sensor. That is why there will be no real fix for existing camera bodies.
Mikity: Good article. I think the changing exposure/changing ISO section is needlessly convoluted though - and it's not obvious you can hover over the images!
Totally missed the hover feature. Those illustrations make much more sense now. Richard, perhaps just a caption reminding users that they can hover?
Great article, Richard. A couple questions:
1) Does shot noise present as primarily luminance noise or color noise too?
2) Am I correct to infer that part 2 of this series will answer the question of whether or not it is beneficial to ETTR at ISOs other than the base ISO?
AKH: Is it just me that thinks this is a rather minor update?
I don't care so much about the panorama and HDR stuff and LR 5.7 is fast enough for me when editing, but both LR 5.7 and LR 6.0 are very slow at loading large raw files from Sony A7 and Nikon D810.
Think I'll pass and save about $80 for something else :-)
CORRECTION: The second half of my comment was not correct. LR6 edits that rely on new features are persistent in smart objects, even when using older versions of PS and the feature-limited version of ACR. The only limitation is that edits relying on features not supported in the "legacy" version of ACR cannot be further edited.
falconeyes: I checked out the ACR9 update for PS CS6 which was released along LR6.
It lacks the UI for the additional LR6 features (like erasing from the gradient filter). However, it actually DOES recognize those enhanced features (e.g., if found in the accompanying .xmp sidecar file) and renders LR6 editings correctly. Only thing missing are the extra buttons in the UI.
So, there are no problems to be expected in handing over a LR6-edited raw file over to one or several PS CS6 smart object layers.
Thanks, falconeyes. You are absolutely correct—good news indeed.
Papi61: $2,500 for a fixed lens camera with a 1" sensor? At 1/3 of the price, the Panasonic FZ1000 looks like a much better deal. You also get 120fps @1080p, which I don't believe this Canon has.
And no RAW on the Canon. Unbelievable.
BRPWS: why no support for Fuji x lenses?
The better question is why no improvement to X-Trans demosaicing. At least one Adobe engineer acknowledged that this is one of their top requests.
I agree—and after the longest gap between versions in LR history. Adobe seems out of ideas to improve fundamental IQ and usability. The speed improvement has, so far, been minimal in my case. The new features being touted, while welcome, seem like they are not targeted at hardcore photogs.
The kicker is that the new features in LR6 (and LR5, for that matter) are useless for CS6 users if you regularly start out in LR and continue editing the file in PS using embedded smart objects. Once you make any edits to the smart object you lose all the edits made using the new features...which kind of defeats the purpose of a smart object...or upgrading to LR6 to some degree.
If I recall correctly, the same is true with LR5 and PS CS6. The caveat is that if you, for example, embed an LR5-edited smart object in a CS6 PSD and then make ANY edit to the smart object you lose all of your edits that rely on features not present in the crippled CS6 version of ACR.
Example: You use LR5's radial filter and then open the RAW file as a smart object in CS6. The radial filter will be there even though ACR for CS6 doesn't support it. Then you decide to open the smart object to fix a dust spot that only appeared after using Nik Color Efex. After you re-save the smart object your radial filter will be gone.
vFunct: Aperture isn't really designed for the 130GB people. It's more for the multiple 10s of terabytes of photos people. The professional photographers that might shoot 5000 shots a day.
With that, the features that are really missing here in the new Photos are Aperture's custom keywording and other search/select/sorting/filtering tools. That's the reason Aperture exists. Professionals don't need the lens correction, retouching, or other amateur tools that Lightroom users love. If pros need to retouch, they do it in Photoshop, so they don't need any of that low-end Lightroom garbage.
But they do need data management. Try finding a specific model or celebrity wearing a specific dress in your library? THAT was the power of Aperture for professional photographers, and I doubt that kind of capability will ever return.
Completely disagree. First, Aperture is for people who need the tools it offers regardless of library size. Clearly Jeff used tools that were offered in Aperture but not in Photos.
Second, LR is ACR with a database and additional functionality not present in PS. There is nothing low end about it. If you need layers and local editing then you need PS. If you don't then LR can provide professional results and better integration with the Adobe Creative Suite than Aperture. I have no argument with anyone that prefers the Aperture interface and workflow—but that is personal preference.
Damn, Canon. There's always an achilles heel with your gear. No EVF?
So...Canon fears nothing. It learns nothing from its competitors. Sounds about right. That's why I'm now shooting with Fuji gear.
Rooru S: The AF issues are only with lenses that has to move heavy elements or is it something independent from that?
Good question. If you compare the AF using the 56 F1.2 vs the 18-135, the difference is night and day. The latter is exponentially faster. That said, there is room for improvement in both cases.
Den Sh: I would definitely buy an updated version of X-Pro1 with monochrome sensor. This small market is ripe for disruption.
I don't understand the advantage of a monochrome camera. Perhaps it would be more sensitive but you would lose a lot of post-processing flexibility.
name here: Fuji needs to work with Adobe to improve Lightroom's raw conversions.
Until Lightroom starts producing a fair output with X-trans sensors, no X-trans camera for me (that's why I purchased X-A1, which has no X-trans).
It is frustrating to have to deal with an issue that everyone else takes for granted. I'd love to read a frank discussion about the issues keeping Adobe from improving X-Trans conversion. Is it anything more than market share (or lack thereof)? I don't assume that Fuji hasn't done everything possible to assist Adobe. They've said as much.
mainvision: The X-T1 is a perfect travel camera - and I bought it for that, but I still miss the GPS, which my Canon 6d has. Pity that it doesn't seem to be in the plans for Fuji. It's likely to limit my commitment to the format in the future
GPS is a challenge at this point due to the X-T1's metal body and already limited battery life.