17 hours ago
 |
oselimg
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Sep 23, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
oselimg: I know the headline says "for Canon DSLR's" but I'll have to ask. Is the software compatible with G15 if it isn't why not? since G15 is a very capable camera as compacts go.
Thanks for the reply but "why not" question was meant to be for Canon...ie; why not develop for the G series as well. Thanks anyway...
I know the headline says "for Canon DSLR's" but I'll have to ask. Is the software compatible with G15 if it isn't why not? since G15 is a very capable camera as compacts go.
KeithF: Now Photographers, we should follow Adobe and start renting out the photos, wedding photos and etc, as long as the client pay for monthly fee, they can see their photos. Starting from today, they can't buy the photo, they only can rent it. If they stop paying the monthly fee, we will take the photos back.
WE ARE STARTING THE SERVICES BUSINESS. How good is it? :-)
If you release your photos on subscription make sure they don't have any Adobe file extension ;-)
Adrian Joseph Roy: I don't mind paying for good software. I would say that Adobe Photoshop is the most powerful yet reasonably priced software ever made. I would also guess that most professionals (journalists, photographers, editors, etc.) who already pay for Photoshop will at least be less affected by the changes.
It's the casual users that buy/upgrade Photoshop once every few years and use it several times a week for personal, hobby, and super-small-business work who are going to suffer. Indeed, it's almost a punishment to those of us who have actually paid for what is considered to be one of the most pirated pieces of software in history.
Pirating sucks. I'll never use a hacked up copy of Photoshop. But I know I won't be able to afford it either. So, after all the fun and enjoyment they have given me over the years, all I can say is: *&^% you Adobe. May your greed be your ruin.
It will be Adobe Pirates stealing your money from now on. But I'm sure there will be alternatives soon for so called ''amateurs'' who do not use photography softwares everyday to make money from it. I'd say good luck to Adobe. If the subscription system doesn't work it'll be a very interesting corporate talk and maneuvers about ''re-structuring business'' claiming to cater for the customer needs.
AngryCorgi: If you've seen the gallery for the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, EOS M, 7D, or 60D, then this is just more of the same. Canon has become an extremely boring company, IMO.
I don't think any product will cure boredom of the gearheads.
oselimg: If people bothered to to be informed of cinema quality cameras they wouldn't make absurd comments like "why not micro 4/3 mount. It's almost like saying I want a Ferrari with a 1.6 Lada engine-sorry Lada-. Cinematic cameras need cinematic quality lenses to exploit it's potential. EF mount doesn't exist only for EF stills cameras and lenses. There are Canon cine-lenses with EF mount or PL mount. How many cinema-optimized micro 4/3 lenses exist? You don't want someone invest in manufacturing a high performing piece of equipment then watch it abandoned by the market do you?
Ok you stick with Micro 4/3 there may be a 0.0000001% chance in the future. Because it's not only about megapixels. Perhaps you'll have to wait for laws of physics to change.
If people bothered to to be informed of cinema quality cameras they wouldn't make absurd comments like "why not micro 4/3 mount. It's almost like saying I want a Ferrari with a 1.6 Lada engine-sorry Lada-. Cinematic cameras need cinematic quality lenses to exploit it's potential. EF mount doesn't exist only for EF stills cameras and lenses. There are Canon cine-lenses with EF mount or PL mount. How many cinema-optimized micro 4/3 lenses exist? You don't want someone invest in manufacturing a high performing piece of equipment then watch it abandoned by the market do you?
///M: WOW, Canon can spend all this R&D on matched cinema lenses (which will likely be only sold to rental houses) for this niche market, but can't come up with a viable mirrorless camera with compact lenses, really? 1/2 of the DSLR sales in Japan are mirrorless cameras, it does not matter how small the crop sensor bodies get, they are still big and bulky compared to the micro 4/3 and other systems.
@howardoark...If I may ad to your comments that the "bored photograpers" are excited by new gear specs, and new gear news only. They lack talent in such extend if a camera in all auto setting doesn't get the picture they imagine they move on to the next model and back to pixel peeping.
Puh!! why this wasn't a 17-350 f1.8 full frame lens!!! do they think this is interesting? yawn, Nikon suck...
Some of the comments here are insult to human intelligence. When someone talks about ''the good old days'' which period of photography do they refer to? The beginning? Glass slides etc...? or 40's, 50's. Every generation gear is generally better than previous one.If you just take landscapes you have as much time as you want and one can use the camera one wants including the ''Glass slides'' ''Catching action with manual focus cameras'' possible. But when the photographer next to you is continuously shooting action without being bothered with focus adjustments, pre-focusing etc. considering talent levels are similar the one with the faster gear will laugh all the way to the bank and you might have to wait for the next game to get a winning shot. Silly isn't it. Not to mention the slower guy's pictures will be scrutinized by gear heads like you for minute focus adjustments, focus points, misses etc. And you'll continue living as very bitter, unhappy and un-fulfilled gear heads
After all this is a fast zoom lens with inevitable compromises. But what it's capable of producing comfortably outweighs any complaints. There is no such a thing as perfect zoom design or it would be extremely expensive to produce, at least this day and age. What you get with this zoom lens is a collection of weather sealed f2.8 primes with performances close to good primes. I know it is expensive but I'm not a pro photographer and not in the position to judge it's price/function/value combination. To have a zoom lens of this quality can be priceless at times.
Marek07: From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.
I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...
Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.
@ Ken Johnes...You are wasting you time replying people like "shamhain" they have nothing to do with photography, or a function of a particular lens, are only interested in numbers, newest gear, and think in terms of few cliche they've picked up in gear reviews.
bossa: So where is this 'opinion'?
Marketing/Endorsing is the new opinion
Russell Evans: Is "Editors Opinion" going to be attached to all like articles in the future? It would be really helpful if it were, so I could easily avoid ever clicking through one of these again.
Thank you
Russell
This not an opinion by any standards. It just repeats what the lens is. Did they test it, used it on a camera, where are the samples? This is just anaother MARKETING attempt by Dpreview. Once again this is a Nikon/Sony endorsing website.
Raist3d: Nikon got the size right. And no AA? Sounds interesting. But 28mm is not my preferred focal length.
Erm...actually "28mm equivalent F2.8 prime lens" means 28mm FF. It's 18,5mm in APS-C (Dx) format.
topstuff: There are a lot of strange angry tribal gear heads here today.
The Nikonistas rant, the Canonites whine and hoorah, the Sonyettes bitch and the Olympusonians whimper.
Any photographers visiting just leave the site and go somewhere else.
I would respectfully disagree about ISO 3200 being sufficient for low light photography. In my experience even with some ambient light(Street lights, shop windows etc.) subject moderately mobile f2.8 doesn't give you enough speed to reasonably freeze the action or well lit subject. I think ISO 6400 is needed for street photography at night.
topstuff: There are a lot of strange angry tribal gear heads here today.
The Nikonistas rant, the Canonites whine and hoorah, the Sonyettes bitch and the Olympusonians whimper.
Any photographers visiting just leave the site and go somewhere else.
These forums are outlets for, barring few photography enthusiasts, forever adolescents who are in to bashing, beating, walking all over something who would other wise have been serial killers.
Charles Babbage: It still puzzles me that none seems to "remember" the K5-IIs! Not even the dpreview people. Do I smell something bad or is it my imagination?
What a sad response by Dpreview...While this is a good web site for up to date info on gear one should ignore the ratings and evaluation given here. There are enough photos and technical info here and elswhere to make up your mind about which camera suits your needs and preferences not to mention your budget best. Don't be fooled by misleading double-edged wording with diversions and insertions which are carefully managed marketing tricks.
Once again this is a Nikon, Sony endorsing website and there are other websites endorse other brands too.
oselimg: Since it's meaningless to pass premature comments on these two lenses I think that it's equally meaningless to call lenses of this type full frame. Are the other sensor formats half/quarter frame. Aren't there bigger formats than 35mm format then, what should we call them? I know this term's found it's way in everyday photographic language but many people who own cameras of any kind don't even know what it stands for. It's non-descriptive. At least, when 35mm film ruled everybody(almost) knew what it was and how big it was. What now called full frame is same size as single 35mm film frame. Can you guys at the Dpreview at least start to challenge the current misleading and non-descriptive trend, may I kindly ask?
When Medium and Large format were called what they were called 35mm format was called 35mm. if now 35mm is the full frame what should 6X4,5 and 6X6 be called. Larger than 35mm formats in film form co-existed when when 35mm digital was produced even 35mm film co-habited the photography world in digital age. Also thank you for informing me about the names of other/bigger formats. Perhaps I should've mentioned my age.
rusticus: Häääähhhhh - Gold Award?
why???
Because this is a Sony/Nikon endorsing website ;-)