I have been evaluating Lightroom 4 for the past week. I have tried it along with DxO Optics Pro and Capture One pro in the past, but I keep coming back to ACDSee Pro 6 for its truly beautiful usability, efficiency and feature set. While I feel that Lightroom may have a slight edge in terms of image quality (if you look very closely), I feel it looses in many of the categories you've examined here when compared to ACDSee Pro 6. The only thing that really puzzles me is why, ACDSee Pro 6 is never included in these RAW software comparisons. In my opinion, it really should be. Frankly, I think it is a better match for Lightroom and Capture One than DxO.
Artak Hambarian: I do not know any better viewer that also has very instant editing capability. I admire the possibility to use the mouse wheel at full screen to scroll the pictures, organize folders. The Pro 5 added instant or automatic view of the maps if the pics are geotagged. Which other soft has that? Keen to know. Will upgrade to 6 soon.
I do quite well with my photo workflow without a single piece of Adobe software and that is the way I hope to keep it. ACDSee Pro, and a couple of other editing products give me as much range and capability as I need. I work efficiently and am able to produce high quality results without buying into the dominant graphics ecosystem or their pricing model. Suits me just fine.
Dean Baird: ACD is the company that bought Canvas (from Deneba), then discontinued it on the Mac platform. I would never trust them with anything ever again. I can only presume that they will--on a whim--decide to discontinue a product.
With Canvas X, they wouldn't support it and they wouldn't sell it to anyone who would. They've made enemies of everyone on the Mac OS Canvas-using community.
If you choose to throw in with this company, you've been warned. If you're a Mac user, you're begging for trouble. That's the one thing ACD can be counted on to deliver.
A lot of software companies discontinued Mac software versions back when Apple had around 2% market share and who can blame them. Last time I checked they weren't charities. Now that the Mac is doing much better, I believe many of these same businesses are moving, or have moved, onto the platform again including ACDSee who recently released a Mac version of ACDSee Pro.
Please read, found an important flaw that can lead to total destruction of data. I canceled my pre-order after I found it.
Basically ACDSee demands that you place the 'file delete' confirm at the OS level (recycle bin option) vs leaving it as an option limited to ACDSee image review manipulation.
Before we could select tools-option-file management confirm delete behavior on/off. Now this being set at the OS level. This means that if you accidentally select 'delete' when at the disk level or while opening a file (any program), say good bye to your data until you retrieve it from the recycle bin.
I am an IT consultnt and system administrator and ACDSee is now off my list of recommendation for those I consult for and definitively barred from the network I administer.
Note this information (use recycling option) came from ACDSee tech support.
I've been using ACDSee Pro for years and have a huge library of photos. I've never had a problem with inadvertently deleting photos and I'm not a Network Administrator. So, if I can use it without any worries, it seems odd to think that someone as tech savy as a network admin would be scared off. Frankly, I've tried many of the others (Lightroom, DxO, PhaseOne), and ACDsee still wins for me. It does what it does, and seems to do it quite well - easy peazy, as they say.
I prefer the focussed photo-centric character of Flickr, perhaps because I do most of my socializing face to face or through forums such as this, and use Flickr as a venue specifically to share and discuss the art of photography.
For photo-sharing, Flickr suits me far better than Facebook, where it feels like an add on of secondary importance to the pseudo socializing that defines it (my opinion), but as they say, whatever floats your boat...
The more I look at the GXR, the more I like it. Sometimes it takes people a while to realize that the established way of doing things isn't necessarily the best way - interchangeable lenses vs an interchangeable module for instance. As each new mirrorless camera model finds some fundamental way to disappoint me, I realize that the GXR has it pretty much all covered. The flexibility of the design seems quite good!
I hope Ricoh/Pentax continue to develop this concept. I wonder if the addition of one or two more lens mount units allowing one to conveniently reuse that old Nikon, Canon, Olympus, or Pentax glass might be a consideration? Also, given that no one other than Leica has bothered to consider a larger than APS-C option in the mirrorless market, I can't help but wonder if any such units could go that route...
Why don't these camera makers simply provide a tapped cable hole on the shutter button any more - at least as good, if not better, than an electronic cable release in most circumstances. An example of one of those things that wasn't broken but got fixed anyway I guess...
locke_fc: Looks nice, but overpriced to me. Lens selection sucks, specially since the 18mm is mediocre, from what I've read, and there are no zooms.
Fuji, call me back when the price drops well under $2000 and there's at least one decent option at the wide end.
Frankly, I don’t care about the NEX7. My comment was about the potential commercial success of the Fuji.
While there seems little doubt that the X-Pro 1 is capable of producing remarkable photographs, for most users the difference between an X-Pro 1 image and those produced by an OMD or NEX will be hardly noticeable. What other advantages does the Fuji offer? An established system? No! Advanced image stabilization? No! A weather sealed body? No! Exceptionally fast frame rate? No! Best in class X-sync? No!
Beyond its image quality potential and innovative sensor, X-Pro 1 is an APS-C camera that makes more feature-rich competitors look like bargains. Consumers may recognize this and simply wait for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony or Samsung, among others, to implement similar sensor design in their offerings. It will happen!
Fuji needs to take advantage of every possibility, including value, if they want to establish the X-Pro system. I hope this clarifies my thoughts.
Good lenses, reasonably priced. The body is another matter. I think Fuji made a strategic error here. As the genesis of a new system, the X-Pro 1 is relying on hype, looks, and Press to carry the day. Its raison d'être shouldn’t be margin but market penetration. Fuji needs to leverage everything it can, including perceived value.
While much of the recipe is correct, the price is a disadvantage compared to the OM-D E-M5 and the NEX7. Potential buyers who find themselves stretched by cost will either opt for one of the others or take it in the ribs but expect performance equal to their sacrifice. Shortcomings, especially compared to the Olympus and Sony, may become contentious and result in disaffected adopters.
Premium pricing is a two edged sword. Fuji may find it cuts the wielder as keenly as the target. If this model was priced competitively, I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but as it is, I’m waiting… Hopefully, price doesn’t prove to be the Achilles heel of a promising system.
Hooplapdx: I didn't see any mention of the slanted top where the controls are. It really does work in pushing your elbow in to a more stable position. It is a very clever feature.
I've only held a pre-production model (at CES) and it seemed unnecessarily large and heavy. I know it is less than an M9, but would people really take it less seriously if it was a bit more compact. For street photography, I'd prefer smaller and a bit lighter.
While some may prefer a smaller or a larger camera, size is only one variable in the search for good ergonomics. I have no doubt that a camera can be made quite small, or even quite large and still offer an exceptionally comfortable feel.
The X-Pro 1 is very close to what I've been waiting for; a digital camera that produces clean almost analogue looking images. It dispenses with the one thing that has always bothered me about digital cameras: the anitaliasing filter. The problem for me is that it is far more expensive than I think is warranted, and by all reports the autofocus is slooowww, something one shouldn't have to contend with in a camera at this price point.
Given the way that one good idea leads to another in our technological world, I have little doubt that Fuji's big innovation in sensor design will be mirrored by similar advances from the other manufacturers in the very near future. With that in mind, "the system" one buys into once again becomes the most important issue. Which system to embrace? Given that Fuji seems unwilling to offer X-Pros at a truly attractive price point, I will likely wait again for a more competitive answer from one of the other makers.
eliehbk: I was comparing it to the X100 and I think ISO on the fuji is slightly better but details on the Oly seem better! What do you think?
@marike6. I've looked at the full size jpegs and am not seeing this. There is no doubt that the images have a different feel (the Fuji looks much more film-like to me while the Olympus offers a sharp edged digital feel), but the noise issues you mention are just not there. Can you clearly point out where this is visible?
Anfy: IMHO it holds remarkably well against the bigger sensor Sony NEX-5n even at 3200 ISO.
My son purchased the Sony NEX-5 about a year ago. Despite taking good care of it, the contacts inside the battery compartment are showing signs of corrosion and the non-glare coating on the LCD has mostly worn off, leaving quite a mess. Beyond all that, he has experienced consistent problems with dust spots on the sensor despite only owning two lenses. He's now looking at replacing it with the OM-D E-M5.
My experience with Olympus cameras has been nothing short of stellar when it comes to construction quality and longevity. I own a number of lenses and am constantly changing them in the field to suit my needs yet have never had a problem with the sensor accumulating dust. Having a reliable camera the just works is highly underrated. There certainly is more to a camera than the sensor!
morepix: My interest is whether it'll do $1,000-worth better at high ISO levels than my GH2. The answer seems to be, yes, it's better from 1600 on up (in raw), a lot better in JPG. But is it $1,000 better? Remains to be seen.
The JPGs sure do look nice, but who wants to shoot JPG and sacrifice the other advantages of raw?
I am not a pro, but I always shoot RAW and process with ACDSee Pro. As good as the out-of-camera jpegs from my E-30 are, the results I get through ACDSee Pro are always better. It doesn't take long to process once you've run through and picked the best images to work with. In fact, I rather enjoy the process.
Looks like an amazing piece of kit, but there are two reasons I won't own one. First off, I'd have to re-mortgage the house to afford it. Second, they are far too big.
Actually, that last point raises a question. Given that the "full-frame" image circle is the same as that produced by my 70s era film SLRs, why do these mostly electronic tools seem to be so much larger than their largely mechanical forebears? Serious question, as naive as it may seem. Anyway, the size and weight of this beast makes the OM-D E-M5 look more and more enticing to me...
yukonchris: I downloaded DxO yesterday and ran a whole pile of RAW photos through it today, while watching tutorials and trying to get a sense of how it works. So far, I feel rather mixed about it.
As a long time user of ACDSee Pro, I can't help but compare the two. In terms of positive impressions, DxO does an amazing job of automatically correcting photos for distortions that are typical for a particular camera/lens combination, as long as it is supported (my E-30 and all its lenses are, but my E-330 not so much) This is something that ACDSee Pro doesn't handle at all really so it's a real plus for DxO.
The other positive I noticed with DxO is that it's presets, especially the single image HDR sets and their associated fine adjustments seem to work quite well on my landscape images, facilitating some very nice results that, at least at normal magnifications, seem to offer better results than ACDSee Pro can with its "Lighting" module.
So far, so good... See my reply for the not so good...
The last thing I'd like to add is that ACDSee Pro offers an excellent database facility for cataloguing classifying and ultimately finding your images. I haven't had time to ascertain whether DxO Optics Pro offers similar functionality, but if they do it isn't obvious.
On first blush, Optics Pro feels like an excellent RAW converter that just isn't quite well rounded enough or finished enough for me to commit to. Still, I have thirty more days to play so perhaps my opinion will change...
I would love to say that everything was great with DxO, because I am quite pleased with much of the output and would love to own a "one stop shop" for my editing needs. Unfortunately, compared to ACDSee Pro, DxO's interface feels cumbersome. Previews aren't as good, and everything seems to move at a snails pace compared to ACDSee Pro.
The two worst impressions, however, are the delays I experienced when trying to scroll windows (quite slow, especially for a recently rewritten and supposedly optimized application), and using the uploader. In ACDSee Pro, using the uploader is a pleasure with options to include tags for example when uploading to Flickr. With DxO, the uploader responds like you're pouring molasses in the winter time. Scrolling down to select a Flickr set to add your image to, is actually agonizingly slow - it feels like alpha software. Not Good!
I wish DxO would fix some of the performance issues because as it stands, it's no where near as nice as ACDSee Pro to use.
I downloaded DxO yesterday and ran a whole pile of RAW photos through it today, while watching tutorials and trying to get a sense of how it works. So far, I feel rather mixed about it.
I just downloaded and compared a variety of photos taken by the X-Pro 1 and the OM-D E-M5. While this is purely my opinion, images from the X-Pro 1 seemed far superior. I am anxious to see what dpreview and others have to say when they get an opportunity to really play with production versions and put them through their paces.
I've never been a fan of image stabilization but that probably reflects the sort of photography I do which realy doesn't require it. While Olympus's new stabilization technology looks quite impressive, I can't help but wonder: a) how much power it will draw, and ; b) if it will effect focus accuracy due to small variances in the flange back distance. I'm no expert in optical design but I wonder if anyone else can shed some light on this? IS focus accuracy better served by a fixed sensor, or not?