Peter v.d Werf

Peter v.d Werf

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on Aug 26, 2003


Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5

Comparing Acdsee to CS5/6 (I take it you mean Photoshop) is comparing two completely different tools. While there is some overlap in functionality, my view is:
-Acdsee -> Fast image viewing/thumbnailing without mandatory cataloging (and yes, editing is possible)
-Lightroom -> Cataloging, photographer workflow editing
-Photoshop CS5/6 -> full blown image manipulation

I've always liked Acdsee because it's fast and user friendly viewer (for basic actions, sorting and metadata edits) and that it doens't need a catalogue etc, but just a speedy browser in a normal folder structure. But since version 4 it started to get more and more bloated. Still speedy, but I'd prefer they'd offer a non-bloated version optimized for speed.

But of course that won't happen as that's a too small niche and every supplier wants a piece of the "full digital editing" pie:-)

Just try the trial to see for yourself, eveybody has different needs and criteria for such applications..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2012 at 21:32 UTC as 25th comment
On Richard Franiec creates accessory grip for Sony RX100 article (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

MaRcIu: not sure if everything about this camera is expensive or I'm too poor.

Yes, at 650 it's pricey, but compared to other say a S100 (or my today to be replaced with a RX100, S95) I think the much better specs (IQ, 1080p/50fps) are enough to pay this premium.

I my book there are only 2 type or camera's: the ones that fit comfortably in pants pocket, and the ones that don't. Comparing the RX100 to other non-pocketable camera's is nonsense in my view.
Compare apples to apples.. Kudos for Sony for cramming this tech into such a small form factor.

@Richard: Thanks! I just sold my S95 with your grip, and will get your RX100 grip as soon as it can be ordered!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2012 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: next year they'll probably make something even more stupid like 28-500mm

"you also save about $1700. Using a single lens with low optical quality on an interchangeable lens camera is defeating the purpose."

Low optical quality is nonsense of course, trolling remarks. But then what exactly is "the" purpose? Let me guess, could "the purpose" be always getting the most optimal IQ for that one specific image? haha, yep... And I assume you allways travel to each assigment and non-payed trip with multiple camera's (like a D4 for the high fps shots and a D800 for the high res shots and all the best primes...)... yeah, I didn't think so...

I don't know if you have used a DSLR before, but if you are used to the handling of a DSLR, then going back to a compact superzoom is no option.
And if you allready have a dslr and need a convenient and good iq solution for traveling then it's a 18-2xx zoom or a compact superzoom... Even apart from the better iq of a dslr, the handling alone saves me enough irritation that I am happy to pay that extra money..

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2012 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: next year they'll probably make something even more stupid like 28-500mm

"stupid, ripoff, for ignorant people"..Looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.
I'm always surprised at how people can react to such announcements.
While I have the Nikon 2.8 trinity and love them to death, I've allready pre-ordered the this new lens to replace my 18-200.
For daytrips and travel where the bit extra sharpness or the 2.8 aren't that relevant of no paying customer, then such lenses are simply great for convenience and saves you about 3,5KG of extra weight not having to carry the 3 2.8 lenses around to cover the same range..
Over the last 6 years I've shot numerous amazing and very sharp images with the 18-200.And yes, the 3-5/ 5.6 has it's limitations, but screwing up with such lenses simply means an imcompetent user..

Comparing a D7K with a 18-200 or 18-300 to a superzoom compact is of course complete nonsense. Sure you save about 500grams, but the list of what you'd miss is too long to mention.
Such statements are much closer to ignorance I'd say..;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

a1shot: Woweee...Professionals have to cover insurance-experience-equipment and a whole host of other expenses..
When I lived in WA I advertised "Wedding Photography" at a set cost ($750.00) with the media cards immediately being given to the wedding couple to edit and print as they wished = minimal response!! Weddings @ $2750 a sell out..
Blame the buyers not the seller.........................

"with the media cards immediately being given to the wedding couple to edit and print as they wished = minimal response!! "

And that honestly surprises you? That's like offering the bride the wedding dress for $300 but that she has to do the sowing herself...
I think there are 2 market's here, one is where the customer knows that there is more to a wedding photog besides just taking a few pictures on that day. They just want good and editing images/book afterwards and know that kind of services comes with a price.
The other market is couples who can't afford the professional services or don't see why a pro with good equipment and skills sould be any better then the unexperienced friend with the entry level dslr and kitlens..Meaning free of charge or a good bottle of wine....

It's not realistic for the second kind of buyers to expect a pro seller quality service for friend/kitlens pricing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:30 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5