Is it that nobody will *take* them or that nobody will *pay for* them ?
Subsidied art ?
"Cloud-synchronized" editing is the worrisome bit... I can't wait to see the subscription price. I also hope this thing works offline and will be "slow line friendly" when transfers are necessary (ipad to PC without cloud would be ideal).
Like Amadou said, most of us simply want the ability to cull, rate and perform some (minor) editing on the go before continuing on the PC where we left it off on the iDevice.
Let's hope it is not too much asking.
HowaboutRAW: And of course, if you want to transfer say 8gigs of raw photos from say an SD card, you'll need a specialized card reader that can plug into the iPad's Apple only port.
Will Adobe be supplying these special card readers or some kind of dock? Why not just stick with a Mac Air or good Windows tablet, or small Windows laptop? (I know that this small laptop/capable tablet point has already been made elsewhere in these comments.)
And no, I don't want to read the preposterous assertion that it's simple and quick to transfer several gigs of data over wifi--perhaps in 20 years, but then photo files will be even bigger.
iPad's have a USB adapter allowing it to read the pics straight from camera -- not the fastest in the world but good enough and very light. A similar adapter allows iDevices to read SD cards. These already exist.
I think that the 3D aspect of it is the most compelling aspect for now -- at least it can be grasped by many and has more immediate applications the public/viewers could want to use.
The effect seems limited however.
It would be interesting to understand more about the "shifting" capability. Is it really shifting or rotating or a shift/rotate ?
Can we have authors and copyright owners pay us, citizens, a forced-attendence fee each time their "art" hurt our eyes, ears or intellect ?
Funny how there is such a focus on Canon lenses for a new camera. With such a small flange distance, this little cam could be a great option to host Leica M lenses. Would be interesting to see how the camera performs when/if such an adapter pops up.
The name clash makes searching annoying though. Is there an intent from canon to undercut Leica M mount searches ? Conspiration theory :-)
Adrian Joseph Roy: Meanwhile, cameras like the OM-D and NEX-7 are sporting blazingly accurate and fast AF, superb high ISO, offering up a host of really attractive prime lenses, and all for somewhat reasonable price tags.
Canon, I've been with you since my first EOS-3 SLR. It's been an awesome ride so far. But you're breaking my f*%#ing heart over here.
Yep. The first Nex 5 was just good and had few lenses and it took a while to get lenses. Seems they are on track now though. Canon has a long way to go.
This is an L lens apparently in line with L price and build. Looking forward to IQ. I have a 24-105 L and 24-70 2.8 L (v1). I was not planning to have both but got the second by a lucky twist of fate.
I have to recognize the 24-70 IQ is much better (esp. sharpness and of course aperture) but the 24-105 is more versatile (focal length range, size, weight, IS).
I would not buy another lens without selling one of the old ones but I see the point in a light lens trade off. Lens availability is one thing but when you have to buy ONE lens, choice is good if quality follows.
Given the high ISO range of recent cameras, a slower yet stabilized, high IQ, small size lense is welcome.
Bottom line: dpreview, show us the review!!
This is an interesting article. Short, to the point, good coverage of various techniques. I will experiment. Thank you!
Now I realize that I want more and more an iPad-Maxi (A3 or larger). :-)
mbk: This is actually a disaster unless you also keep the old test scene in parallel for sake of comparison. These test scenes are always just proxies, and that is OK. The ONLY purpose of test scenes is to compare across models. Their whole existence depends on not changing them. The larger the database with a single test scene, the more valuable it is. This is really important. It gives you a time line. It makes the past comparable. Including 'old 'standards is done all the time in science. NASA included a 1909 penny in the calibration set for NASA's current Mars Rover camera. If you change the test scene you diminish its only reason to exist because old models are now 'out'. DPR is the single one site where I can still compare how new cameras perform in relation to old "standards". I urge you to not take this away for marginal gains on resolution or such.
Resolution and noise are so overblown as a criteria anyway, what bugs me on current cameras is color rendition at higher ISOs.
@Barney. I found a fair number of your answers defensive and not informative enough. The smiley does not bring much. MBK and others before have a fair point and it would be nice to have a proper educative answer on what you have taken into consideration.
I see brief answers in previous posts but one can sense a lot more curiosity. We are here to learn.
Continuity was an important factor and the article really should mention that older cameras would be re-tested on the new scene.
You may not feel it from inside but many readers *believe* DPreview is running thin. It was not "obvious" that you would re-test.
A detailed article about why the old scene was problematic and how the new one is being designed would be most interesting.
FTW: Big Events, News and Publicity are same as religions, make up your mind and run in the direction they ask you to do. Who ever tries to swim against that mainstream, swims in pee-gutters. So, I do not express what I think about moon landings or that photos. I will wait until some day another human steps on that place and shows us, or brings back, the hassies, the flag, the moon vehicle, and so on. Until today, every information that can't be checked or verified by human normal citizen is for me scam. Be this sour rain, ozon holes, global warming, ice melt, and what ever humans have invented beside of god to let you pray and pay.
The message above is written by a buggy chatbot.
That day, it will call the "other human" a fraud. The program can't realize that either it will repeat forever the same faulty logic (of not trusting anything it can't see) or will enter another faulty logic (of trusting someone else that is equally trustworthy as Armstrong and the others astronauts).
I know FTW is a chatbot because I can't see it in person. Er... wait!