photo perzon: Apple could sell Aperture for millions instead of letting it die. It is not perfect, but nothing is, and it had a lot of love behind it. Not that Apple needs the millions, no, it does not, but it would be a favor to those users who love it and miss it.
I don't think they could sell it because the image processing itself is done in OS X and not in the Aperture app.
Richard Weisgrau: The simple answer is NO!
I became a Pro user of Aperture when it was first released. I have used it ever since. I do not like LR or other software.
Photos is a nice amateur product for making minor adjustments and feeding images to different applications. I could use it, if it allowed me to edit in Aperture and store in Photos. It does not.
I do not need Aperture to be improved. I just need it to not become obsolete because of OS changes.
Can you be more specific, please? What edits have you been using in Aperture that you don't have in Photos? I ask not because I'm a Photos user/defender but want to know what I'm getting into if I make that transition.
Whitesands: Can't bring black and white raw photos into the new photos app without it automatically changing them to color photos....it's aggravating...IPhoto's would at least do this
I've never seen a B&W RAW photo. Are you sure that's what you have or is it a color RAW with a B&W adjustment/edit? In that case, Photos is failing to pick up the edit.
Mister Roboto: About time to move on to Windows world. Give it a rest, Apple is not serious (or not doing it seriously) in Photography at least with their iPhones and software like this.
@thorn -- no one I can think of specifically bought a Mac because you get Aperture. Instead, they paid double (really?) for a bunch of other reasons that made it a better proposition than a Windows box.
yuribel: I used Final Cut Pro/Final Cut Studio for years. When Apple switched to Final Cut Pro X I was really shocked with this vivid downgrade. But 3+ years later, with a lot of professional feathers added to the early version of FCP X, I came to conclusion that workflow in this 'downgraded' program is fast and comfortable, and practically nothing of abilities is lost (and a lot useful is added). I hope after several upgrades Photos will become closer to Aperture than in this early version. What I like in Photos right now — it's speed and automatic synchronization with iPad/iPhone library. But I'll wait for upgrades of Photos — using Aperture as long as I'll be able to to this.
I have that hope, too, but I'm coming to my senses and thinking it won't at all be the same situation. FCP X is professional software at a price. They have to put resources into improving it. Photos is free and comes with every Mac (and iOS device) so the audience is entirely different and the motivation to make it more pro-like is different, too.
mazoeca: As a satisfied user for some years, I was most disappointed by Apple's decision to stop supporting Aperture. Most of what I have read about Photos for Mac has convinced me that it will not come anywhere near replacing Aperture for the kind of PP I like to do.Based on what I have been able to learn about potential replacements for Aperture, I have decided to go with Lightroom..... wish I had made that decision a few years ago when I switched from iPhoto to Aperture !
Going from iPhoto to LR was an entirely different proposition than going from iPhoto to Aperture. The transition to Aperture was not really any transition at all since it's just "iPhoto on steroids" where the library itself is common between the two. The hard part will be the change to something else.
You're moving to the Windows world where Microsoft never even created pro apps? As disappointed some are in Photos, MS has nothing even remotely as "good".
It's too early to conclude this to be "just another FF DSLR" as we don't know much at all about the camera... yet. But knowing Pentax/Ricoh, it's quite likely to be more compact than similar models from Canon and Nikon.
Not sure what developments back in 2001 have in relation to 2015, though.
What is "AF+ MF control for all X-mount lenses"? Thanks in advance.
audiobomber: You can't tell IQ or build quality from a photo. Ricoh says this lens is intended for people who want higher IQ than a kit lens. It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms.
The DA 18-135mm feels like a pro lens; it is tight, no creep, no rattles or looseness anywhere. It makes a Tamron superzoom feel like junk. I expect the 16-85mm will be the same build, and hopefully IQ will match my 16-45mm. If so, I'll sell the others and get this.
iudex, just because the DA 20-40 is on sale TODAY doesn't make it cheaper. It's regularly at leastt $900.
ThatCamFan: Pentax/Ricoh please STOP making ugly as SH** camera's, you have gone down the drain since the K5II
I think the K-3 is one of the best looking DSLRs ever.
tarsus: As a long time Pentax user including DSLRs and the Q10, I ask what is the point? This is just a a stupid retread. How about a flip or articulating screen, bigger chip, EVF or optional EVF? What were they thinking?
Shades of the K-50 replacing the K-30.
So what's the new button on the front for?
Tom Zimmer: part two.
This is all very different from the way the rest of the world (read: Windows) does things. Instead of re-writing, applications, they are evolved and end up containing lots and lots of archaic (read: very old) code that should go away, but can't because lots of little parts rely on that archaic code.
Again, Do i like having to re-learn a program when Apple re-writes it? No. BUT, I will because I understand it is for my own good.
I am a professional software engineer, I don't work for Apple, and I make my living writing Windows software. Believe me, i know how it works.
Tom, I have a different explanation. Apple appears to be unifying most of their software to run on both OS X and iOS. They've basically done it with Pages, Numbers, and Keynote and it appears Photos is the next domino. Oh, and from what I can tell the latest versions of those mentioned applications are not as comprehensive as the previous.
I won't be surprised if Apple and Adobe are working together to make Photos a "container" of some sort for Lightroom. Use Photos for file storage and management and Lightroom as a seamless editor of the files. Who knows?
steven8217: I am happy with the Nikon Capture NX2 bundle with the Nik Color Efex Pro3 for 4 years, no plan to make any change even Nikon migrate to the Capture NX-D.
Fine as long as you only buy Nikon cameras for the rest of your life.
JOrmsby: I've used them both for years, Aperture for storage/organization and basic edits, and Lightroom for heavier RAW processing. I'm sad to see Aperture go, but the next Photos app should be enough to do the same for me.
My only concern is this gives more leverage to Adobe, who I really hope doesn't make Lightroom a BS subscription service like they're done Photoshop. If it goes that direction, I'll be done with Adobe all together.
Guess I'm also bummed that this probably means we won't ever get Raw support for my new EM-10 in Aperture either...
RAW support is really a system capability so I wouldn't declare quite yet that your E-M10 won't be natively supported. Agree about the Adobe concern.
Timbukto: What is happening is that the Apple platform has *long* shifted from a platform of mostly creative developers, to a platform of mostly brain-dead consumerism. Most of the money is now from consumers of images, movies, music, and apps, and not necessarily the development of them (although in that case it would be plain to see that its by far the apps and content providers that profit share here). But independent developers of content? Not much $$ there and an infinitesimally small piece of the pie Apple currently has compared to the bread-dead consumerism market.
I'd believe the total professional abandonment angle if not for development of the new Mac Pro. That in no way is a "consumerism" machine.
arhmatic: Wondering if they will eventually issue a pro photo editing software sometimes in the future... at the same level with Final Cut Pro.
Sure doesn't sound like it.
ck139: "The Pentax 18-135WR has poor optical quality".Really? You have used one? My copy at least has perfectly acceptable optical quality. Is it as good as a wide aperture prime lens? No. If the Fuji version has even better optical quality than the Pentax then that will be excellent.
The Photozone results don't match up to what many people have obtained with their own lenses plus it's in conflict with other trusted review sites. The only credible explanation that's floated around is they had a bad copy.