Thank God. Their site was the WORST. I haven't tried the new site but anything has to be better.
PatrickVienna: I wish Curt Cobain was alive, he was going to show does bad people from Petzval...wanting money so they can make money- to , you know, share the magick of the thin can lenses...pffff...he was such a nice guy.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?! I have re-read your rant three times and you make no sense whatsoever.
That is one seriously ugly camera.
Nice light and color.
This would be perfect is that lady's head wasn't in the foreground.
Nice use of the reflection.
This looks like an NTSC video still.
This is outside?
Can you employ a filter that removes all the bitchy, off topic, and misleading comments from brand fanboys?
Just like Sony to come up with a great idea but then waste it with their proprietary selfishness. A camera that can run apps is a great idea (probably not theirs but whatever). It would open up a world of possibilities with the ability to add features to a good camera without having to hope and wait for firmware updates. But they waste it by not releasing an API so third parties can develop for it. Come on Sony! Put it out there and watch a community of developers rally around your platform. You would have features that no other camera would have. Keep it closed, and keep putting out crap like 'God Rays,' and all you are doing is alienating your base.
I am sure others have mentioned this already but I don't see the point of the photos in the upper right. Isn't that kind of like showing how good a new TV would look on an old TV? I have no way of knowing if any defects I am looking at are the result of the camera being tested, faults in the prints, or the camera that took the original photos. Real world objects would be much more useful. Maybe some fake flowers or steel wool (dark and detailed). Maybe something shiny and textured so we can see if the camera has chromatic aberration problems with highlights and catchlights.
Barney Britton: To everyone who thinks its appropriate to mindlessly troll, have some respect. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. It's appalling how rude some of the comments are on this page.
Hear, hear. And I hope people understand the "constructive" part of this comment. It's not inappropriate to crit the photo, but if you are going to tear it down, do it for solid reasons. Look at the photo. Look at the photo settings. Make a constructive critique. I don't like forums where every comment is "great shot!" but I also dislike the shallow insults that pass for criticism around here. And "hey, it's the internet" isn't an excuse.
JoeAmateur: Wow, what a bunch of ungrateful Idiots here. We get an amazing update to an already great camera, and most of you act as though Canon slapped you in the face or something.
You must be new here.
lajka: Yeah, focus staking is the solution. Hej, big industry, macroshoters are waiting for the camera that has focusbracketing where you can define- DOF according to lens used (from 1mm to whatever), number of shots taken and the FPS (10 or higher.
brliv, can you elaborate? Why not?
l_d_allan: Clumsy update compared to other Adobe updates, imo. In the past, the application has more or less updated itself, handling the download and then the install. You did have to close open app(s), like Bridge or PS.
On this update, the choice to update took you to the applicable Adobe update page, and then a normal download happened. It then unzipped into a directory before proceeding.
And it was a HUGE file ...700+MB, which seems about as big as the original LR-4 install from the DVD.
Did a bit more checking ... both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions were downloaded and unzipped. And both setup##.exe files were left where they were unzipped rather than being cleaned up.
And then the setup##.exe "expands" to a .msi file. Seems shoddy. Sigh.
I am fairly new to Lightroom, but I was really surprised at how sloppy the LR update procedure was. I've been using Adobe's entire suite of software professionally for years, and for some time the update process has been painless and easy via Adobe's AIR update application. By contrast, when I hit the "Update" button I was prompted with, I was sent to a generic Lightroom page on Adobe's site. There was no 'update' option on the entire page and in the end I manually had to select the Demo download, typed in my Adobe username and pass, and manually ran the installer. My thought was "what year is this?" Adobe should be embarrassed.
Thomas Karlmann: I am trusting that the Templates in Book creation are stated here as fixed, uneditable. I'll wait for a version that allows far better than this. I will never use a "fixed" template
In this, as in any other template "print on demand" service, you can always create your own designs using whatever software you like, and then export a flattened image to be printed full page. Not optimal, but it works.
tkpenalty: Its good adobe dropped the prices for this; its nothing more than ACR repackaged...
For years I was an exclusive ACR user (having Photoshop already) and shared your sentiment. But I was convinced to give it another try this year and realized the program has many significant advantages over plain ACR. I will not go back.
Nice use of HDR to improve what might have been a fairly mundane image otherwise.