Miwok: Traveling compagnion?Why would I buy an Fuji XE2 when I can find a Sony NEX-6 for half of the price. I like traveling with a backpack in some not so safe countries, and don't want to paranoid about getting rob of $2k of gear (X-E2 + a couple of glass)
1. as all others pointed before: the kit lens. At this moment I think the Fuji kit lens (I refer to the XF 18-55 2.8-4) is the best kit lens one can get on all mirrorless and DSLRs cameras.
2. some people (including me) just love the colors and "feeling" of the Fuji images. This is a personal preference, and it might be too subtle, but since I got the X-E1 I need less processing in Lightroom to get to the image I have in my mind.
3. the ergonomics of the Fuji are better.I tried a few Sony cameras (NEX-5 and NEX-7, maybe NEX-6 is different but I doubt) and Fuji is more easy to get to know. It is possible that my experience with film SLRs and DSLRs influence this, so YMMV...
wyldberi: What's with the staff here at DPReview that they can't find time to review a significant new camera that was released nearly 5 months ago? From the comments posted here, there's obviously a strong interest in such a review.
In all fairness - and I DO want X-E2 and X-T1 reviews asap - DPReview does some of the more in-depth reviews, with a well thought structure, and that takes time.
AlexRuiz: Honestly I don't agree with most comments here. A review of the X-E2 is not that necessary based on what we already know about this camera. It is almost exactly like the X-E1 with better focus, higher definition display, and wifi, couple with a few other minor changes. To me it does not offer a shooting experience very different from the X-E1. The priority for reviews should be with products that raise the bar. For example, I want a full review of the X-T1 first.
A review of the X-E2 is very useful for people wanting to get their first Fuji camera. For someone who owns the X-E1 (like me), the X-E2 review might not be a priority.
But someone who might buy an X-E2? He cannot just read the X-E1 review and guesstimate the effect of the improvements in the X-E2.
glacierpete: There is no guarantee that the standalone version is not crippled down compared to the CC version.The should specify what LR5 will only get 'basic updates' means.
And sooner or later the siren's call of new CC features will make us switch to the subscription model.I presume those CC-only features will make the catalog files backwards incompatible. At that moment we get locked in the pay-monthly system.
40daystogo: Adobe, let me explain it simply so you can understand.
Adobe, you think all you've done is made Photoshop a bit more expensive, but can't understand why the masses are rebelling. You don't get it.
There is nothing more sacred to digital artists than their data files. The single biggest fear of digital artists is that, years later, somehow they cannot use and edit the files that represent their lifetime's artistic work.
It was always a fear we thought would never happen, since we entrusted our files to the biggest player (Adobe) who wouldn't go away. Then suddenly Adobe turns around and uses that monopoly to hold us to ransom.
What Adobe have done is tantamount to holding a knife to the throats of our children, wives, mothers -- and not just held the knife there, but pressed a little into the flesh to draw blood. Adobe, do you now understand what you have done, and why the outcry is so great? It's because you, Adobe, have threatened the future-access to our own artistic data files.
^^ thisThis is the biggest fear people have regarding the subscription model. Stop paying and your past work becomes inaccessible.
This fear was also present when the hardware evolved between CDs, DVDs, tape backup, BlueRay, but people knew that if they kept the reader things would be fine.
What Adobe does is rent the reader. And when you stop paying your work can become unavailable. I think this disadvantage will overshadow any new (amazing or not) feature Adobe brings to the CC model.
ysengrain: "Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.'".
Error !! the right sentence is: Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans YET to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.'
And at the same time stated that some features (Camera Shake Reduction) will not be available in LR5. Maybe in a future version, maybe as a Creative Cloud-only feature.
Even if LR will be available in a perpetual licencing model the pressure to move to CC will be forever present.
Harry Shepherd: Charles Boot posted "Here is a proposal, which these greedy people would never think of: Let everyone upgrade to CS 6 if they want to at a reasonable price (free for users of CS5.5) and keep ACR updated for CS 6 for say 10 years. Something like this would have earned stars. as it is they are hated."
That would be nice, but it would appear you cannot even buy the CS6 upgrade at the full price anymore.
Looking on the bright side this will save me money. Bye adobe.
Adobe stated they will still keep CS6 around. But new updates will be CC only.
Falconest174: Over 4200 total comments on this story in two days. Some kind of a record? From what I have read almost all negative comments except for a few trolls toeing the Adobe line. This kind of crap might work for entertainment software or online gaming but not for business or graphic software. An abysmally conceived idea, doomed to kill the company, 's a shame too. Looks good initially but when the 'net is down and you have a deadline and can't get the stuff to work to finish a project, a pro is out of his business as well. I Always buy a back up disk when I buy D/L software for this very reason.
I haven't seen the net down in a long time, but I have seen: - companies that block non-HTTP access to external servers (for example it was a nightmare to get updates for CS6) - clients or agencies that for financial reasons are not able to afford every upgrade, and so skip a few versions (the cost of CC will be higher) - people that stop using a certain software, but keep it installed "just in case" they need to access old content. How are we supposed to open old .psd/.ndd when/if you stop paying?
I wrote a bit more about the Adobe move here (http://andreinicoara.com/adobe-creative-cloud-why-when-and-how-does-it-affect-us/) and also compared the costs between CS / CC.
I truly think Adobe could have managed this move to the Creative Cloud more elegantly (at the very least), and with some fullbacks.
bobbarber: I feel the need to post that Gimp's current development version, 2.9, works in 16 and 32 bit color per channel. It will soon be released as 2.10, with 16 and 32 bit color in the stable version.
It seems that the Adobe paid posters have "Gimp is 8-bit color" in their talking points, which, by the way, is another useful way to spot them.
GIMP is a very good and mature graphic editing tool. However there are no alternatives to InDesign and/or Premiere. At least not at such a mature state that agencies and clients routinely use them.
RobNZ: I don't see how this model would suit many commercial users either. If you're working to a deadline the last thing you'd want is the software being updated under you. Menu items moving around to accommodate new features, tools suddenly working subtly differently - quite apart from the potential for an unforseen problem with an update borking your work at a critical moment. That's why many big organisations are ultra conservative about updating their OS - some even still use XP because it's a known quantity.
They'll choose to update and if necessary retrain staff at a time that suits them. Having the vendor constantly fiddling with the program strikes me as a BOFHs (and users) total nightmare!
I can tell you from first-hand experience that professional users of Photoshop (and InDesign) did : - upgrade rarely (I know agencies that are happy to use CS4) for monetary and compatibility reasons - preferred to upgrade on periods of fewer projects - upgrade case-by-case: for example we upgraded a colleague Creative Suite only when agencies and printers moved to CS6
so at least based on my experience the move to Creative Cloud is annoying, expensive and risky (for us, not Adobe)
the Mtn Man: How about this: Adobe can do whatever they want, and I'll happily continue using GIMP for free.
Win-win, right? :)
GIMP is a great software if you need occasional photo editing.But for a full-time graphic or web designer Photoshop is more powerful. Also Photoshop/InDesign is the standard format when working with clients/agencies.
I would really love if Sigma releases this lens also in Fuji X-Mount! It would be the affordable alternative to the Fuji XF 56mm!
Thank you for the review! I'm using a HTC 8S and I wondered if the 8X's camera might be better. Seems not by much, if at all.
lester11: Typo: "Focal length 55-500mm" in the specifications table...
the rebirth of the Bigma, now in Fuji clothes :)("Bigma" was the unofficial name for the Sigma 50-500, a monster lens)
Conrad567: It seems to me that this is a "niche" lens. There are times that I wish I had a long telephoto in the bag. But the idea of carrying my D700 around for just that occasion is a much worse option than just grabbing one of these. I just hope that the focus is fast enough to be used the way a lens like this will require.
I say if you want and need a lens like this then get it, if you don't well then stick to the awesome primes available.
As for the guy who stated that maybe this will be the first XF lens that can be called good...you must not have ever used one, and probably drool from far off!
I think Fuji will give us two very good tools: for photographers that need a telephoto for wildlife and sports the XF 55-200 is perfect! For someone who needs a (short) tele for portraits, the XF 56mm F1.2 might be the better choice. In the end, having options is great.
I am a bit uncertain about the XF 55-200mm. It's surely a good lens, but I personally drool over the XF 56mm and the XF 23mm.