Kabe Luna

Maybe this will work out for Adobe, but it won't get my continued patronage. I have never upgraded every 18 months because the updates aren't typically significant for the work I do, so a subscription actually will cost me MORE money than an outright purchase amortized over 24-36 months. I'll replace InDesign with QuarkXPress (thank goodness they managed to persevere) or whatever the best option is at the time I need new capabilities. Photoshop? Hardly use it anymore, but there are enough image editing programs out there to handle what I do use it for. Illustrator has always sucked (too bad Adobe bought Macromedia to kill Freehand, which was a far superior illustration software). And if Lightroom goes down the same road at some point, I've got Aperture and Capture One Pro. The integration of the Creative Suite has been convenient and mostly efficient this last decade, but its not so great that I'll have this subscription service forced down my throat. Cya, Adobe!!

mook360, what do you feel is inherently more beautiful or different about these images compared to any other fisheye/ultra wideangle photos? The subject matter isn't particularly novel, nor is the lighting and/or mood evoked. Just wondering about the basis of your comment.

In twenty-plus years of shooting, I've only suffered theft once–and it was by far because of my own carelessness. I don't need (or want) Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer to protect me from myself or any potential miscreants because, honestly, what are the chances that the thief will know (or care) that all my gear is "registered" and, therefore, unusable to anyone but him. Likely by the time that happens, it's already been stolen (and maybe I've been assaulted in the process). So, other than the inconvenience of yet another password to remember (and/or forget), what *really* does this gain me?

And let's be honest–what electronic security systems can't be defeated by a knowledgeable and motivated enough person?

Yet another reason to stay away from further investment in Nikon gear.

Maybe ultimately he'll produce a set of strong images, but the ones currently on display warrant neither the expense of the setup nor the aggravation afflicted upon the subjects. I wonder if these will have a life beyond the digital realm where the appetite for editorial content is voracious, opening the door for 10 minutes of publicity for just about anyone.

Why in the world would I want to make full resolution images freely available to the public?

Smart pause is creepy. The only way that works is if the front facing camera is always leering at you, using facial recognition to know when you're not facing the screen. Who knows what privacy-averse Google is doing with that video stream. No thanks.

Nearly double the cost of the outgoing lens? Fantasy pricing for this slow lens - unless, that is, build and optical quality are beyond reproach. We'll have to see.

Yikes on the price for this slow optic! IQ had better be beyond reproach across the zoom range for that price.

I wonder why they (rather unconvincingly) faked the "In Your Hand" photos rather than just take pictures of the camera in the hand? Think they didn't actually have a D7100 to preview?

Hard to know if Canon has been "served" without knowing the specification of the 60D replacement. But this certainly does eclipse the 60D in most respects. As it should, being three years newer.

Ha! This is why I keep my images on my own private web site, and share images with those I want to specifically via FTP. Anytime you put your photos–and other sensitive information, now that "the Cloud" is all the rage–you take a risk.

Ha! "HDR" is an acronym for "High Dynamic Range," which is actually what you started with (well, relative to the end result). What you've ended up with here is, more accurately, "LDR."

Also, blocked shadows, blown highlights and loss of significant subject detail–not to mention poor composition–do not "depth" make. Adding depth would ostensibly involve revealing more detail at the extremes of the tonal range, not less.

Purely as a portrait, blocking the shadows so that the environment is lost, while also losing the subjects eyes in the dense black pools under his brow, weakens the image greatly. Unless, that is, the subject is the texture of his skin, which you have amplified prodigiously.

I'm mystified by the 18-35/3.5-4.5 – a focal length range that was exciting when introduced back in 2000 but today seems terribly pedestrian. And for the premium, and having to suffer the variable max aperture, it'd better be optically pristine.

In this case, form follows function to a catastrophic end: The 1 system cameras, in general, are as homely as Nikon's DSLRs are generally handsome, and this V2 is the homeliest yet, looking like the b@st@rd child of a Coolpix 990 and V1. By far, the most visually unappealing camera I've seen since the T-series Canons of the mid-80s. The stylists and sculptors of this thing must have been made to work in the dark. Yuck. If a camera is going to have such a prominent viewfinder bump, why not fit a semi-transmissive mirror and an optical (or at least hybrid) viewfinder? Sure, you'd lose a little light and, possible, degrade the IQ a little bit, but with such a tiny sensor, it's not like image quality is the priority or anything, right?

If the camera of my iPhone 4 didn't deliver images with a prominent green blob in the center, I might actually consider using it for all my casual photography. But, it does produce said central green tint. Apple wants me to jump through all kinds of hoops before they even acknowledge the problem, even though I have noticed that many iPhone 4 cameras have the same flaw. It's not worth the trouble for me to go through the song and dance with Apple. If I want a high quality pocket camera, there are far better choices anyway than the iPhone.

Longtime Apple user here. The cost of an iPad, given it's usefulness/functionality (or lack thereof) is just silly. Which is why I don't own one and can't foresee doing so in the near future. And why in the world would anyone interject an iPad into their workflow as an intermediate device when there are tools less expensive and more capable that can accommodate a photographer's workflow start to finish? I don't get it.

Distinct lack of textural detail thanks to heavy-handed noise reduction. I'd like to see what RAW conversions look like, because these JPEGs are far too artificial-looking for my taste.

Only problem is you can't readily get specialist focusing screenings with transmissive LCD finders that are user-interchangeable–say, for instance, one designed for easy manual focusing. This is important because the stock screen isn't accurate for focusing at all, in my experience. I'm happy Canon have kept at least one current full framer with user-interchangeable focusing screens. If I needed to manually focus, the 6D is the one I would choose.

I think both 6D and 5DIII will appeal to different segments of professional photographers. And, beyond the AF system, they have so much in common that if one is considered a toy, so should the other be. Built-in WiFi? Whose LAN will you use on location? And is it fast enough to be of any real use? I suspect WiFi generally will be more of a selling point to hobbyists.

5DIII files are *so* much smaller than D600 files? 22 vs 24 MP? Roughly 9%? *So* much smaller? :-)