Reading over the comments, you get the clear sense that most folks already know that the Pro will never be a serious editing tool for photos. That's basically how Lars answers the question of his title.
And anyone who has done any product development knows that Lars is right. The Pro isn't a serious editing tool -- because it's not out till November. And any Pro software is still vaporware.
That's the classic tech commentator mistake. They look at product specs and think they understand the final product. But Apple plays the long game; they know the Pro is just a baby.
Apple's gonna sell a ton of these to corporate, to current design customers, to anyone with the money. Apple's already talking to IBM and Adobe about the long term roadmap for this product.
Adobe doesn't care if DP commentators love the Surface. Adobe looks at future product sales projections (Surface, Pro, etc.) They know the Pro's going to be a money tree. They're throwing developers at this new platform Now.
TimT999: The reviewer keeps saying that the lens is soft at the long end. But looking at the sharpness chart, it's in the 1300-1400 range even at 50mm -- in other words for over 3/4 of the zoom range. Sharpness only improves slightly if you go to f-8. By contrast, Tamron, Canon or Nikon 70-200 lenses come in at between 2000-2500 lines of resolution (at the same f-stop). And their 24-70 lenses all hit that same range. That's a significant difference in IQ. For stuff you'll be showing on a web site, the softness isn't a problem. But if your images will be sold or printed, this lens just won't work.
Dave, you say I'm making a "pointless observation" because the lens will only be for casual snapshots. Thanks. But in your desire to put me down, I think you've missed what I'm really getting at, the context.
If DP Review had said the lens is only for casual use, I wouldn't have added my 2 cents. Furthermore, the reviewer says that the softness issue only comes into play at 200-300mm. That's factually incorrect. It's actually there from 50mm.
The deeper problem is too many DP reviews don't define where a piece of equipment fits along the continuum from camera phone up to the professional level. That's info we need to balance out the pros and cons.
Too often, DP reviewers avoid giving that context. As a result some commenters believe a piece of low end gear stacks up against the high price stuff. There's nothing wrong with making a tradeoff in gear based on lightness or price. But let's not pretend apples are oranges. And please don't denigrate someone else's comments, it's rude.
The reviewer keeps saying that the lens is soft at the long end. But looking at the sharpness chart, it's in the 1300-1400 range even at 50mm -- in other words for over 3/4 of the zoom range. Sharpness only improves slightly if you go to f-8. By contrast, Tamron, Canon or Nikon 70-200 lenses come in at between 2000-2500 lines of resolution (at the same f-stop). And their 24-70 lenses all hit that same range. That's a significant difference in IQ. For stuff you'll be showing on a web site, the softness isn't a problem. But if your images will be sold or printed, this lens just won't work.
TimT999: How disappointing. The article brings up a valid point, that paparazzi will do a bunch of creepy things to get pictures. And any photographer who takes people pictures is impacted by this issue because more and more people get overly defensive if a camera is around.
So that's the issue. But 90% of the comments here are about whether the British Royal Family is the scum of the earth or not. Use your brains people. Think about the deeper issue instead of giving us a knee-jerk response that says nothing about photography and isn't even insightful about the Windsors.
Bakhtyar, if you had read my post more closely, you'd realize I'm not angry. I'm disappointed that folks can't do more than push a political agenda.
This isn't a political site Bakhtyar. It's for photography. I agree that each of us has the right to say whatever we want. But my point is that posts that talk about Gandhi or the life span of aboriginal people may make you feel like you are striking a blow against injustice, but you're approach is so off topic, it turns folks off and hurts your cause.
And your post isn't even providing insight on the topic you seem to care about. You assume that the readers have no idea of what happened to the native people in Australia, Canada and the US. Wrong. I've spent a lot of time on reservations here in the US and am writing a book that will bring more $$$ into the ones in Arizona.
So if you preach, do it with a small bit of insight. Say something that's thoughtful if you can't respect that this site is for photographers.
How disappointing. The article brings up a valid point, that paparazzi will do a bunch of creepy things to get pictures. And any photographer who takes people pictures is impacted by this issue because more and more people get overly defensive if a camera is around.
jaykumarr: I will never behave like such a paparazzi. It is unacceptable, serious security problem and dangerous for the baby. But,As an Indian, I envy they are able to rob innocent masses of India, charge 48% as tax from Indian farmers and take everything to Britain without spending a penny in India. I envy no other country questioned them. I envy they could setup Gandhi as a shield from patriotic freedom fighters. I envy how they used Gandhi to send Indian soldiers to fight and die against Germans. I envy how they sucked bloods of farmers of every nation, how they killed 500 harmless people in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre and praised Reginald Edward Harry Dyer as a war hero, but they could portray Hitler as daemon. I envy the British royal family people are bald except for prince George. I envy they have become more searched family after alleged killing of princes Diana. I envy British papers didn't care about them while they cared about hair style of Beckham.
If you want to get on a soapbox, try to choose an article with some vague relationship to your agenda. This article is about photographers doing creepy stuff to get pictures. The kid and his parents had absolutely nothing to do with Gandhi or anything else in your post.
TimT999: Just got the $79 update after digging around on the web site and not seeing any mention of an upgrade for current V5 users.
I even did the live chat with someone there -- she denied there was any upgrade except for folks who bought a month ago. Finally I called the sales line and they let me do the upgrade after putting me through a sales pitch for CC. Classic Adobe.
Suzanne, I just called the general sales number for the Adobe site.
Just got the $79 update after digging around on the web site and not seeing any mention of an upgrade for current V5 users.
Excellent analysis, Jeff. I was also a fan of Aperture. The adjustment brushes were a particular favorite.
LR 5 is definitely a huge improvement in functionality over Aperture 3 and I'm glad I made the move. It's got great functionality. The only glaring weakness for me is that's patch tools aren't nearly as good as what you find in the new version of Photoshop.
LR has a ton of tools but you'll need to a few intermediate LR classes to get to power user level. Adobe just doesn't have the usability chops as Apple.
I think that Apple Photo is the best choice for folks who just want the core adjustments. And knowing Apple, they'll continue to enhance and tackle several of the items on your missing list. But for the average guy who takes shots for their vacation, Lightroom would be an exercise in futility.
For any photographer who makes post-production a major part of their workflow, something like Lightroom is the way to go.
Thorgrem: Great field test. Seems like m4/3 is up to the task of shooting such a difficult to shoot sport.
I'm impressed with the frame rate and continuos focusing. But there really isn't much subject separation even in the f2.8 shots. In sports photography, you can have incredibly cluttered environments and narrowing the DOF is essential. So I'm surprised that the video review never mentioned that issue.
JJ10: What is the point of this news item if it is restricted to one country only. I thought this was meant to be an international site. Why cant I watch this simple promo video here in Australia?
There seems to be way to much restriction on this site of late.
I don't mind the font choice as much as the fact that it is white on black. That has a nice artsy look in a headline but is a bad choice if you're reading an entire review.
DP, it's nice you have a "full screen" mode, even though it's not that much bigger for some of these shots. But for most photo web sites I know, you can scroll through the pics while in that display mode. Making users go back to the tiny display between each shot is bad usability.
I don't mean to complain, but these shots deserve to be displayed properly.
Zvonimir Tosic: Instead of lamenting, congratulate your mums, dads, sisters, brothers, girlfriends, and yourself for helping Apple make the iPhone the most popular camera ever. It is as expensive as a real camera, and with a plan, the cost is high even as buying pro DLSR gear. But it is sooo convenient, so easy to use, you need no knowledge of photography, and it does it all for you, you do instant Facebook updates, right? Now the most popular camera's maker has introduced its own developer substance for its negatives, that does it all of you, they way they like — whether you like it or not. You didn't want have a real camera with you because it was so "inconvenient"? Now you are given no real photo software too and the most inconvenient of all news. Let's clap to ourselves, for we have been sooo smart.
I don't quite get your attempts at sarcasm, Zvonimir. The iPhone (and all the other smart phones out there) don't claim to be DSLR level gear -- any I've never heard anyone say these phones have that kind of photographic firepower.
A smartphone is a pocket computer, that makes calls, does email, messaging, video and yes, takes snapshots. And the huge cost you mention is mostly for access to a 4G network -- that money goes to the provider. So if we're going to get on a soapbox, let's attack the service providers for charging so much and locking folks into a 2 year phone plan.
I'm a bit disappointed that Apple took so long to admit that it was moving all its resources over to their Photo app, but I'm not too surprised. Aperture 3 came out ages ago and it didn't make sense for them to have parallel development of a consumer and pro photo app. That said, I've always preferred the Aperture approach to usability.
Apple has always tried to keep focused on their core strengths rather than spread resources too thin. That's why you have only a handful of Apple phone choices rather than the 40-odd that Samsung sells.
I just hope that Adobe doesn't move Lightroom users over to the monthly rental model they use for Photoshop.
TimT999: The level of copying that's going on with the Mi Pad and all DP can say is "aimed at Apple's iPad Mini. " Let's at least be honest here, this is a level of theft that probably won't be allowed outside China.
Fairly common in China of course. You go into any big market area in Beijing or Shanghai and the booths are full of knock-offs of international brands. You can get a great price on a real, authentic "Rolex" that falls apart after a month.
I assume the hardware for the Mi Pad isn't that level of cheap crap. But the real issue is the software interface. If it's standard Android, it could very well take market share away from Samsung. The Mi Pad could definitely undercut their tablets.
I don't think it competes as much with Apple regardless of Mi Pad's flagrant copying. Many of the folks in China who have the money for Apple won't want to own a brand that screams knock-off.
Will, I have no problem with someone who buys a product that imitates another company's product. You like the original company's design and want to save some bucks, then go for the cheap version.
But in a forum like this, people should be able to share ideas without being called names. I'm not a "snob." You know nothing about how I've lived my life. Calling someone who disagrees with you a name just tells others that you're willing to trash others just to win an argument.
I also didn't say "everything" out of China is a knock-off. But clearing many folks on this site can see some shameless imitation going on. And anyone who's lived there knows that too many companies there do cheap knockoffs. That's a fact.
As a product manager, I care about creating something good. My company spends hours and hours sweating the details. And I know what its like to have someone else steal the idea instead of doing the work themselves. So please, stop the name calling, Will. It cheapens you.
Thanks for the info on their brand of Android. As far as everyone copying Apple, I won't disagree with you on that one. One of Samsung's internal docs from the first trial had over a hundred side by side features and UX elements that the Samsung designers decided to copy. But then again, they lost that case and their branding suffered.
As far as Xiaomi being "much more than just another knock-off brand," if they are really aspiring to be something great in their own right why become known as a knock-off brand in the first place?
A company's reputation is immensely important. And whenever I see a company that gets that shameless, that obvious, I lose respect.
You are right that everyone copies. Having a "best of breed" product means you will occasionally grab an idea. However, you ultimately want to see if a company can raise the bar.
But you're right, these guys are going after Samsung and a consumer that doesn't mind a Samsung will get a better product with this Mi Pad.
The level of copying that's going on with the Mi Pad and all DP can say is "aimed at Apple's iPad Mini. " Let's at least be honest here, this is a level of theft that probably won't be allowed outside China.
TimT999: Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.
It's true that the Zeiss is a 1.8. But anyone who is a pro shooter would be looking at Canon's 1.4 or 1.2. So DP should have used a Canon lens of comparable value and cost and then dialing one of those lenses up to 1.8 to do an apples to apples comparison.
Wally, your point about the use of a 36 MP sensor also backs up my point about this not being an apples to apples comparison. You have several Canon lenses that are better in low light and sharper than the $100 Canon. But the $1000 Zeiss is compared to the cheap plastic Canon and the (admittedly amazing) level of resolution you get with the Zeiss is partly a result of having a camera with a sensor that's far sharper than what's on a Canon.
The lens is obviously a thing of beauty but the writeup weakens the test because they made the $100 Canon their reference lens. If DP had used the $1600 Canon f 1.2, they would have made their case far more effectively.
Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.
digitallollygag: All of these "clip-on" gadgets are a compromise. Why won't Apple simply make a digital camera first that also happens to be a smartphone second, as an OPTION to the iPhone device we use now? Then they'd once and for all beat Canon and Nikon at their own game since those two are not particularly cutting-edge with connectivity...
What I find "unbearable" is commenters who attack others just because of the product choices they make. Why call someone names just because you prefer a different product?