Fotoinfo: Maybe this is the reason... first review of this lens and coparision with old lens.http://foto-info.si/primerjava-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8g-proti-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8vr-2/
Not a chance. The lenses are done and are being manufactured by the hundreds or thousands already. It's already' way to late to change the optical design. There are already at least hundreds at retailers by now if the original ship date was August 27. What happened probably was something that caused a delay in shipping/manufacturing and/or a much lager number of preorders than expected and Nikon wants to make sure the retailers have enough stock when the lens starts shipping to customers
Ocolon: Looking back at the history of their awards, you can't help but think that EISA invents custom-tailored award categories for certain products.
Yep the whole thing is one giant exorcise in marketing for all involved. That's all it is. The awards are based off of tests, in other words reviews, in "members magazines" which means they most likely are "reviews" which are commissioned and payed for through sending early test cameras and advertising in the magazine by the camera manufactures themselves. That's why most of the time it is the hot new products that win. It's all very obvious and transparent if you turn a critical and objective eye to it instead of being blinded by the fact that your camera brand of choice won.
firstname.lastname@example.org: The Nikon mirror up is ideal for me. Raise the mirror. Take the shot at the right moment.
Obviously you pre frame and focus the shot, raise the mirror, and wait. Or you can pre focus using the PD array than go to live view and wait while still seeing the framing or you can just use live view to focus and frame with the mirror up. The live view AF is plenty fast enough for many subjects and is of course fine for pre focusing. Sure the above wont' work for everything but it will for a lot and majio never said what he was shooting.
What the new stuff everyone wants to sell won?! I'm shocked lol.
Horshack: The copy variation scores in Roger's tests for some of the more expensive lens is appalling and unfortunately matches my own experience. Over the course of two years I've tried 3 different copies of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II and have yet to find a copy that is anywhere close to reasonably centered, even stopped down to f/8 and tested on a lowly 5D. Here are photos of two samples, as compared to my 24-105 which is perfectly centered
Copy #1, 24-70 f/2.8 II @ 50mm f/8 vs 24-105 on 5D:https://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-6NghqG2/0/O/i-6NghqG2.jpg
Copy #2 - 24-70 f/2.8 II @ 35mm f/4 on 5D (right side tilted/soft):http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-S8ncn7M/0/O/i-S8ncn7M.jpg
24-105 @ 35mm f/4 on 5D:http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-2rN4XcB/0/O/i-2rN4XcB.jpg
I agree. It would love to see more sites testing sample variation and making the results public. It might create enough backlash to get the lens manufactures to put more priority on limiting the sample variation.
Boss of Sony: Just ordered the Panasonic LX100. Looking forward to it.
Best comment thread ever lol.
wepwawet: Canon and Apple... There's better for cheaper, yet they continue to sell bucketloads to people who still believe the competition is the Nikon D70 or Windows XP :D
You think Apple fans are bad, most Linux fans talk like windows development stopped at Windows 95 lol.
Josh152: Part of the benefit of the subscription model always was on going and more frequent updates and faster development of new features which the subscription helps pay for. Getting New features like dehaze right away is one of the benefits you are buying with your subscription. Choosing to buy the standalone LR 6 is choosing to accept the old model where you pay slightly less in the long run but only get major feature updates every couple of years with a new major release. It's basically like the CC never existed which is what many complaining would apparently prefer anyway so I really dont' see what they're complaining about.
Again I never lied and I was very clear about the benefits and why losing the software if you dont' pay for it is a non-issue. You just refuse to accept them. Also you just lost the last of your credibility by calling me a liar yet again when I've very clearly never lied. You just refuse to accept my arguments. That's not the same as me lying.
The simple fact is your only two arguments against the CC are based on scenarios like someone who can afford hundreds, or more likely thousands, in camera equipment having to cancel a $9.95 per month subscription or someone wanting to use the same out dated software for years and years and never wanting to buy the new version. Both of which are not realistic for the vast,vast majority of potential and current CC subscribers.
I'm not going to keep re-hashing it since we will just keeping going around and around about it. Again will have to agree to disagree.
nikkornikon: Why am I seeing a more clearer and crisp pic on the Nikon D810....than the Canon? in Raw and Jpeg? Poor ISO and Poor Dynamic...Yep it's Canon. lol
Actually Nikon is the smart one. Instead of investing heavily in their own fab lines which force them to keep using outdated sensors *cough* Canon *cough*, they have Sony who already has the equipment and makes the best sensors currently available make one to order for them. Further they can shop around and aren't stuck with one sensor manufacture so they can always go with what is best for the camera they are making. It is much smarter from a business and tech perspective.
"Only if you use "benefits" ironically are your posts about benefits of the CC system."
I have clearly explained the benefits. Again you bias shines through as you wont' accept there are any benefits to going with the CC. You know the CC is bad and that's that. Pure emotional bias.
"There are huge real benefits to the CS system."
I have already addressed and discredited the only one that you can come up with, that you can keep using it without a monthly fee. The whole keep using it for 25 years thing is just another way to say the same argument.
Honestly it's clear you just dislike the idea of a monthly fee for software on an emotional level and will never think it is anything but wholly and completely bad. We are at the point where we should just agree to disagree.
"When you keep ignoring this huge difference and claiming something that isn't, yes I can tell you that your posts are lies."
My posts don't have any lies. You lose credibility every time you say that they do.
"CC the software dies completely if you stop paying."
I have already addressed this and explained why it is a non issue to you, twice.
"CS the software works as long as the hardware works, which could be 25 years."
So? that is only an advantage if you plan on using software that is 2.5 decades old which is not realistic for most people. Again This is just the same as your whole "it stops working if you don't pay" argument. Your fears about the CC are based on very unlikely scenarios where some one who has a bunch of expensive photo gear is somehow so poor that they keep the same out dated software for decades or will suddenly not be able to afford $9.95 a month. It is simply not realistic.
Sorry but you can't tell me what my post are, or aren't' about. Maybe you would like to list some of the huge differences that my posts "ignored" and we can discuss those, but again my posts were only about the pricing and the benefits the subscription model has for both Adobe and their customers.
I have never said CC and CS were the same in every regard except the the faster updates. Never, not once. Since the CC has been updated several time since CS6 I didn't' think I had to point out they weren't same anymore. I thought it would be obvious. My mistake. My posts are about the differences in the pricing model and what benefits the subscription model has for the consumer and stared out being bout LR only. I was never trying to compare the differences between PS CS6 and PS CC as software, just the pricing models.
I haven told a single lie. PERIOD. The only thing I have been saying the whole time is that part of the benefits and value the extra cost of the CC gets you are faster updates and access to new features. That's it and it is true. Undeniably so. Unless you want to deny observable reality and common sense. I have never changed my tune on anything. It really is a waste of time since you will always deny the reality for your bias.
I haven't lied or been caught at anything, most especially not by you. The only thing that has happened is your complete and utter bias on this has been exposed so you had to resort to calling me a liar.
Adobe has always said one of the benefits of the CC would be more frequent updates and not having to wait for the next major release to get new features and they are making good on it for the most part. It is the constant revenue stream from the subscriptions that allows that to happen and that allows them to do things like continue to support and add ACR 9.1 to old software like PS CS6. Again if you already had PS it more expensive but you are getting something extra for your money. If you never had PS before it will be 4-5 years before it is even AS expensive let alone more. It is a win/win for many people. That is a fact.
But since you have resorted to baseless accusations of lying and seem to be quite angry over it, it's time to end my side of this discussion.
User6581894107: All consumers have to do is stop buying Adobe products. Every company listens to revenue based messages. I fear there are simply too few folks who will stop using the products.
The CC photography plan is a great deal. Sure if you already had PS it's a little more expensive but you are getting something for the extra money and if you never had PS before it will be like 5 -7 years before it starts costing you more than just buying PS out right. Considering there would be at least one or two upgrades in that time, it very well could be that it will never be more expensive. What Adobe has done is allowed many people who would never be customers to buy the software while at the same time making it more profitable and shedding some low profit/high cost costumers who only upgraded every other release or every third release but still expect bug fixes and updates for their old software. I really don't see why $9.95 a month to always have the latest and greats version of the industry standard pro photo software is such a burden for someone who loves photography enough to have hundreds or thousands in photo gear.
I'm not misrepresenting things, you are. The subscription model has allowed Adobe to offer more frequent updates and add features quicker. You are getting something for the extra money. It is not just paying to keep it working. That is an undeniable fact. Again it cost money to add features, fix bugs, ect. Instead of having to eat those costs up front and then make people wait for incremental updates every few years, with the constant revenue stream Adobe can now develop and add things much quicker and with much less finical risk. The customer gets updates more frequent and always has the most up to date software.
Again it's win/win. Unless you're a miser who wont pay $10 per month on a hobby you love or on critical software for your business or have irrational fears about losing the software if you stop paying as if that is a likely scenario.
It is clear there is no point in wasting time responding to you anymore. You will all see the CC as a scam even though it's not.
I'm not going to keep putting money into Adobe to keep currently working software working.
There is a huge difference.
You completely misunderstand the CC model. It is not the same as having a CS6 License where you keep the software forever and it doesn't really change. You aren't paying to keep using the same software. You are paying for rapid updates. Think of it like every year adobe releases a new version of PS and LR for $120 instead of a monthly fee. That is basically all it is except instead of having to wait, you pay though out the year so you get the updates and new features as soon as they are available.
It is really not any different then buying upgrades. You just pay for and get the new stuff as it's done instead of having to wait for one release with all of it in there and adobe gets to develop new features knowing they are paid for instead of having to hope in a shrinking market enough people will buy the upgrade to cover it when it comes out. It's Win/Win.
You literately can't talk about the differences between LR and LR CC without out talking about the subscription model because it is the reasons there are differences. What you dont' seem to grasp is the continued support and updates to software are not free. They cost Adobe money. The subscription model allows them increased revenue to do things like, not take 6 months to support new cameras in ACR, add features faster, and provide people with software that is always up to date instead of having to wait months to release it all at once.
My comparison to coffee was to show how trivial the cost of the CC subscription is and how easy it is to pay for it. It is simply not realistic to think someone who is into photography and has money for all the gear that goes with it will have to stop paying for the CC for any other reason than a catastrophic life event that is very unlikely and will probably put a stop to their photography all together anyway.
IF you don't use LR why are you even replying? I am talking about the people below complaining dehaze isn't being added LR 6.
Your major complaint about the CC is that if you stop paying the monthly fee you lose the software. Well considering how cheap it is I am having a real hard time imagining a scenario where that would happen. I mean if you are in the financial position of cancelling a $9.95 subscription, you likely have more important things to worry about and are in the "sell cameras for food and to pay bills" mode anyway. Really most people spend more a month on coffee, sodas, snacks ect. This "if I dont' pay I lose it stuff" is a non issue for anyone who has the budget for the cameras, computers, internet connection, ect to use the software with in the first place.