Hmm....I'm actually relieved that they are keeping the Rebel series as "entry" level (wait, hear me out!). No one likes to save up hard earned money for something they've always wanted, only to find out the newer versions of lesser line products "borrowed" or uses the same "features" of what the higher products had a few years ago. This is quite apparent with phones and other smaller devices.
When I saw the 18MP that my 7D had, I was worried they would have a similar (if not the same) 19 AF points. Glad to see it's still 9-points (although for this price, bumping it to, let's say, 12-points would be justified). I worked really hard to get my 7D (upgraded from a modest Rebel XT (7-point AF), and would cry if some spooty Rebel out-spec'd it already. I guess that won't come till next year with the Rebel 5i, or 70D.
Sarge_: Tempting, but the deal killer is you can't upgrade the hard drives. Everything is glued/soldered in place (RAM too). This, I think, will prove to be a mistake that they correct in future versions. That might be fine for ipods and iphones, but this is another matter.
Not being able to upgrade the drives, and contemplating a D800? Not compatible plans, really.
In the prior Macbook Pro's, you could also replace the optical drive with a hard drive, making for up to 2 TB of storage (or 1.2 TB of SSD storage w 600GB x2 drives), and when the battery wears out, it's easy to replace (and/or have a charged backup at the ready).
I'm a fan of Macs overall, but I'm disappointed with the absolute lack of repairability and upgradability of this new machine. Looks like I may scoop up one of the last 17" MBP's before they're gone. Surely Apple will rethink this strategy eventually?
That's not a mistake. How else do they expect you to buy external HDD's via Firewire 800 (oh, I forgot, they killed that favored connection completely in their last iteration for plain USB2.0), I mean that Thunderwire connection (this laptop DOES have it, right?).
Besides, you're just going to upgrade to the new model when it comes out. You won't have enough time to fill up the space on this model by the time you get the new one. Who skips each version of Apple products? Clearly you're not a true Apple minion.
slobodanr: There have been some so-so stories in the news section at times, but this is really a step too far. What has this got to do with Digital Photography? Are we going to be getting an in-depth review of it? Is every laptop/monitor that gets announced with an interesting new feature going to be advertised here, or is that only reserved for Apple products?
You clearly don't realize that a higher rez is not going to magically make your thumbnails "sharper" and make workflow smoother. Even a 640x480 picture will look sharp/iin focus until you zoom in 1:1 on the original and see it has a slight camera shake. When I record video with my DSLR (don't judge me), even with the 3" screen, I can't tell if I have my subject in critical focus till I put it on a 1080p screen. I have a 7" 1024x600 rez monitor that I can focus better with. It's not the resolution, it's the screen size WITH a decent resolution that will let you focus properly.
Hence why looking at 640x480 2" thumbnails on your laptop aren't going to tell you if you got it in "perfect" focus. The exact detail is truncated (said averaged) in a thumbnail. There's a reason why you don't "see" the same detail on a 4x7 photo from film than the same photo in poster size. Film is endless resolution, but the bigger size lets you see more detail.
samhain: Instagram used to be really cool until it was taken over by teenagers, celebraties & companies using it for marketing. There's still some really good photographers on there, but they're hard to find as the popular page is no longer about good photos.
@Octane: Same original intent Photoshop was supposed to be: to edit photos. Now it's a tool to be used for creating digital paintings. You can bet some of those artists never use PS for editing or even touching ANY photos. They could use other art programs like Corel Painter or Paint Tool SAI for their purposes.
Since then, PS has included paint brushes, editing animation sequences (not using FLASH pro, or After Effects), and now the inclusion of "painting" 3D models. Maybe a few more iterations, and we'll get full 3D rendering and creations and people will quit using Maya or 3Dmax?
I'm still waiting for when my toaster can also be used as a paper shredder. That way the toaster won't be thought about being used to toast bread anymore.
MPA1: Not too sure why I would want to edit my work on a half-baked solution in Flickr rather than in proper software prior to posting the work there, but then that's just me!
@Edwaste: I'm going to assume you're saving a version of your final photos in sRGB? Saving in Adobe RGB or Pro doesn't translate well for most browsers.
@MPA1: Not everyone has the money for CS3/4/5 or care about spending too much time in PP. If it's free and offers simple features like color saturation, and adding brightness, and sharpening and not using the paid advanced features (again, that's too much work)...you'll have plenty of users that will use it.
Honestly, if Facehooker used Picnik, it would slightly make going to that site less painful (slightly....I don't have a FB anyways).
Inars: As allways, Nikon have a better skin tone.
Except that most users will use PP to change the tones on everything. They'll add a bit more saturation and add cooling or warming in the final edit. Unless you were doing on the spot broadcasting for a Videoblog or Newscasting, I really don't see any real complaint about colour accuracy.
HeezDeadJim: For those suggesting that all this camera is, is shooting at a small aperture where everything is in focus, and then blurring it in post-pro...I just tried all the "blurring" techniques in PS5 (smart, gaussian, box, etc.) to replicate some "in focus" christmas lights into fake bokeh ones.
Alas, I could not get it to even remotely look like a melted orb (with the typical haloing) with such tools. Selective blurring is not any way, shape or form, the same as how the lens distorts the shape of out of focus objects. You're talking about edges of objects intersecting into other objects, depending how far/close it is from the focused area and creating our shallow DOF.
If I'm missing a method in PS to mimic this look fairly easy (not 5+ layers and 2 hours later easy), someone please tell me so I can experiment with it some more.
Also, for those that think this is going to make "lazy" photographers, how is this any different from pro cameras offering 7-10fps shooting?
Sure someone could just take a photo of a flower and "fling" the focus behind the flower to the front of the flower so that way one of those 10 frames will be in focus (given with fast enough shutter speeds to minimize "focusing blur"). The "lazy photographer" could do that instead of spending some time to compose and focus.
But if you are being paid for "that shot" of an eagle swooping down for a fish in the water, they will want that 10fps. I can sports photographer using this in case the AF didn't keep up with the players (the arm is in focus, but not the face) right when the player was making game winning catch or kick.
You can see it as lazy all you want, but I think some paid professionals wouldn't mind having this tech when it gets more advanced (i.e. more points and higher resolution).
For those suggesting that all this camera is, is shooting at a small aperture where everything is in focus, and then blurring it in post-pro...I just tried all the "blurring" techniques in PS5 (smart, gaussian, box, etc.) to replicate some "in focus" christmas lights into fake bokeh ones.
Laz r: I was thinking someone should do this. I was hoping iit would be apple . I use my iPhone a lot and enjoy editing my pics with all the available apps running iOS . a micro 3/4 done by apple would sell. Wifi enabled and ability to download apps would be a big seller.. I also think this is the future of point and shoot cameras ...
Apple wouldn't make a camera running iOS on it. They'd just buy someone else's technology and claim it was theirs and slap it in a shell with yet someone else providing the hardware.
So have a smaller camera company (like Fuji or Pentax) to make the camera hardware, and slap iOS in it.
Did you really think Apple created multi-touch or Siri?
qwertyasdf: Name it PolaDroid
or name it "Anol-roids"....wait... nevermind...
mikiev: So there is finally a competitor to the iPod Touch?
I was wondering how long it would take to get an Android device - other than a tablet - which doesn't require a contract via a cell carrier.
Correct bloodycape. I too played with that and almost bought it because it was so smooth and pocket-able. With a 800x480 rez, it's not that much under from the iPhod 4. But with a 5" screen...I think that makes up for it. (Alas, I'm just going to get a proper tablet)...
Josh152: The whole reason adobe switched the upgrade scheme was to force people to upgrade every time a new version came out. Too many people (from adobes point of view) were skipping versions and only upgrading every other or sometimes every third new version. Rather than makeing the next version seem like a good value for the money and not just an over priced incremental upgrade, adobe decided to basically tell it's customers, "upgrade every time or else."
This is why so many had such sour grapes about it. It was clear it was just an underhanded money grab.
This isn't too unlike how the iOS 4 came out for the iPhone 3GS and 4. You could update your 3G (non-S) to the new OS...but it made it dog slow. And guess what?...there wasn't a way to go back to the older OS. I knew a few people that "had to" upgraded to the iPhone 4 because of that. Funny how Apple didn't get a bunch of flack over that.
I also know a few Apple users that abhor Adobe and refuse to use/install any Adobe products (one being a journalist for a high profile newspaper) because of things like this that Adobe has done (I think mainly for denying proper FLASH support for so long on the iOS portables).
I don't see too big of a difference from PS CS4 to CS5, but there is a big difference in Premiere CS5. With the inclusion of a "proper" GPU acceleration allowing a video card to help crunch numbers, I could get my Canon 7D 1080p videos (I know, how dare I use video for a DSLR) to play smoothly on a dual monitor setup. It was way too choppy with Premiere CS4.
Valentinian: The Xpro1 looks very nice. so far. a key question is the AF. how fast can it focus moving subjects? Nikon found a way to fast focus a mirrorless.... when will the others catch up with that?
"Plastic bombers" are easier to modify and make a metal rugged metal body than have to change the whole sensor completely. If Nikon did do good job of fast AF, I wouldn't doubt if Nikon puts out newer versions of the V/J with a metal body (maybe call it the NA?). I'd buy a camera if it was called the V/J/NA series (tasteless, I know).
Francis Carver: This may be the year when Fujifilm-Sony-Panasonic and a few others will be sinking the "SS CANIKON" mother ship for good. Canon particularly seems like a 10,000 pound beached whale, poor thing cannot move.
Just like the back of the LCD to view your photos after you take your shot on your favorite DSLR (heaven forbid you use it for "LiveView"), the LCD has evolved a lot since the first DSLRs. They now are bigger and pack more resolution for better accuracy about checking focus, sharpness, DOF and noise.
I can attest to this since my Rebel XT was a 1.8" 640x480 LCD w/out pixels both horizontally AND vertically aligned. So horizontal straight lines were zig-zagged. I came home to so many out of focus photos because, even zoomed in, I still couldn't tell proper focus with that LCD. That all changed with my current 7D's 3.0" 920K+ LCD.
You can bet that EVF's will have a similar evolution (already begun). Nex's have much higher rez EVF's and no doubt there will be AMOLED EVF's soon enough. And it will probably happen while Canikon still offers the same lens mounts.
Marty4650: The lack of IBIS is disappointing.
Especially for people who like to use legacy lenses with adapters. Is it that difficult or expensive to put this feature on a camera?
Even the cheapest Olympus Pen has it.
"aimed at traditionalists", because the M9 doesn't have a IBIS or lens-IS?
Fuji already broke the true traditionalist with the hybrid OVF/EVF (plus not being a real RF). I don't see it too much deviation that they've already made to have lenses offer IS. They could maybe offer certain lenses with or without the IS like Canikon does with similar with their 70-200 f/X.x with IS or non-IS and comparative prices.
Gavril Margittai: Hate to be a killjoy, but if anyone believes that possessing these two lenses will make them a better photographer he is wrong. Having these two lenses will not improve picture quality.
If serious about photography and with available money to spend I would rather buy studio lights if one works on portraits, or a good sturdy tripod if nature & landscape are your thing. Both these two will make much more impact. Oh and I almost forgot. Spend on Photography and Photoshop courses.
Exactly Dan_168. I don't think too many people who bought a m4/3 camera doesn't at least know the basics of photography. Probably they have a DSLR as main and m4/3 to compliment. I learned a lot with the stock lens and entry level camera. Then I got a few primes and one "L" glass and a proper external flash and tripod.
So if/when I decide to go "portable", you can bet I'll be looking only for faster glass than the stock lens. Not another "sturdy" tripod that I already own.
As for spending money on Photography or PS clases, I learned by "hands-on" training (and some by looking up free websites for basic tutes). That money I saved from going to classes is what I'm using to spend on better glass. Some people can actually learn by trial/error than someone telling them how to do it. Because I'm sure Henry Ford had someone tell him how to work on a car.
John Bean (UK): Fuji seems to be following Leica's marketing tactics, which given where that has taken Leica this doesn't seem to be a smart move. Time will tell.
Personally I prefer the aesthetics of the original (I have one) but in any case I certainly wouldn't pay a premium for a "limited" edition whatever the colour - it's just a camera for goodness sake.
How dare you say that some cameras are asking for a premium just for cosmetic upgrades! My Leica D-Lux 5 has more style the the near identical Panny LX 5, so of course it demands a higher price!
I pay for those bragging rights...
Now I can "accidentally" instantly share photos of me shaving my beard while in a spaghetti strap halter top and jean mini skirt, and black leather stilettos onto my Facebook!....
Disregard that... I was kidding about having a Facebook account...
Henry M. Hertz: hopefully sigma get their quality issues sorted one day......
I can attest to the quality Sigma has now. I used my Canon 50mm 1.4 till I accidentally dropped it and looked to replace it. I went with the Sigma version instead. The Canon version was wonderful, but I rarely opened it up larger than 2.2. The Sigma version is sharper and usable at 1.8 (should be since I paid more for it than the Canon version)!
With the advent of Sigma's 30, 50, and 85mm....they really started to get on par with their counter 1st party versions (in some cases better than them).
Sigma shouldn't be scoffed at now since they do have good IQ on certain lenses. It doesn't always pay to be brand loyal to your specific camera make.
Carsten Saager: What Canon tried to make (G1X), Fuji got right... they are about to find their niche where Canikon won't go
well, except that the G1X is quite a bit cheaper. For someone who wants to pay for a flat camera deal (since it can't change out lenses), the G1X won't ask a lot of "extra" costs (just batteries, flash cards, case).
Not saying I'd buy a GX1...