plasnu: One question, why they do this?
An enforced Adobe CC subscription is immoral, no question.
Over in the Adobe forum, I started a discussion if the immoral may be illegal in some contries, or may become if laws adapt to this current sad trend.
SemperAugustus: Make no mistake, this will be bad for customers and ultimately for ADBE itself. Once ADBE get used to the automatic monthly debits from customer's accounts, ADBE will feel NO pressure to enhance their products. They will become lazy and place resources into other initiatives. CC will become a cash cow and the talent will go into new areas, gaming or whatever.
I love PS and i think is a great tool for Photographers, that being said, I can definitely live without it which is going to happen 7-8 years from now when my Win 7 PC dies with CS6 on it. In the meantime, I will start looking seriously at some alternatives. Corel PaintShop Pro being one of them, I used it before buying PS so I know I can do most of what I need. That was about 3-4 years ago, I am sure Corel has developed it a lot further since then.
> ADBE will feel NO pressure to enhance their products.
And ADBE will feel no pressure to NOT sky-rocket their subscription fee. After all, most other subscription makers do this too.
As a result, users will turn away from ADBE without creating an immediate financial impact (slow user migration). Until it is too late.
- Adobe Photoshop CC is 300€ per year (ignoring the reduced 1st year rate for upgraders from CS3). I assume PSCC includes PSCS6 Extended.
- Adobe Photoshop CS6 (upgrade from CS3) is 230€ (in German shops incl. 19% VAT, assuming the subscription price is incl. VAT too - since it is much more than in US$).
- Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended (upgrade) is 430€.
Therefore (in €):CC = PS upgrade every 0.7 years,CC = PS Extended upgrade every 1.4 years.
A bit steep for vanilla Adobe Photoshop CS6 users, or users only updating every 2 or 3 years.
However, the real reason why this is not acceptable is this:
Nobody knows the rates Adobe will charge in say 3 years. But all its users are locked in because if they don't pay, there software stops working.
Such lock in policies are immoral and, in some countries, illegal. I have a subscription-based financial software and its price nothing but sky-rocketed over the years. Immoral.
Adobe ... please don't go there. It is your end. Promise.
JacquesBalthazar: One question from me, for the reviewer: what are the real life consequences of GR's 12-bit RAW processing vs the A's 14-bit ? I would have assumed there would be an impact on DR and maybe also on colour gradation. Or not?
Mark, while you are right that a 14 Bit DAC can make a small difference at low ISO DR, you are wrong when asserting that the sensors are equal except for the DAC.
As the 12/14 Bit DACs are actually embedded on-chip with the Sony sensors, they are clearly different beasts.
The difference a 14Bit DAC makes is smaller than 1EV in DR and depends on the sensor resolution and Full Well Capacity.
The deep image links are working still.
There are no corner crops and a few center crops only. So, the samples have limited use only. A few deep links for you:
- http://cfile28.uf.tistory.com/image/220F544B516F989E22B7DC (distortion)- http://cfile29.uf.tistory.com/image/19373F4D516F8D7520B57F (EOS 600D 1/800sec F/1.8 18.0mm ISO-100)- http://cfile10.uf.tistory.com/image/21711B3951702DC204B74A (EOS 600D 1/200sec F/1.8 35.0mm ISO-100)- http://cfile23.uf.tistory.com/image/176E673951702DC3058B87 (crop from above)
there are more samples, mostly at 18mm. But no corner or edge crops, or full resolution.
There a 4 more center crops. They all appear a bit soft to my eye. But this may be due to some front focussing (watch the hair in the middle of the crop above) and the AA filter of the 600D.
Overall, I think the "lost images" are not suitable to judge the lens other than for vignetting, distortion and bokeh.
This will be an interesting exercise.
Sigma has a 24-70/2.8 for FF too, which actually is quite affordable. Comparing Sigma's MTF curves for both (looked up at Sigma DE) the new Art lens for APS-C appears to be a somewhat better performer. And has a more complex construction, e.g., with an aspherical front element.
So, it is a safe bet to assume the APS-C 18-35/1.8 will be significantly more expensive than the equivalent FF 24-70/2.8 which weights the same, collects the same amount of light and covers a larger zoom range.
I have difficulty to see how this can help the APS-C DSLR camp to survive ... As rather it is a good example that ambitious APS-C systems can easily cost more that equivalently specced FF systems, body and lenses combined.
lesnapanda: Why do you only compare this camera to the Nikon? Isn't for example the DP1 merrill a better quality camera in terms of IQ? And it's also priced at 800$.
Don't you buy the cameras you review? I thought this s critical to avoid vendor-selected samples to be tested...
That's just a patent, Nikon won't implement it.
As otherwise, they would already have done the simple and obvious: write lens serial no. into EXIFs and make NX crosscheck against a Nikon-supplied blacklist server.
Lajos Hajdu: Small point: the title is wrong.
"Sigma to start shipping USB dock IN May"or"Sigma to ship USB dock FROM May"
The Brits may consider to stop coding in BE where the rest of the world expects AE, esp. on a .com site. It's confusing the rest of us (i.e., non native English speakers) struggling to speak correct English of any kind. Face it, w/o the US, the world wouldn't soeak English at all ...
There is so much more to an EVF which can rival an OVF, e.g., closer to 3 MP (iPad) rather than 1.2 MP, closer to 70 Hz rather than 40 Hz refresh rate, a true contrast ratio of closer to 15 stops with dimmed, still readable GUI. A lack of lag (i.e., less than 20 ms). And not to forget, combined to an AF which can actually track fast action.
So, does DPR need to report every and any minuscule progress in the field?
I don't quite get the criticism which is lurking in the article.
I am pretty sure this inofficial repair center rescued an otherwise irrepairable lens. And in quite a creative manner too. Kudos to the guys and to make it public.
Henry M. Hertz: nikon should have gone the canon way.first the lenses, then the sensor.
@Stanchung, this is not what Guba said. He said the recent Nikon lenses bested their then existing Canon peers. The Canon 24-70 is brand new (2012), replacing a ten year old design (2002). The Nikon is five years old now (2007).
In general, I got the impression that both, Canon and Nikon, are making good progress with recent lens designs and their high end optics tend to better if more recent. From whatever brand...
JWest: Is there an awful lot of point in dreaming up concepts that are physically impossible to realise?
I could knock up a 3D render of a cool looking compact camera, and write things like "8-400mm f1.4 lens" underneath it, but does that really get us any closer to a useful product?
No, striving for the impossible makes people fail. It is the subtle difference between visioneers and utopists ...
Timmbits: Yes, and I'd like a Porsche that fits into my pocket. Maybe they can design that too.
Why are such unrealistic ideas of the immature and inexperienced even getting any press time? Looks like kids doing class concept projects in industrial design program. Not really thought through (hard to do if you're ignorant about what you're designing).
It's like a parade of the impossible and the ludicrous.
Yeah, these kids seem to learn 100% of how to self-promote and the remaining fraction of how to actually do a proper form follows function design...
I am shocked that photos on Flickr have so weak copyright that such services are legal.
This photo game is offered by a third party and probably for a commercial reason.
But then, real photographers don't use flickr, right?
digby dart: Nikon is still playing games, this presumably has aperture change within live view - something not available below the d800 in their dslr range.
This 'A' offering is more akin to what the v system should have been, apsc based, this new offering by Nikon is far too little too late. The camera is carefully designed not to interfere with Nikon's lucrative camera tearing and interchangeable lens strategies - the hefty price without optical or electronic viewfinder reflects that too.
Moreover, taking the anti-aliasing filter away as if it did not have a purpose in the first place, while keeping the Bayer pattern, is odd to say the least.
As far as value goes, I feel Nikon have just been trading on their name of late and that is not a sustainable long term market strategy.
The reason the D800 has true aperture change in LV is an extra motor which physically moves the aperture blade lever (something introduced by the Pentax K-7/K-5 bodies which have a mechanically controlled aperture too). You can even hear its noise. The D600, D7000, D7100 lack such a motor but e.g., the K-5 body was more expensive than D7000.
The Nikon A has an electronically controlled aperture and therefore doesn't have this restriction.
To assume Nikon is playing games while at the same time not understanding the technological basics is bad character.
D7000 sensor with contrast detect AF?
I am rather curious to learn if Nikon has made any progress in this field. They really need to ...
This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.
This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.
The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.
The lens I am really looking for is aAF-S Nikkor 500mm F5.6 G ED VR