grahamdyke: PSE 10, Adobe haven't got PSE 9 working as designed yet!!! I guess all the defects in PSE 9 will have been ported over to PSE 10 and a load more added...
I've been using PSE since version 4, so that's 4,5,6,7,9 missed 8 and evey version has one thing in common, it got slower, bigger and more resource hungry. PSE 9 now has to be run on a Quad Core (2.4Ghz) PC with 4GB of memory to be able to do anthing productive.
Photo editing software has become like the latest cameras, Form over Function, frills and fripery, bloatware.
The true cost of an upgrade wont be $79 it will be $79 plus the cost of upgrading, or replacing your chosen platform, to cope with all the latest bloat...
I agree completely.
I started with PSE 2, which was very powerful for the era, but buggy. Years later I upgraded to PSE 6, which looked more modern but offered very little improvement. It was buggy. To try to get rid of the bugs I eventually bought PSE 9. I got slower performance and yet more bugs.
At this stage I think PSE is very close to unusable. It feels like it's creaking at the seams with crud, it has so many bugs that everyone will encounter irritating issues, and it is poorly documented and poorly supported. I certainly won't be upgrading to 10.
Philidors shadow: The real comments are at the bottom of the article. Perhaps DPReview could explain what we're supposed to comment about here.
Thanks, Lars. Makes sense.
jmmgarza: Made in China so you know it is...
I think jmmgarza is the one who owes us an apology.
The real comments are at the bottom of the article. Perhaps DPReview could explain what we're supposed to comment about here.
Good article and nice photos. The last photograph, showing an overpopulated beach, is beautiful yet sobering.
Of the eight photos, I noticed five are in portrait orientation while just two are landscape; the remaining one is square. (I didn't count the two photos illustrating equipment.) Does the author generally prefer the portrait orientation, or did most of the example photos just happen to be framed like that?
Ashley Pomeroy: Based on past form this will be a pretty well-sorted body and a decent lens attached to a dog of an image processing unit. I hope I'm wrong; the idea is attractive, although as mentioned below why not a good, high-spec 28-75mm-ish fast zoom lens? 28mm is neither here nor there.
Talk of "image processing units" is best left to the marketing bods. The camera has a lens that forms an image and a sensor to record that image. A few bits and pieces convert wavy things to discrete things, and the resulting ones and zeros are written to a memory card. No image processing is needed, or desired, except to produce a transient image for the rear display.
The Ricoh lens emphasises rectilinear imagery and extreme compactness in folded form, while cameras like the S95 and LX5 allow heavy geometric distortion in return for a range of focal lengths, with the understanding that the distortion be corrected digitally later. This always results in soft corners when you have only ten megapixels to play with.
The first sentence sets the tone of this fluffy article, with repetition (long exposures, low light), two spaces after "few", and a statement that keeping the camera stable reduces camera shake. It's witless.
SI units are essential. I had to convert 16.1 inches to compare the Benro to my 51 cm tripod. Later in the article — too late — I'm told 16.1 inches is 40.9 cm. This value was clearly derived from the rounded 16.1 inches, because it disagrees with the Benro USA website.
Lazy articles like this served a meagre purpose in the pre-internet era, when it was hard work to discover the names of available products. Today anyone can go to the B&H website and find everything in seconds. This article should offer critical insight, useful notes from hands-on experience, or unusual comprehensiveness: something it cannot do while missing the most important tripod brand in the world.
The transparent message is to shop online (i.e. Amazon) for the best prices. Please stop shilling for Amazon.
axelpix: Instant playback in review mode like LX-3 - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
This is important, and the only feature I've been waiting for. Why not add this too?