steephill: Pentax made a 20mm f1.4 lens back in 1976 but unfortunately it didn't make it into production - http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_prototype/K20f1.4.html
I don't get why they don't make a Pentax mount or even a sonyy mount. When they've released a lens in Pentax mount its often hard to get your hands on one, so i can only assume they sell the entire production run. The 150mm macro was hard to get in k-mount. Maybe when the Pentax FF is released, we'll get more lenses from sigma. I'm not expecting anything from Tamron as Pentax seems to be rebadging some of those.
justmeMN: In contrast, Microsoft states that with their Surface Pro 3 "Install your favorite Windows desktop software, including the entire Microsoft Office Suite and Adobe® Photoshop®."
@darngooddesign I didn't buy it, but if I got a keyboard that was useful and functional, its no longer very portable. I can do the same for an ipad, sure it needs to be bluetooth keyboard, but it defeats the purpose of owning a tablet. Whereas the good ultralight laptops have excellent keyboards and touchpads. The Surface pro is a compromise, its not a good laptop and its not a good tablet. Its a good compromise solution for someone who wants what it offers. Doesn't mean its better than an ipad or better than a laptop.
I rolled back to 6.1.1 as 6.2.1 was still broken. Plenty of pages on the net to tell you how to do this. Its pretty poor form from Adobe, lucky I actually think LR is good.
Raist3d: So while you are working hard on earning the trust back, how about putting feature parity to LightRoom 6 Stand Alone Edition as you promised that Lightroom would not go the way of an exclusive subscription product?
And how about putting the option a bit more clear on your website? That would earn some trust back.
Umm they said it wouldn't go subscription only and it hasn't. They never promised anything about the retail version being up to date like the CC version.
photogeek: $2700 for a "loaded" config on that Surface Book. Good luck with that. Microsoft clientele is not _that_ well heeled, by and large. It mostly consists of folks who go "the best I can do is a hundred bucks". By way of comparison, a Core i7 15" (!) MacBook Pro with the same amount of RAM and SSD is $200 less.
And that's even before you consider the issue of Apple updating their pro lineup to Skylake CPUs sometime later this year.
@rialcnis, its not about being better, its about doing the job. For so many people they don't need a surface pro with windows on it, if all they are going to do is email and watch videos. Just because a device can do a lot of things doesn't mean its good. It suits some people who want an all in one device, otherwise if you want a tablet, buy any other tablet, it will be cheaper and lighter. If you just want a laptop look around as the surface pro keyboard is rubbish. However some people are happy to live with the shortcomings for the versatility that the surface pro offers and thats ok, but there is no need to pretend that its somehow better than something else, because its not.
photosincali: 900-2200 is a lot of money for a limited system. looks nice though otherwise
Theres a reason why iOS and Android exist. Its because its better to control a tablet with an iOS built for a tablet. Those OSes are only limited to you, because you can't do things the same why you would on windows. Microsoft tried to amalgamate the OS, but while Windows 10 is very good, I'm not sold on it on a touch screen device with a 12.3" screen. For now, I'll buy an ultra light and powerful laptop and also have a tablet as well. Usability suffers too much with the surface pro keyboard.
Because if I buy a laptop because i want a laptop, I'd naturally need to touch the screen or transform it into a rather heavy tablet...... Yes the surface Pro kind of competes with the Macbook Air, Macbook and Ipad. If you want and all in one device get a Surface Pro. If you don't like the sacrifices made to make an all in one device, buy two devices that suit what you want. I have a surface pro and it makes an average tablet and an average laptop.
Mosc, I didn't buy it, work did. However the input on the ipad works perfectly ok without a keyboard or stylus. You have this idea that something has to be able to do everything, yet while the Surface pro is versatile its really not that great at anything. Just good at most things. The iPad is a great tablet. If you want a tablet, buying a surface pro is stupidity. If you want a laptop buying a surface pro is stupid. If you want something that can kind of do both, buy a surface Pro, but its really not that great at anything. I'd rather buy an ultralight laptop to do everything the surface pro does and use my phone to do what a tablet can do.
I have a surface Pro 3 for work. They are really poorly designed. the keyboard is shocking and the touchpad awful. Useing Windows 8, 8.1 or 10 on it without a keyboard isn't that great an experience. Its a heavily compromised device in my opinion. If i want a tablet I think i'd get the Ipad Pro or aAndroid Tablet. If I want a ultra light laptop there are plenty around better than the Surface Pro 3. IMO the Surface Pro 3 does many things ok, but none really well.
whakapu: Very sexy camera. Keen to see the pixel-shift results (and minimum exposure time). Damn shame about the pop-up flash. Who wants to carry a thyristor everywhere? Does anyone actually want GPS? (other than of course the NSA)
I don't let social media get hold of my photos. However when you've done a trip through say Bhutan, GPS was very handy to find those temples you visited and to get the name right for each photo and useful for tagging photos. Also in lightroom, you can use map view to see a group of photos and then tag them with a name. Its far more useful feature than a built in flash that is rather pointless in most situations. Also built in astrotracer is excellent. I use it a lot also. Off to the desert soon and plan to use the O-GPS1 to do some night sky photos. Again built it is far more useful than attaching the O-GPS1 as I can't use an external flash as it occupies the hotshoe.
Yes i tag all my photos with GPS. When you travel its a very handy thing to have. I do have the O-GPS1 but its a pain to make sure its attached and turned on.
Peiasdf: About time 10 years after 64-bit replaced 32-bit on most PC. I also wonder if this is related to most smartphone running on 64-bit SoC now so Adobe can consolidate coding to 64-bit only.
Now if only the next Civilization game is 64-bit and supports multi-core.
I'm pretty certain windows 10 will be 64 bit only as well. Server 2012 only came as 64bit, but desktops always lag due to many consumers not upgrading as often. Personally i'm looking forward to a 64 bit only lightroom. It should run much better, not that I have an issue with performance which in my case is usually hindered due to my storage being a tad slow some times.
I used 64 bit XP, which was rubbish because of compatibility issues, but since then 64bit OS has been the way to go IMO.I find it hard to believe people can still be using 32 bit OSes and are happy with performance. 4GB of ram is the minimum for anything decent to run and the maximum that a 32bit OS can address.
Simon97: Most important to me is the loss of telephoto reach you incur going to full frame. My largest lens was a 300mm f/4 which has the same reach of a 450mm on FF.
The later APS-C sensors shows that the cropped format has adequate image quality for most work.
There is a practical example to this. Say you have a 300mm f2.8 lens and a APS-C body at 24MP and a FF at 36MP.
If you were photographing a bird and on the APS-C camera it filled the frame then all is good. But if you were using a FF camera, you'd need to crop it to fill the frame. The resulting crop means you'd have a 16 MP image taken from a FF camera with the same FOV and DOF as the APS-C camera, except it has a lower resolution. Whether this matters, whether the noise is different or whether the FF image is better or not are unknowns. This is why more pixels can provide that extra reach, but of course there are limits to quality of the produced image when you crop from smaller sensors.
attomole: So what you need is two systems, As a Travel and compact system camera go MFT with few preferred dedicated small lenses, it will always be a keeper for that situationANDFull frame DSLR or Sony A7 when IQ is critical and kit size no issue
Don't Bother with APSC its the worst of both worlds, don't bother with compact Zoom either. carry a small MFT rig or use your Phone as an EDC option.Funds allowing of course :-)
Or just buy 1 system, because in practise and real world use, APS-C is capable of taking great photos, that are regularly published as much as FF photos are. APS-C is perfectly fins format for so many people much more than FF users, so it must do something right. just the naive who think it has no value.
Yes but a low pixel density FF sensor is not great for cropping with. It may be brilliant noise wise though.
Rick Knepper: The struggle with this decision has generated years of mind-numbing posts regarding format equivalence. Hopefully, 'affordable' FF cameras will put those still in the throes of FFAS out of their misery once and for all. FF is a general purpose format. APS-C is either for the budget conscious or the reach-restricted (another way of saying budget conscious).
That makes no sense at all. APS-C is a format many find does a job better than using FF for their chosen profession. Ridiculous comments like this show you don't understand photography and different formats!
(unknown member): If it had been possible to make FF sensors at reasonable cost when the first DSLR's came out, APS-c etc would not even exist. They were only made for that reason - full frame cost too much and/or wasn't possible in the quantity required.
Personally I would like to see all non-FX DSLR lines discontinued and the removal of huge amounts of confusion and duplication as a result.
Over 90% of the market disagree with you. the confusion only exists with people who think FF is the only format that should exist. I see plenty of photos in magazines taken with APS-C or smaller camera. In fact as technology improves, the need to have FF cameras is not as strong. There are different formats, they all take great photographs. If you feel insecure shooting with a non-FF camera, that is your problem, not everyone elses.
Foxshade: Quoting from your article:The result is that, if you start buying full frame lenses while you're still shooting APS-C, you're either buying a lens that's not very useful now, or you're buying a lens that won't be as useful once you've made the switch.
Now, as a Nikon APS-C user, can you name ONE APSC zoom lens with fix aperture 2.8 besides that 17-55mm. So, don't give this kind of BS of APS-C users buying full frame lens that's NOT VERY USEFUL on APS-C.
FF lens on APS-C would give me a 1.5x zoom factor. So, if I were to use my 70-200 FULL FRAME lens, I'd be like using a 105-300 mm. It's a useful kick if I were going for airshow or birding.
Some lenses are useful. Its usually the wide end that suffers though, but its more against the line of thinking. There are some strange people that think if they bought APS-C lenses now, they'll somehow be worth nothing in the future, but FF lenses will always keep their value. People don't necessarily think the same!
SirSeth: No full frame! Well I'm going to be avoiding the Pentax forum for a while. I don't want to chewed on by all the gnashing of teeth.
Really, I'm sure a search of the forums would show otherwise. I've owned Pentax cameras since the *istDL, and they've always used vague language when asked about FF. The latest solid rumour came from Europe, a few years ago one came from Russia. Japan has always used vague language. Come the end of the year when everyone threatens to leave Pentax because their is no FF, we can dig up all these posts from me and many others who look at the facts, rather than read too much into vague baseless rumours.I'm not anti FF, I'll buy one, but I can't see it happening this year.