Brond1: I'm whining!!! Why can't Apple see supporting Fuji as opportunity to lure people away from other products. What happened to being innovative and supporting innovation?
Your point was:"Um, you do realize that you can't play (yes that's simply play) AVCHD video files on a Mac."
Which is completely and utterly false. And yes, I do understand what "natively" means. I am using no special player software, no external app - Quicktime Player comes with the OS. I opened the file from the Finder, directly from the SD card in the camera. Can't get much more native than that.
The point is - AVCHD files work without any problems on Macs, just not yours apparently.
"specialized player software"
Did you even look at the screenshot I posted above, directly from Quicktime Player? It's not specialized player software, it comes with the OS.
"In this thread I was never commenting on Aperture or iPhoto, I was making a point about Macs in general and AVCHD files, and that point remains completely valid."
No, in fact, it doesn't. Quite the opposite. This thread is about the Apple RAW Update, used by iPhoto & Aperture. So it does support AVCHD files if you are using this software (you know, the one that the thread is about). Natively, and in-app. If you can be bothered doing what you describe as hours of research into something that you say is incredibly important to you, you'd think that forking out $10 for iPhoto would be worth your time to completely solve your issue.
Unless it's just for argument's sake?
"I tried mightily to make a new Mac play AVCHD files about 8 months ago and I just couldn't, so I have looked into this problem."
The AVCHD support was added 6 months ago. Did you even read any of my comments above?
"I already specifically said I wasn't commenting on conversion with FinalCut or iMovie"
And I'm specifically NOT talking about that either. I can open AVCHD files directly in the Finder, natively, and play them directly in Quicktime Player. No conversion, no Final Cut. Native.
Sam Carriere: Sure are a lot of comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the RAW update... but for anyone who doesn't know, let me be the one to tell you: Apple is evil.
Pretty sure Apple don't have a range of mirrorless cameras.
Here's the direct link to the Aperture 3.3 release notes, released 6 months ago. http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1540?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
Note: "Support for AVCHD video has been added"
That was also in the iPhoto 9.3 release notes. So that may be where it was added. Point being, it works OS-wide here, not just in iPhoto/Aperture, and not just to export to another format - natively, for playback.
OK, so I thought maybe you were right How, and thought I'd test it. I was thinking that maybe Aperture did some quick converting on import (even though I opened the imported AVCHD files direct from the Finder), so I went directly to the SD card.
There are 5 movies on there currently, and when I double click on the AVCHD file on the card it opens directly in Quicktime Player and asks which of the 5 clips I'd like to play. When chosen, it opens instantly, so there's no converting going on. The file is also listed as "AVCHD Content" in the Kind column, so if you aren't seeing that, maybe you are missing something that I have.
It may be that the library that handles AVCHD is installed with iPhoto or Aperture, I have the latest versions of both, and they both list in recent versions "Support for AVCHD video has been added" in the What's New. BUT, it is working directly in Quicktime Player here for me too.
Here's a screenshot of the movie inspectorhttp://wentbeep.com/avchd_qtplayer.jpg
"And in fact your assertion above is an example of spreading mis-information about Macs. Perhaps you mean that you can open AVCHD files with FinalCut and then use FinalCut to turn them into MP2s, MP4s, or MOVs. That I never disputed."
No, they play directly in Quicktime Player.
The AVCHD files from my Sony Alpha A35 work just fine here, on 10.8.2. Which OS version are you on?
Pretty sure (not 100% because I've never needed to use them) that MP2 files are also natively supported for at least the last two OS versions.
What the heck are you talking about? AVCHD files are supported natively now. Stop spreading misinformation.
Kodachrome200: do people who buy superzooms even care? why not review lenses that there is some question of the optical quality. A sigma superzoom is bound to be optically weak. maybe it will be good compared to its class. but again i ask when people buy these lenses we know are weak do they really care.
More simply put: "do people who buy superzooms even care?" Yes.
That a (usually) cheaper superzoom may be optically inferior to a (usually) expensive prime doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them - which is what you are suggesting.
Oh, I guess it was the "struggle to carry their camera gear" part. More along the lines of - kids to wrangle, suitcase to carry, nappy bag to take already, etc - as well as carrying their camera gear.
Maybe struggling to feed their family was hyperbolic. How about "doesn't make six figures", or "doesn't have a huge amount left after their bills are paid". It's not rocket science.
Thank you Guidenet for the benefit of the doubt.
Way to think outside the box, guys. You just showed once again that the superior-than-though photographer stereotype is pretty much true. I didn't bring class into this Koda, you did. I wasn't actually talking about myself either, but thanks for the "you should be buying food not making art" lectures, enjoyed. Shooting mainly 50mm f/1.4 at the moment, not that it should matter, but that doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them.
And they do differ quite a bit Koda, different lenses make different compromises, some are better for video, some focus faster, handle CA/distortion/fringing better, have better ergonomics, or are simply better bang-for-the-buck. It's also really easy to not be annoyed by them - don't read them.
Not sure where you get the "sensitivity to the handicapped" shtick from, not something I was discussing.
ImageAcquisitions: I'm curious why Dpreview hasn't done a full blown out review on this issue. Especially after seeing this clear example of an issue.I wonder if:1. dpreview is handling Nikon with kit gloves to avoid any conflict with them so they can keep getting free equipment to do reviews. Sure, they can talk about the feature differences, but exploring this potentially defective product issue may be what they are contractually not able to do? What did the article say above "Expressed concerns" Asked nikon for a comment? Nice soft approach.He, do a full blown out review of this particular issue - don't wait for Kyle Clemens to explore it. Use your professional staff, paid no doubt, to do a full blown out investigation of the gear.
2. Nikon isn't ready for a multimillion dollar product recall. All the elements are there for a class action lawsuit against Nikon to a) Stop continually selling the defective product (maximize profits); preying on customers unaware of the situation who buy it anyway.
Exactly IA! Why aren't DPReview covering this story? I had to go all the way to DPReview to see this video!
(and that's not saying anything against Sean Reid, at all. It's a great site, with wonderfully written and detailed reviews - but it's a paid site, and reviews more of the higher end specialized gear)
There are a huge number of photographers who not only struggle to carry their camera gear along with everything else they need, but also struggle to even feed their families and pay their bills. Why should these people not get quality information about lenses like this that expand their possibilities while allowing them to do what they love? Just because your wallet is fatter they should be excluded? Give me a break.
Try www.reidreviews.com, and maybe leave this site to us plebs?
Richard Franiec: I'm saddened seeing so much negativity and hate posted in reply to the news regarding my new grip but on the other hand I'm not shocked.
The idea behind my accessories always concentrate on the voids left by original equipment manufacturers: be that poor handling characteristics or adding missing functions like implementing remote shutter release adapters.
Maybe my press releases published by DPReview (as well as other prominent photo sites) are not newsworthy for some but welcomed by others who look for the solutions that my accessories provide. My experience based on actual users feedback clearly shows that the balance is overwhelmingly positive.
Accusations about business relationship between myself and DPReview (as well as other photo related sites) are utterly baseless, tasteless and untrue.What I do provide is the news press release, that's all. It is up to the publisher of the news to decide if it is worthy publication or not.
"What's to be gained by you here?"
He's part of the community, not just a marketing shill, so he's just communicating as any other member of a community would.
It's actually available already is you give some thought to where it might be. :-)
Pavel Sokolov: It's for poor people who have no additional $170 for The new new iPad :)
For example, I hate reading in bed with the iPad, it's just too big and heavy for the job. The iPod touch is about right in terms of weight, but it's too small. Perhaps the new Touch with the 4" screen is big enough, but at almost the same price, the iPad mini might make more sense.