sportyaccordy

You won't lose your files if you give up access

@nightshadow if you are living in the poorhouse its not Adobe's obligation to make their product affordable.

I got $1200 from my wife who uses the software at work. Uses, not buys (IT handles the...

I dont see the problem. *If you are actually buying the software and keeping up with updates,* this new subscription deal will be cheaper in the long run ($600/yr vs $1200/yr for each new version...

12mm?????

I would be happy w/a fast 16-18mm. Something in the f/1.4-2 range.

Exactly. If I recall correctly this body isn't much bigger than most mirrorless APS-C and even some bigger 4/3 bodies. I wouldn't buy one but I don't think it's that bad for what it is.

I am an FX freak... I am saving my pennies for a D600/700... but I love how portable and easy handling my Sony NEX C3 is. FX is way more of an ergonomic equipment. And you know the old adage... the...

I dont understand the wave of disappointment. Canon's sensors have been behind the ball for a while now, but the cameras are still great and worth the money. Plus this is a low end DSLR, shot in...

@dbateman you make a good point about too narrow a DOF. But the point is a bigger sensor gives you that many more options. You can play w/ISO and shutter speed to get a deeper DOF on a bigger...

@kaisersose you miss the point that glass for FX is a lot bigger than glass for APS-C and 4/3. Remember the lens mount for APS-C and FX is the same (hence the interchangeability of lenses on DSLRs...

There is no point in comparing to FX; completely different price point and ergonomics. A Sony NEX on the other hand costs the same, handles the same, but is also objectively better on many fronts

The bodies are not smaller than the smallest APS-C DSLRs, let alone APS-C mirrorless cameras.

@ntsan that comparison is ridiculous

For the lenses to be truly equivalent you would have to compare the APS-C standard zoom with a lens of equivalent aperture. Both of your calcs are way...

I LITERALLY came to post this. Hell, the D3200 is not much bigger (4.92 x 3.78 x 3.03″), and with the kit lens it costs the same. Sony NEX 3N costs less with the kit lens. You are limited to native...

I LITERALLY came to post this. Hell, the D3200 is not much bigger (4.92 x 3.78 x 3.03″), and with the kit lens it costs the same. Sony NEX 3N costs less with the kit lens. You are limited to native...

The more I look at this lens the less sense it makes. It should have been a <20mm 1.8 prime

I love my NEX C3 but DX just can't compete with FX in the realm of speed. This whole exercise is a...

The more I look at this lens the less sense it makes. It should have been a <20mm 1.8 prime

I love my NEX C3 but DX just can't compete with FX in the realm of speed. This whole exercise is a...

$1500 is good for a D600 if you can get it at that price.

yabokkie do you just argue to argue? 20mm 1.4 on an DX is equivalent to 28mm 2.0 on an FX- wide angle FX doesn't get any faster than 2.0, 1.4 is definitely "super fast". I know you hate APS-C but...

Yea... a D600 is the same size and I think weight as a D7000. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes, though I still salute Sigma for committing to such an exercise. If I had $2500 to...

Lol yabokkie you are talking about of your ***. Bottom barrel Nikons and Sonys of today outperform many professional DSLRs *still on sale today* in many metrics. Not to mention way more people have...