vadims: Standalone Lightroom 6 is still missing on adobe.ru... But one can, of course, conveniently buy Lightroom CC 6. (Yes, there is http://www.adobe.com/ru/products/photoshop-lightroom.html which has a "Lightroom 6 - Buy" link at the very bottom, but that leads to store selector that causes infinite page loop in Chrome and FF [and hangs browsers, eventually], and leads to Lightroom 5 in IE).
Their sales in Russia are handled by Softkey.ru. Their site does have LR6, but only full version, not upgrade. Just got off the call with their customer support, they confirmed -- no upgrades.
Now ignoramuses like David Rossberg would say that's whining... OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, tell me how I can upgrade LR5 to 6 w/o signing up to CC.
<sigh> That's monopoly for you...
The difference is you presumably have invested ZERO effort or resources into those products.
Anyone who thinks the subscription model is a gift to consumers is a clown.
TheDman: Will all the whiners please switch to Capture 1 already (like you keep threatening to do, but don't) so these comments sections can actually discuss the new product and not be filled with complaining about something that happened 2 years ago?
TheDman, since when is this an Adobe website? If you want your own fan website where no one ever says anything bad about Adobe, why not open one?
MarcMedios: This is such bad timing for Canon!!!!
They remove the ONE thing that made the G-Series great: the viewfinder, offering one as an option and having the viewfinder increase the footprint of the camera.
Then they still haven't solved the issue of shutter lag.
Sony 100-III anyone?????
Ha ha ha. Good luck with that.
MarcLee: On the other hand
Video and stills from video are not the same thing.
Aliasing invariably effects diagonals and especially "busy" moving diagonals. There are plenty of them in this guy's videos. He also makes use of the touch screen focus. It is getting to be a constant refrain here that anything that shows the Sony in a less flattering light "doesn't count" for one reason or another, from test samples, to studio shots, to comparisons with other cameras.
"Gimme that old time religion."
On the other hand I was a bit off-put by the blobby trees in the Sony river shots. Please don't tell me you do not see this. In terms of vegetation detail, I am not seeing the "superior" Sony performance you are.
On the other hand
Funduro: I must say I'm impressed by the image resolution. Better then Nikon 1 S3. This puppy will sell like crazy.
Mussolini didn't think HE ranted either.
On Planet Earth, not to mention Planet English, the first person to person to call the other person a ranter and then use such invective as " spew enough cliches" does not automatically excuse himself from justifiably being accused of ranting. Sometimes people respond even to genuine rants with rants.
" I am buying an M3 because I trashed my M1 when I unknowingly dropped it in the toilet and flushed."
And what would Freud say about that?
MarcMedios, I think you should try it for yourself before speaking of shutter lag. Having tried, but not bought, one now, this is one aspect of the DPReview review that completely baffles me.
Ken Heid: I see a lot of post comparing the G1X to the Sony RX100 M2.
I wonder how many of them actually used both of them.
I used to be a Canon only person. I had the G1XI picked up an RX 100 M2. I was totally impressed.
The Canon G series had only one advantage to me over the others in their class. That was the built-in viewfinder.
Now that is gone.
I sold Canon G1X and kept the RX100 M2
The G series are not pocket-able like the RX100's They don't have interchangeable lens. It was a camera that I rarely used.
Now when I am going out, I tend to grab the RX100 M2. The pictures and Videos I get are great.
Like the G1X M2, an optional EVF is available for the RX100 M2. I never got one. It is expensive and changes the camera profile.
I agree that Canon missed the mark with the optional EVF ( $300) for the G1X M2. It failed with the RX100 M2 and it will Fail with the G1x M2.
The future is the pop-up EVF on the RX100 M3.
You can keep the G1XM2. My Rx100 M3 is on pre-order.
I have used both. And, having looked at the studio samples, and the new drab outdoor gallery of the RX100 Mk3, I'd have to say you are welcome.
It is interesting how quickly the comments on that camera have gone from enthusiasm and fervor to extreme defensiveness.
Among the comments now are those that say "These pictures should not be considered relevant because ..." and "It is not fair to compare it with the G1 X MkII" because ...
The cold hard light of reality seems to be setting in.
neo_nights: Lots of people complaining that the RX is noisier than cameras with a BIGGER sensor. Are they trolling or just THAT stupid?
Neo_nights, look back over this thread and you see many Sony fans saying the RX100 3 was going to beat the G1X MkII for IQ. today they are saying it's not fair to compare. Interesting shift.
The worrying thing here is all these "These images don't count because ..." comments.
If they were good, there'd be no such comments.
lacikuss: Canon GX1MII at least one stop better in any high ISO comparison.Canon 6d is 4 1/2 stops better in any high ISO comparison.
Is so obvious.
Compared with the Canon, there isn't a long end on the RX100.
dstate1: Once again we have proven that the internet is primarily a place for crabby middle aged losers to dole out brilliantly biting critiques...and search for porn.
Anyone who would write the kinds of things I see on this thread about a young artist is a walking turd in my book.
Perhaps the audience here would be more inclined to enjoy some still life's of fruit or perhaps more pictures of cats…as long as it's taken with the right lens of course….
NoraK: RX 100 IIIi is available for preorder. I am enjoying my Marktwo but would like something pocketable too. I have the RX III on my Amazon wish list.
What a fine example of why it is worth spending so little time on these forums you are.
Mike FL, I can't help but feel you are having a problem with certain concepts here. Plenty of money, but no desire for the RX100 Mk3.
For reasons more than adequately explained in many posts.
Frenske: So do I get this right. Canon created an amazing camera with a great range of functions, large sensor and an excellent fast lens with a very useful range. Canon has done everything to make this camera one of the hottest cameras on the market potentially selling millions of copies, but then why the **** they put such a mediocre sensor in it. At this price range you would expect something better!!!
If they do I will quit Canon cameras. Dynamic range issues rarely effect me but I require good colour on every photo. And I do not like Sony's colours or their ARWs.
VENTURE-STAR: As a picture taking tool, it's not as good as several considerably cheaper DSLR cameras. It is also way too expensive. No doubt the new version has the same very annoying control wheel with no indents and the short zoom is ridiculous.
This camera really only has size going for it. For all you well-heeled photo equipment buyers who are more concerned with the appearance of gear than actually taking pictures,, enjoy! I think I'll pass.
What nonsense. There are plenty of situations where longer zoom range and compactness combined would be useful in low light, including the many concert situations where you would not be allowed to bring in a DSLR
Really being a brand devotee at the expense of ruling unimportant ANY feature your favourite brand does not have is the TRUE indication of an inexpert photographer.
Particularly when we know darn well, that if it DID have those features, the very same brand fanatics would be raving about it.
Demanding that a camera fit in your pocket at the expense of everything else is also pretty much an indication of an inexpert photographer, or one that just doesn't care very much.