Robgo2

Lives in United States NM, United States
Has a website at rgoldsteinphotography.com
Joined on Dec 3, 2002

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

entoman: It would seem a bit pointless to switch from Lightroom to this unless you can import your existing LR catalogue files, which contain the entire history of any images that you've already edited.

Only IF you can import lrcat files and only IF they translate across to X5 accurately (highly unlikely), only then can you "turn back the clock" or continue further edits on existing RAW files.

Adobe and LR will continue to exist long after ES have disappeared from the scene. Apart from the subscription, which some people are reluctant to pay, all I can see are disadvantages, compared to LR Classic.

A very good reason to choose Exposure X5 over LR/ACR is that the former produces much better raw conversions. For those who care deeply about maximizing IQ, that fact matters.

As to Exposure some day disappearing, the same is true of LR the day that you end your subscription. Also, some of the above comments illustrate the confining nature of a catalog-based DAM. Your files are held prisoner by the catalog's database. Of course, they do exist elsewhere else on your system, but not in a form that can be used by any other software. I fail to see the appeal of that.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2019 at 05:15 UTC

One word comes to mind: BIG

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2019 at 22:06 UTC as 69th comment
In reply to:

Robgo2: Although it is not my #1 raw converter, I think that DxO PL is one of the best raw converters that you can buy. It has a lovely way of handling tones and colors. Sharpness and detail are all that I could ever want. I keep a copy on my computer for when I require the Prime NR engine, but I'm sure that I would be quite happy using it for all of my raw editing.

I am a former Capture 1user, so I make a point of testing every new edition. Sadly, I always come away disappointed with the output. I will agree that the colors are usually excellent, but the images have a flatness that I cannot correct with any adjustments. DxO PL images just look better and more lifelike to my eyes.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2018 at 15:36 UTC

Although it is not my #1 raw converter, I think that DxO PL is one of the best raw converters that you can buy. It has a lovely way of handling tones and colors. Sharpness and detail are all that I could ever want. I keep a copy on my computer for when I require the Prime NR engine, but I'm sure that I would be quite happy using it for all of my raw editing.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 23:45 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: What is the use of extracting that ugly colored image to the right from that black image to the left? Sure, extracting some detail from the dark one would be nice, but the right one is just too much. It looks artificial. The houses should be much darker when the street is that bright.

As a demonstration of the software's ability to extract detail from a massively underexposed file, I think that it serves the purpose quite well. I am impressed. Please understand that DxO is not presenting this image as fine art.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: In my search for a replacement for Adobe subscription tribute, I tried DxO. Though it does a competent job of making adjustments to images, the user interface is the worst I have ever seen for any imaging software. By far. How far? Like a super massive black hole compared to a feather in terms of mass.

It is painful to use. Period. End of story.

Well then, you must not have tried Topaz Studio.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: A lot of people hate Adobe for whatever reasons, especially since they went to the paid cloud system. But truth is that $10/month is a great deal for the PS and LR combination. There are a few competitors out there, but none really fit well into my workflow nor get everything done I need to do. I know Adobe is bloated, but truth be known PS has been around since the mid-1980s, and that is more years than many of the developers working on the competitor apps. Adobe's experience far outweighs most, if not all, the competition so far. If you just want to make photos of your kids and pets look nice on the social networks, there are many low cost low quality options available for post processing. But if you want to do serious post processing on a more professional level, then Adobe is going to be tough to beat. Currently, no other app suite even comes close to Adobe for my particular workflow.

The reason that Adobe and other companies are moving to a subscription model is that is more lucrative for them. And as they merge with or buy up their competition, consumers are left with fewer alternatives. I guess I’m lucky that I never bonded with Lightroom, although I do still occasionally use PS CS6 for processing infrared files. Except for that, it feels good to be almost free of Adobe. If others enjoy LR and don’t mind the subscription fee, then that is their choice.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2018 at 05:40 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you cut the price of the Leica TL2 by $500, add a built in EVF, add a tilt screen, add around 400 more focus points, add a built in flash, add a microphone port, almost double the battery life, make it smaller and lighter, and then weather seal it.... you end up with a Sony a6500.

This camera lays to rest the theory that the a6500 "costs too much."

Sony should use it in their ad campaigns.

I was always aware that I was speculating. No harm in that. But you did some of your own when you said that the TL2 would be the same as the A6500, only with fewer features. That may not turn out to be true.

Speaking of features, I doubt that I will get a TL2, because it lacks image stabilization, which is very important to me. Rather, I will wait for the A7iii.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you cut the price of the Leica TL2 by $500, add a built in EVF, add a tilt screen, add around 400 more focus points, add a built in flash, add a microphone port, almost double the battery life, make it smaller and lighter, and then weather seal it.... you end up with a Sony a6500.

This camera lays to rest the theory that the a6500 "costs too much."

Sony should use it in their ad campaigns.

@Marty4650...No, I am not confused. My point was that the TL2 may deliver better IQ than the A6500, based on my experience with the Leica Q vs the RX1 and A7ii. Leica may have discovered the secret sauce, not to mention incredible lenses.

At this point, it's all speculation. Let's wait for actual user reports before jumping to conclusions.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:04 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you cut the price of the Leica TL2 by $500, add a built in EVF, add a tilt screen, add around 400 more focus points, add a built in flash, add a microphone port, almost double the battery life, make it smaller and lighter, and then weather seal it.... you end up with a Sony a6500.

This camera lays to rest the theory that the a6500 "costs too much."

Sony should use it in their ad campaigns.

I often use Zeiss and Leica lenses on my A7ii, but the IQ, though excellent, is still not up to the Q's. BTW, there are many users who consider the RX1's lens to be the best 35mm in the world, not because of sharpness but because of beautiful 3D rendering. And lossy raw compression produces artifacts only rarely. The RX1 and A7ii have the same sensor.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:41 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

yahoo2u: APSC sensor...fine.
Body only $2695 AUS...No.
There are plenty of APSC cameras on the market with same MP for way less with lenses attached and still way cheaper.
.....and here's the secret...they all have the ability to take nice images.

You completely misunderstood the point I was making. Of course people can spend their money as they please. But being rich does not equate with being smart. That is so obvious that it needs no explanation.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 05:24 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you cut the price of the Leica TL2 by $500, add a built in EVF, add a tilt screen, add around 400 more focus points, add a built in flash, add a microphone port, almost double the battery life, make it smaller and lighter, and then weather seal it.... you end up with a Sony a6500.

This camera lays to rest the theory that the a6500 "costs too much."

Sony should use it in their ad campaigns.

You know, 4 months ago, I might have agreed with your assessment, but then I made the totally illogical decision to buy a Leica Q (used). What I discovered is that the Q absolutely smokes my RX1 and A7ii, both in terms of usability and image quality. Partly that is attributable to the unbelievable Summilux 28/1.7 lens, but also to the sensor delivering superior colors and overall rendering. Ergonomics are a quantum leap better as well.

So what does that have to do with the TL2? Well, I have the feeling that Leica has finally figured out how to produce great digital images, as evidenced by their most recent cameras--the SL, M10 and Q. And that makes me think that the TL2 mounted with outstanding T and TL lenses, may actually be a better camera than the A6500, despite lacking some of its features. (I'm not claiming that it is better. We will need real world experience to tell us.) Is it worth the added cost? That depends on one's budget and photographic requirements.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 03:18 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)

I just watched Thorsten Overgaard's Field Test Review of the TL2, in which he states repeatedly that the image quality is as good as M10's. That's quite a statement, almost unbelievable, but Thorsten knows Leica as well as anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QUJWT7KAoM

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 19:59 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

yahoo2u: APSC sensor...fine.
Body only $2695 AUS...No.
There are plenty of APSC cameras on the market with same MP for way less with lenses attached and still way cheaper.
.....and here's the secret...they all have the ability to take nice images.

@AndersSJ and T3, being rich does not necessarily mean that one is smart. There are millions of examples to the contrary. A lot of wealth is either inherited or derived from personal connections. Without a doubt, there are many times more smart people who are not rich.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 19:41 UTC
On article Leica TL2 first impressions (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Nikon D500 = Leica without the red dot. And even more...

You're comparing SLR to mirrorless. Each has advantages, but it does appear that the market is moving towards the latter. As far as lenses go, Nikon has some excellent ones, but no one beats Leica (except for some Zeiss lenses). I would seriously consider the TL2, but it would require investing in some fairly expensive lenses in order to gain the benefits of autofocus.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 19:30 UTC

Is this the equivalent of an aristocratic family, having fallen on hard times, auctioning off the furniture from their mansion? ; > )

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 15:43 UTC as 7th comment

I just purchased Aurora HDR last week, and I am quite pleased with it. I hope that I won't have to pay for an upgrade.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 19:35 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: This would be my camera if it came with a 35mm Summicron. Come on Leica, 28mm????

28mm is definitely harder to use than 35mm, because you have so much more in the frame and you have to be more cognizant of the foreground. Also, for portraits, 35mm is generally preferable, though great environmental portraits can be gotten with 28mm. I have been practicing with a 28/2.8, and the results are getting better, so it's not as though I hate that focal length.

I would still bet that Leica chose to make the Q 28mm in an effort to distinguish it from the RX1 series. Or to put it differently, if the RX1s did not exist, the Q probably would have gotten a 35mm lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 16:20 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: This would be my camera if it came with a 35mm Summicron. Come on Leica, 28mm????

It seems likely that Leica settled on the 28mm focal length to create separation from the Sony RX1/II. But it's true that most people would choose 35mm for general purpose shooting. 28mm can work fine, but you have to get used to it.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 03:35 UTC
On article Vote now for Best Product of 2015! (130 comments in total)

I made the A7RII my top choice, and I wanted to make the Leica Q number 2, but it was not one of the options. BTW, I own neither of them.

Rob

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 20:10 UTC as 13th comment
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »