 |  |  |  |  |
| Mandarin Drake by TheDispossessed from Ducks Unlimited | As in Days of Old by Birdman50 from Down on the farm | +U3073694 by stokey from A Big Year 2023 | Descending the bank by fulviavecchia from Wild Descent: Heading down! | Shell Bubbles by mikero from Patterns, with Color and Light |
Great idea, laid out extremely well. Thanks!
Good article. Thank you!
The interface needs a huge overhaul. Unpleasant to work with. Is 6 a big change from 5?
Too late for many summer travel plans.
sh10453: ,
It's really perplexing to me.
Why so many images here are shot at f/2.8, and far from being macro images???
We don't normally use f/2.8 to shoot macro. That doesn't give you much DOF.
I have always used, and observed other macro photographers use, a minimum of f/8 or f/11.
To be fair to a macro lens, it should be tested at f/8 and going up (F: 11, 13, 16, 22, ...) to produce true macro images.
Chris is awesome, but he is not a macro photographer, sorry Chris.
Let's see true MACRO, 1:1 (one to one) images, please. That is what this lens is made for.
Excellent question! Apparently, Canon simply mislabeled this lens, as, according to the review, it is actually designed for portraits.
I'm handling my Ef 100mm f/2.8L IS very carefully these days!
It would be nice if they could get their laptops right before branching out.
RubberDials: I think this was probably planned as the 35th anniversary of EF mount - nothing else really makes sense - EOS is just a branding designation.
Sadly the progress of FF mirrorless forced Canon to ditch EF despite there being absolutely nothing wrong with it.
As if Canon doesn't know what it's celebrating? Definition of being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Kharan: Ewww, no. The R5C is a total kludge. If anything, I want a more seamless integration between stills and video (y’know, the whole ‘hybrid’ thing), not the other way around. Having to wait for many seconds to switch modes is a huge drawback for me - what year does this thing come from? 2005? Why does a system reboot take so long?
You lost me at "Ewww..."
photography-lover: First time I see report in DPreview about quarterly business results.
I guess that anything works to convey a positive message for Canon in front of the Z9 situation...
The D810 and D850 were great cameras. But they were never a "situation." They didn't stop the bleeding, and now Nikon is hanging on for dear life with 14% of ILC sales. But the competition for Canon and Sony is certainly healthy for the industry.
We can only hope, for the sake of competition and industry health, that what looks like a great camera will ease Nikon's hemorrhaging.
Specs look good. Usability? Service? Lenses compared to alternatives?
Boss of Sony: Including the larger sensor in the iPhone 13/13 mini but still restricting Pro Raw to the pro models is the kind of marketing trick Apple pulls again and again. There is no plausible reason why they couldn’t include Pro Raw in the iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 mini.
How do they get along without you on the board of directors?
I think it was Neil Van Niekerk using Jupiter's atmosphere for bounce-flash during a destination wedding.
Platinumkid: You know you are into the deep, when the "more affordable" option is $1700... O.o
While $1700 is a lot of money, check the history of the ef 16-35mm and you will see it cost $1200 at the time of release in 2014. That's about $1450 in today's money, due to inflation. So the new lens costs $250 more than the ef version did at the time of release. Not cheap, but the price increase doesn't seem extreme, especially with pandemic related challenges.
In normal times we'd expect the prices of new gear to be going down within a year or so, but I haven't see that happening the past two years.
tkbslc: I can understand price increases for new lenses, but this is 70% more expensive than what the 16-35mm F4 launched at.
The 16-35mm f4 added stabilization, much better optics, and 1mm of wide angle over the 17-40L and they only bumped the price 25%. This seems to only add a little zoom range over the 16-35mm L and yet they added 70%.
Baloney! In USD, adjusted for inflation since 2014, the introductory price of the Rf 14-35mm is only $250 over the introductory price of the 16-35mm f/4. And this in a time of pandemic related labor, shipping, and materials problems causing price spikes.
Where in the world did you pull "70%" out of? Please don't compare the price of a brand new model to the current price of a lens almost eight years old and likely to go out of production sooner rather than later.
Wages have not kept up with inflation, so, yes, cameras--and most everything else--definitely cost more relative to our buying power. That isn't the fault of the camera companies though.
Some big shoes to fill going up against DxO and Topaz, but I look forward to comparisons! I have been a loyal "updater" of On1 for six or seven years now. It definitely works more smoothly and has a better interface, in my opinion, than DxO Photolab 4; however, I have never used On1 strictly as a RAW editor. DxO produces great results, but it doesn't allow truly real-time adjustments! It is terribly laggy, producing a momentarily blurred image anytime a slider is adjusted. Plus, of course, DxO doesn't show the results of its DeepPrime AI in the main editing window at all.
My real hope is that Adobe will wake up to all this competition and finally improve LR CC to be tops. Expensive and inefficient these days to use LR CC for its catalog and great print module, while heavily relying on other software/plugins for top-quality retouching.
One of the reasons I don't use Photolab 4 is not being able to see Deep Prime corrections before in the main window BEFORE all the processing begins. (The other, bigger reason is the generally clunky, tedious interface.)
PureRaw's way of avoiding Photolab's interface problems seems brilliant, but learning that there is very little control over output before sending images to another editor seems too restrictive, too limiting. I will give the trial a run around the block, though.
QSMcDraw: As a loyal Adobe customer--who has tried and rejected DxO Photolab 4 because of its half-baked-interface--I will admit I've given up on Adobe's Auto adjustment as a starting point. Just way over the top, like weird and bad HDR.
Adobe really needs to up its Lightroom/ACR image-quality game, in my opinion, or its customers are going to start feeling short-changed.
Could have a lot to do with the camera, and more with subjects...I'm using an EOS R6, mostly people. Auto is useless 85% of the time for me.
As a loyal Adobe customer--who has tried and rejected DxO Photolab 4 because of its half-baked-interface--I will admit I've given up on Adobe's Auto adjustment as a starting point. Just way over the top, like weird and bad HDR.
Adobe really needs to up its Lightroom/ACR image-quality game, in my opinion, or its customers are going to start feeling short-changed.
Thank you for a very good review and summary of features!
Lightroom is usually bundled with Photoshop, so, in fairness, Photoshop's noise reduction tools should be at least mentioned. In fact, they work great, and they are easy to use because of Photoshop's "Select Subject" feature, making it simple to apply more or less NR where needed.
I have not tried DxO Photolab 4, but it definitely looks great for the single feature of the DeepPrime NR. I tried Topaz Denoise AI and didn't see any improvement over Lightroom's NR features used correctly, not to mention those few occasions when I get Photoshop's NR involved.
It is hard to give up LR's efficient workflow and catalog, but I do wish Adobe would step up their noise-reduction game, especially using AI to apply more to backgrounds, etc, while preserving detail in subjects. That would definitely improve workflow!
And the other big factor for me, as mentioned already in this thread, is LR's print module. Outstanding!