SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.
I tried again late yesterday (the 12th), and the trial button this time opened a dl directly from the ACDSee site.
thelooch: Hi, I'm a developer at ACD Systems and I think I should make it known that a RAW update is being worked on right now, and we should be releasing it very soon. I'm not making an official announcement for the company here, but I think the update should be out before Christmas.
I urge that the update be made available for ACDSee Pro 8 as well, for those of us who may prefer to work there when an image doesn't need the extra features of Ultimate.
mpgxsvcd: If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.
I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.
ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.
Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.
Whenever someone has asked me about ACDSee Pro, I've recommended they try the program _if_ (assuming they want o work in RAW) it already supports the camera or cameras they use, they don't have plans to buy a new one anytime soon, or they're willing to use other sw with the new purchase until if and when ACDSee supports it.
I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.
What Nikon should have announced - said as a Nikon user since the original Nikon F. If I had the $$, I'd switch. (I don't shoot video, so no 4K is irrelevant to me.)
This seems a most strange camera: It's billed as an action camera, but the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 sec. My D200 goes to 1/8000. I know, smaller sensor in the D200, so less distance to travel, but still ... . Then, you've just introduced your top of the line xxx FX model, the D810, and now you introduce a less expensive camera with AF _improved_ over your top of the line one? Didn't the developers of the one talk to the developers of the other?And the F6 (obviously full-frame :-) ) will flash sync at 1/250, according to its specs on Nikon U.S., although to me the difference between 1/200 and 1/250 sync wouldn't be in itself a deal breaker. But note that the F6 will do 8fps with the battery pack (moving film!). So I don't understand why the D750 'action camera' doesn't have the same frame rate.
Why wait until December to release the firmware for the black body to enable the new features? If the features work in the silver body in November, why not make the firmware update available then?Or will the new features, such as the 1/32,000/sec shutter speed, only be available even on the silver body with the December firmware release? The story doesn't seem clear to me on these points.
I suppose interesting technology, but I've one question: Why? Why would I want my photos stored on a cloud, except perhaps for backup? If they are on local storage, they are accessible even when my Internet connection is down, which does happen. They are accessible if Google Drive goes away. (Cloud services never go away - yeah, right.) Why would I want to be tied to a certain editor? I need to use whichever of my editing programs work best for a given image. Photo Ninja usually does the job, but sometimes ACDSee Pro does a better job of demosaicing the RAW file or I need the local adjustments in that program.But perhaps this effort is aimed at the more casual photographer. Although I have to wonder if they wouldn't just be shooting JPEGs anyhow?
SantaFeBill: What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?
Thanks for the information.
What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?
Krich13: Very good write-up, and fair conclusions.However, the Appendix sends a wrong message in my opinion. Yes, you just listed the lenses used for comparison and explicitly explained that they are NOT equivalent while having equal F-stop. I've got all that.The indirect wrong message is that it looks like the FF lenses are the biggest and the most expensive.
I would like to mention (and I think your Article would benefit from it as well) that in some cases the Equivalent larger format lenses are neither bigger nor heavier than those for smaller format. As far as price is concerned, equivalent lenses get progressively MORE expensive with increase of a crop factor (if equivalent aperture can be reached at all).
@Krich13: A f/1.2 lens is _faster_ than a f/1.8 lens, _regardless_ of focal length or sensor size, assuming that the f-stops of both lenses are a somewhat accurate reflection of their relative T-values. The article makes this clear.
Scotsman: The industry is worse off now. What in incentive does Adobe have to improve LR now, or even worse, Adobe could move it to subscription base only, and say SCREW YOU to the rest of us, as we have little choice now. I like LR but I'll not use a sub base program on my computers.
@Scotsman: If I understand correctly what I've read about Adobe's financial results, the subscription model has proven very profitable for them. I can't believe they won't extend it to LR.So I'll make a bet, with up to 3 of you who live near or will be visiting Santa Fe: By the end of Sept. 2015, LR will be on a subscription basis, at least if you want the latest features and/or extended features. Already, if you want LR mobile, you have to be on subscription. Anyone interested, send me a private e-mail for details. :-)
Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?
How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?
Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?
The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.
@quiquae: Are you serious? Try running an app written for Windows 3.1 under Win7 or 8 ... .
You make a very good point. What happens if you've tied your future there and Adobe isn't any longer ... . At least if your apps and your images are on your computer, you can keep using them as you find another solution.
I admit I'm not much into video, but still ... U.S.$900 for the camera, then another $5000 for a TV to view my badly done amateur 4K videos (since there is yet no 4K broadcast content in the U.S. - heck, HD TV here is still 1080i or even 720, not 1080p.) Plus of course 4K-enabled video editing sw and a monitor that would give some idea of what the 4K video looks like. Plus a computer or at least a graphics card/CPU upgrade.
For that amount of $$$, I could get a great FF DSLR plus a very good lens, probably two.
I'm sure I'm missing something ... . Just not sure what it is. :-;
Thanks, but he should have waited 2 weeks or so and done one on LR 6. :-)
maksa: Sigma has discontinued 50-150mm F2.8 OS. The next step we are waiting is to announce 50-150mm F2.8 III. 800 grams, 140 mm, stabilized with Pentax and Sony DSLRs.
OK, let’s it would called 50-150mm DC APO OS HSM Art.
There's no evidence on the relevant U.S. sites that this lens has been discontinued. The Sigma site still shows it in its active lens list, not in the discontinued lens list. B&H, Adorama, and Roberts list the lens as available, not discontinued.Where did you see that the lens was discontinued?
D1N0: F4 is more compact and lighter than F2.8. On Full frame it is adequate on APS-c a bit slow. Price point is a bit high though for a less well known third party manufacturer. I wonder
Once more with feeling: F/4 is F/4, regardless of the sensor size. (Cf. the Wikipedia article on f/stops) If a proper exposure for a given subject and ISO is 1/160 at f/4, its a proper exposure whether your camera's sensor is the size of a compact's or an 8x10 Leaf. (Assuming, of course, T-values of the various lenses are all reasonably close to f/4.)
Since I shoot DX, the only way I'd consider this lens rather than the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS would be if the Tokina were significantly less expensive - say US $750 rather than the c. US $990 that the Sigma can be purchased for. Given the announced Japanese price, I doubt that will be the case.
And then I'd have to wonder if the extra stop at the long end was worth it over the Nikon 70-300 VR at c. US $590 - and I'd get longer reach as well.
Fascinating. Thank you very much. Especially poignant considering what was about to break over England and the world.