Comments |
|
Seattle, United Kingdom
|
About us
|
Sitemap
|
Connect
|
TJGKG: When is the full review coming?
Very soon - I think I'm withing a week of finishing both this and the Coolpix A review.
Just a Photographer: Adobe Language (Tom Hogarty):
'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only for the foreseeable future.'
In plain language, that comes down to:
'LR 5 will still be boxed but LR 6 will be in the cloud'
@howardroark - sorry about that. I thought you were taking the ****. It's not a made up name - it's just that Richard Butler had already gone when I started working here.
Anyway, I've interviewed Mr Hogarty a couple of times and met him on occasion - but ultimately, I tend to assume someone speaking publicly under their own name has a degree of integrity unless they've done something to suggest otherwise.
Put in his position - trying to respond to anger about something not directly connected to the product he's responsible for - I can't imagine giving a different answer to the ones he gave.
Mescalamba: - Slow AF in live view and video modes (compared to mirrorless APS-C cameras)
Suprising really. And as its supposedly big enough problem, are you aware of any dSLR that has fast AF in LV or video mode? I would be suprised if you know about one.
I have nothing agaisnt if you mention somewhere that it doesnt have fast AF in LV or video mode. For those who have no idea how AF works or they were under rock when mirrorless came. But it shouldnt be con for simple reason. LIVE VIEW CANT BE FAST WITH DSLR!
Unless you for that purpose put AF sensors directly on sensor (ala NEX-6 and others). Which Nikon didnt. Neither Canon, or Pentax. And I doubt they will.
Without meaning to suggest anything about the two styles of cameras' respective futures:
If, in 1885, I'd had to review an Ordinary ('Penny Farthing') next to a Rover Safery Bicycle, it would have been madness for me to ignore the greater risk of falling off the front of the Ordinary, just because existing skilled riders could use them and were happy with the risks.
If readers might plausibly be choosing between two items, it's the reviewers job to highlight strengths and weaknesses. We're not saying you have to use that feature, we're not even saying the D5200 is terrible for not doing it well but, if you use live view, it is a fact that the D5200 is not as fast at focusing as some of its peers.
Mescalamba: - Slow AF in live view and video modes (compared to mirrorless APS-C cameras)
Suprising really. And as its supposedly big enough problem, are you aware of any dSLR that has fast AF in LV or video mode? I would be suprised if you know about one.
I have nothing agaisnt if you mention somewhere that it doesnt have fast AF in LV or video mode. For those who have no idea how AF works or they were under rock when mirrorless came. But it shouldnt be con for simple reason. LIVE VIEW CANT BE FAST WITH DSLR!
Unless you for that purpose put AF sensors directly on sensor (ala NEX-6 and others). Which Nikon didnt. Neither Canon, or Pentax. And I doubt they will.
@ Mescalamba - When I walk around Pike Place Market (a popular tourist spot), I see people using cameras in a way that it sounds like neither you or I would, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The D5200 is not a camera aimed at professionals or even solely at experienced DSLR users.
I've not mentioned video in any of my comments but, since some readers will (quite reasonably, whether you approve or not), attempt to use live view to shoot stills, it's entirely proper for us to tell them how it will perform.
It would be wrong for us to give that too much importance in our conclusion but we can't just ignore the fact that one of the D5200's features is not up to contemporary standards.
Mescalamba: - Slow AF in live view and video modes (compared to mirrorless APS-C cameras)
Suprising really. And as its supposedly big enough problem, are you aware of any dSLR that has fast AF in LV or video mode? I would be suprised if you know about one.
I have nothing agaisnt if you mention somewhere that it doesnt have fast AF in LV or video mode. For those who have no idea how AF works or they were under rock when mirrorless came. But it shouldnt be con for simple reason. LIVE VIEW CANT BE FAST WITH DSLR!
Unless you for that purpose put AF sensors directly on sensor (ala NEX-6 and others). Which Nikon didnt. Neither Canon, or Pentax. And I doubt they will.
The point is that there are cameras (at a similar price and with similar feature sets) that can and do focus quickly in live view mode. It's irrelevant whether they're DSLRs or not - they're competitors.
If we criticise mirrorless cameras for failing to match DSLRs for continuous AF performance, we have to ping DSLRs that fail to match the S-AF speed of the latest mirrorless models.
If we believe that some of our readers are considering mirrorless cameras and DSLRs then it makes no sense to ignore what's happening with the other type of camera.
marike6: DPR writes: "Users wanting to shoot primarily in live view mode will have to settle for slower autofocus performance than they'd get from nearly any mirrorless camera."
It's a DSLR with an OVF. Why would a still shooter want to shoot primarily in live view mode? Unless you are leveraging the articulated LCD shooting low to the ground or overhead, if you are shooting "primarily in live view mode" on a DSLR, you are doing it wrong.
I don't get why DPR keeps harping on handheld Live View shooting and subtracting points from DSLRs with OVFs for LV and touch screens. It's a bias that's particularly odd considering these a DSLRs not P&S or ILCs without VFs.
If you can walk into a shop and leave with either a D5200 or a Panasonic G6 for similar money, it's entirely reasonable to highlight areas in which one does or doesn't match up to the other.
We're not making any assumption about how many people would choose to use live view - we're pointing out to any that might, that it's worth being aware of a shortcoming. We aren't giving a lot of weight to that concern, but it deserves to be mentioned.
Ultimately, as others have pointed out, it's not uncommon to see people shooting stills in live view, even if you wouldn't dream of doing so.
marike6: DPR writes: "Users wanting to shoot primarily in live view mode will have to settle for slower autofocus performance than they'd get from nearly any mirrorless camera."
It's a DSLR with an OVF. Why would a still shooter want to shoot primarily in live view mode? Unless you are leveraging the articulated LCD shooting low to the ground or overhead, if you are shooting "primarily in live view mode" on a DSLR, you are doing it wrong.
I don't get why DPR keeps harping on handheld Live View shooting and subtracting points from DSLRs with OVFs for LV and touch screens. It's a bias that's particularly odd considering these a DSLRs not P&S or ILCs without VFs.
We've removed the word primarily, since the point is true for anyone trying to use live view to any degree.
The presence of a flip-out screen strongly suggests that Nikon expects people to use live view and is likely to give would-be buyers the impression that it's a credible means of shooting with the camera, so it's entirely fair to point out that it's an area in which the D5200 falls behind the competition.
DLBlack: It is sad news that Olympus is dumping their p&s cameras. Still for most people the smartphone/table photos are good enough and their is no need to carry multiple devices if one is good enough.
I keep hearing that P&S cameras was where the big profits were. So with P&S cameras gone then the price of high-end cameras are going to have to go up some.
The day is near that cameras and phone/tables are going to work together. It has started with wifi connectivity in cameras. The Canon N, which is extremely small has wifi might be useful if one wants a little better than a smartphone/tablet but not interchangeable lens camera. A ruggedize sprt camera with WIFI coul be userful to. Panasonic has a ruggedize sport camer with wifi. So there is a place for a P&S camera but it is not your regular p&s camera. It has been replace by the smartphone/tablet.
I'd check your source about P&S being where the big profits were - I don't think that's been the case for a long time.
ljfinger: "Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future. We have plans to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely."
Despite the clarity of this statement, the tin-foil hatters are out in full-force. Just goes to show how hated the CC model is - it can even turn ordinarily-rational people into conspiracy-theorists.
It's certainly difficult to think of anything more certain that could have been said.
At which point, it's hard not to conclude that it's impossible to offer the level of certainty now required to overcome the skepticism.
Just a Photographer: Adobe Language (Tom Hogarty):
'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only for the foreseeable future.'
In plain language, that comes down to:
'LR 5 will still be boxed but LR 6 will be in the cloud'
@howardroark - Just addressing people by their surname is fairly rude.
I think it's safe to assume that a company such as Adobe doesn't plan things on a day-to-day basis, and so 'the foreseeable future,' at least in terms of its planning, is a reasonable concept.
If you read the quotes or watch the video, Mr Hogarty spells out the company's intentions as clearly as possible - that Lightroom will remain a 'perpetually-licensed' product for as close to forever as one can sensibly say. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Just a Photographer: Adobe Language (Tom Hogarty):
'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only for the foreseeable future.'
In plain language, that comes down to:
'LR 5 will still be boxed but LR 6 will be in the cloud'
You expect him to talk about the unforseeable future, perhaps?
If you read the full quotes or watch the video, you'll see he says everything short of 'forever' - which nobody can actually say with any certainty.
GPW: IT IS STEALING
What rights are being stolen and how does this law facilitate that?
This law intends that there will be a (probably slow and awkward) process that will by design and through inconvenience, limit its appeal as a way of fraudulently trying to have works declared as orphans.
John London: This is a reply I posted to R Butler in a thread started by 'iamphil' 2 days ago. I am posting it here because I believe it has relevant points.
R Butler. I think you are admitting to missing a lot here! How many big corporations or other outfits would genuinely '' make an effort to find the author '' when all they have to do is use an item and argue the point later if confronted, and that is a line of strategy being taken by too many companies under the pretext that if you post on the web then you are sublimely saying you can use my material. If it was made illegal to strip out details of intellectual rights and ownership from images etc most of this problem would go away. Stop the stripping of metadata and exif details to avoid the unnecessary confusion of orphan files!
See my full post under iamphil from 2 days ago.
JohnL ( UK )
As I understand it (and the fine detail simply isn't in place yet, so it's impossible to be certain), the intention is that you would need an orphan license before you can (legally) use a work - you can't retrospectively claim it as a defence.
This is distinct from the apparent abuses of the current copyright system, which is a problem.
Obviously even the best-intended laws can have unintended consequences, but this law sets out a framework that isn't meant to be about contemporary photographs and intends there to be a reasonable system to protect it from abuse for such ends.
What is clear is that a work won't be automatically considered an orphan work simply because it is missing metadata.
Digitall: Olympus IF you put this camera right now at $600 with kit lens, I shall convert to M43 religion. Want to try? :)
Can you give another example of a range-topping enthusiast model being announced with a list price of $600, then it might sound less like wishful thinking.
GPW: IT IS STEALING
What is? (Specifically)
smafdy: The old law protected the creator of a work, just fine. If you didn't "author" a work, you should NEVER be able to own the copyright without the permission of the author, regardless if you can find them, or not.
Corporatism, run amok. The middle class (US and Europe), had better wake up.
Until the fine details are established, it's impossible to be certain, but my understanding is that an orphan licence would have to be revoked if an author came forward (and the orphan licence fee paid to them).
Whether there would be any process of redress beyond that, it's not yet clear.
Anepo: GUESS WHAT UK! Even if YOU pass the law, and you steal MY photograph, I can still SUE YOUR ASS and you can NOT win because I do NOT Live in the UK! And you can not put on a law that applies to countries that are NOT in the UK.
You've not read the story, then?
Timmbits: This is ridiculous.
"It points out that an independent body would have to verify every attempt to classify a work as an orphan work - including proof that a 'diligent search' has been made to identify the copyright holder before a license could be granted."
This situation is pretty cute in theory, but in reality, totally unmanageable! There is no way that office will be able to process thousands of requests per day, or potentially per hour... how much staff will they need for enforcement?
Obviously the result of lobbyists from an industry, that knows too well that this will become too much of a spaghetti mess to manage, and thus, unenforceable.
The Law, as it's currently written, suggests you have to wait for a licence to be granted - otherwise it's just infringement.
iamphil: Copyright laws that benefit large multi-national corporations at the expense of others? Say it ain't so...
I may be missing something, but I'm not seeing in what sense your images have become orphan works. Your EXIF may have been stripped out, but someone making an effort to find the author could probably do so, at which point there's no case for them to be licensed as orphan works.
smafdy: The old law protected the creator of a work, just fine. If you didn't "author" a work, you should NEVER be able to own the copyright without the permission of the author, regardless if you can find them, or not.
Corporatism, run amok. The middle class (US and Europe), had better wake up.
There isn't any suggestion of passing ownership of copyright to someone other than the author - the idea behind this system is to allow an end user to license (non-exclusively), the right to use the work, if the author genuinely can't be found. That's the theory at least.
These end users will have to pay for this license and, according to the UK IPO, won't be able to sub-license it, so won't be able to sell it on.