mosc: I would like this article to cover autofocus. Metering systems don't cover the entire area of the sensor (yet) but they do use the lens for their gathering so the intensity of the light is particularly important. Autofocus systems can struggle with not enough light (higher f-stop) OR shallow depth of field (lower f-stop) so it's messy to talk about but the smaller formats have the equivalence advantage over most focal lengths of brighter lenses for easier focusing. The 24mm equivalent on the RX100m3 for example is f1.8 which is a lot of light for the contrast metering points to focus with, compared to the equivalent f4.7 on FF. I guess in some ways this is obvious since smaller sensors are able to focus while gathering so much less light but it is a point if your choice is FF f4.7 or 1" f1.8 that the lens would have an easier time focusing the f1.8.
Gentlemen, focusing is done with the lens wide open. It doesn't matter what f-number will be used once the aperture is stopped down and the picture taken. If the lenses on either format have the same maximum aperture, they will both have the same light intensity to work with when auto-focusing. The equivalent f-number across formats thus has no relevance to auto-focusing.
GradyBeachum: A reminder to EVERYONE, you DO NOT OWN the software you use, unless you wrote it or purchased the intellectual assets of the company that created it or live under the delusion that you are the center of everything.
If you don't like the subscription model to lease the license, go somewhere else.
But under a perpetual licensing arrangement, which is how Adobe software was previously sold, you DO own a license which permits you to use that software in perpetuity. That license is an asset that can be transferred, bought and sold. The rental model, which is the only one Adobe now offers, affords you none of that -- you only use the software as long as you keep paying for it, and you have no equity in the license. That's an unavoidable, fundamental difference, and it cannot be glossed over.
Indio888: To repeat from earlier: No. I'm not happy that photos I upload, which are my copyrighted IP, are being exploited by some unauthorized service so they can compete with me and sell prints. I sell prints myself and a third party does NOT have my permission to do so.
If this company was selling coffee mugs with Disney characters on them, you better believe they would be sued into oblivion.
This urban myth won't die. You didn't not sign away your rights to your photos under the FB TOS. You only granted a license to allow them to display the photos in connection with the service -- which is necessary if you you want your pictures to be visible on a Facebook page. That does NOT permit Facebook or any other agency to sell your photos or convert them for other purposes. The Instagram ploy of a couple months ago attempted to do just that, and it was quickly buried in user outrage. it is likely that this latest FB gambit will see the same reaction.
As Karl and szedman point out, this analysis is incorrect. The previous TOS was similar to that of other photo sharing sites and does not grant a license for the host to do anything not connected with the job of displaying the pictures, as necessary to provide the hosting service. The new TOS would go well beyond that to permit commercial use of the photos without compensation or notice to the artist -- that is, clearly usage beyond that which is necessary to simply provide the hosting service. That's different, and it justifiably has caused considerable concern.