Not for me. I did the Adobe upgrade thing,every time I upgraded a body I required the latest and greatest just to get ACR. First CS, then CS2.
Adobe can kiss my a$$. I'll stick with PS7. If I need to work with 16 bit layers, I'll fire up CS. Third party RAW converters have served me well, and will continue to do so in the future.
$120 a year, forever? I don't think so. You guys can do what you want.
Yeah, what about the LX-7?
I upgrade to CS from PS7 for ACR. I get a new body and I need the most current revision of ACR, which means I need CS2, so I upgraded to CS2. Along comes my 7d and guess what? I need another PS upgrade for the latest and greatest revision of ACR.
Nope. All this PS upgrading. I felt like a junkie waiting for his next fix. I didn't do it.
For RAW, I use DPP, and when I really, really want to extract every ounce of detail out of a RAW file, I use Raw therapee. From there I go to my good old Photoshop 7.
I can do most everything in PS7 that can be done in CS Whatever, it just takes a few more steps. I don't feel like I'm missing much at all. PS7 is safely on a disk, along with it's serial number.
I'm perfectly content with PS7. Adobe can do whatever they want to.
An aspiring young model, and wanna be actor, approached me do do a few shots. What was missing from his portfolio were 3/4 headshots and full-body shots.
We met on Saturday and got right to it, I took a small kit with me. 24-70 f.2.8 on a 7D, along with a 580EX II on a bracket that lifted it high above the lens. I also took my external battery pack.
And here's the thing...
I could have shot this with my little Lumix LX7. My client wanted 8 X 10's. The LX7 could have easily provided the 8 X 10's he desired. Lighting was uncomplicated. There was bright sun out, we found areas in the shade with soft, diffused light. The flash was only used for shadow fill, I had it dialed way down.
So why the DSLR kit? Because I didn't want my client to be terrified when I broke out a small compact. That was the only reason.
It would be great if I was such a wonderful photographer (with a reputation to match) that shooting with a compact would have been a non-issue,
A camera phone? Not so much.
$2800, viewfinder optional?
I just can't get past that. Blame it on my age. Texting is a solution looking for a problem, a Tweet is the sound a bird makes, and as cameras go, the viewfinder is as integral a component as the shutter.
$2800 and I charge the camera the same way I charge my phone?
Have fun with that.
Thank you, DPReview. Now, if only I can learn to type on my tablet.
Looks good. Would have been nice when I was doing more commercial photography. Displayed images would look more vibrant than my printed portfolio. That, and a good way to show actual pixels if the client wants to check out sharpness and clipping path accuracy. This would be a great way to showcase my stuff.
Anyone have an extra three grand laying around?
Nicely done. One thing.. I also picked up the auto lens cap. I stopped using it. It will protect the lens from the elements, but not from mechanical injury. The supplied lens cap will prevent lens damage when the lens is threatened in a fall, or by a branch or something. The auto lens cap? It's easy to force that cap into the lens. I'm rough on my gear. The ability of the included lens cap to protect the lens outweighs the convenience of the auto lens cap. YMMV
harry cannoli: The best camera is the camera you have with you. Besides, that list is too limited. It would have been nice if there was an "Other" checkbox with a text field to enter your selection. More work for DPreview, to be sure, but give me a selection of just a few cameras? Not really valid.
Yes, DPReview understands digital photography, but they don't know or understand me, and what I need.
I was curious what methodology DPReview would use to find their way to a "winner". Truthfully, I was more interested in how DPreview planned on pulling this off than actually voicing my opinion.
I'll save you guys the wait. The winner: Sony RX-100, based on what it is and it's price. Second place: Sony RX-1. Sony deserves kudos for their innovation. It's sad, we're voting on cameras, not innovation. A product can be innovative, but functionally, just so-so.
I hope I'm wrong.
It's refreshing to see someone out here who is more miserable than I am.
The best camera is the camera you have with you. Besides, that list is too limited. It would have been nice if there was an "Other" checkbox with a text field to enter your selection. More work for DPreview, to be sure, but give me a selection of just a few cameras? Not really valid.
Horshack: It's the same rope-a-dope strategy Facebook employs in all their ToS changes. It's designed to lull you into a false sense of security while they systematically keep pressing the ToS until they have the right to sell all your private information to the highest bidders.
How do you think facebook makes money? To them, you're not a person, you're a crop to be harvested.
They parse out what you listen to, what you wear, what you watch, who you talk to, what phone you use, where you came from, your political views, your corporate views, your social views, the list goes on.
All this information is neatly bundled up and sold. Even if your pictures remain yours.
Sure. Whatever. Such is life in the cloud. Give me my 8tB RAID and you can keep your cloud.
I expect that whatever I post on the internet is fair game, even though it shouldn't be.
Cy Cheze: Here's a pitch for the underdog LX7:
The control ring is limited to aperture selection, but it has dedicated wheels for shutter and ND filter. Each ratchets precisely. The RX100 ring lurches about. The LX7 offers time lapse, which the others do not. Its aperture is fastest across the full zoom range. One can suppress digital zoom in video, which one cannot with the Sony. Plus, it is intermitently offered at a $299 price, which is hard to beat. Can the RX100 be worth more than twice that? It too will sell for less when the RX200 (or the Samsung KX100!) draw nigh. But people who elect to spend more money, or get a tatoo, find ingenious ways to be cheerful they did.
Yep, give me a great lens and a dated sensor, you can keep the great sensor and so-so lens.
harry cannoli: I have to admit I'm a little bummed that the LX7 failed to stand out in any meaningful way, despite the fact that I'm a hardcore DSLR shooter who adores this little camera. Sheesh, I am a fanboy.
I suppose the big sensor in the Sony means so much more than the beautiful, super-fast, pin sharp lens in the LX7?
The lens makes the magic, the sensor records the magic made by the lens. The Sony sensor does an absolutely fantastic job of recording images created by it's plain vanilla lens. Of course the magic created by the lens is a personal judgement, but that Panny lens stands out, heads and shoulders above the pack. How can I see this and the respected, highly competent reviewers barely acknowledge the outstanding flavor of that Panny lens?
Oh, never mind. I'm a fanboy :(
Thank you Richard for getting this done. Good job.
Thank you. I've been validated.
I appreciate that DPReview uses accepted scientific methodology when doing their reviews, but that's a two edged sword. There are certain qualities to a lens that can't be measured, they can only be appreciated. What's a reviewer to do? Evaluate those nebulous qualities by offering a subjective opinion? That won't work, either.
Reviews are a great place to start, but I would never buy anything based solely on a review conclusion. I look at the pictures. Full size RAW's that I can download and play with.
There are very expensive lenses that are just so-so. There are fabulous Sigma's that cost just a few hundred bucks. The qualities that make or break a lens can only be measured to a point. Looking at what a lens or a camera does in the real world is the most important metric, IMO. Same thing for cameras. Noise? Sharpness? Artifacting? Useful information, but information to be taken with a grain of salt.
I am babbling. Sorry..
I have to admit I'm a little bummed that the LX7 failed to stand out in any meaningful way, despite the fact that I'm a hardcore DSLR shooter who adores this little camera. Sheesh, I am a fanboy.
If I were there with a camera handy, I would have taken the picture. It's not an action I would have thought about, grabbing my camera and taking the picture would have been automatic, providing, of course, that there was no way I could help that fellow back onto the platform.
The image is horrific, but it does depict the very worst aspect of the human condition.
People are so scared of death that we live our lives as if we were immortal. This photograph reminds us that our time here is limited, and that we should strive to get the most out of the limited time we have here.
A unimaginable horror for that poor fellow. I couldn't imagine it.
Yep. Lots of softness across the frame, except dead center. Something's wrong somewhere.
sik_photos: Is it me, or does DPR go out of its way to "dumb down" its early sample photos, as if the camera were handed to a soccer mom on lunch break with one hand on the cell phone?
This very well might be a camera with great ergonomic and very good video/ focus features, but its going to have to prove its low-light abilities to offset these very MEH looking samples.
I believe DPReview post samples with the camera set "Out of the Box".
One more quick thing. Links don't work and images don't appear in my signature.
OK. I'm done.