« on: November 22, 2013, 02:42:00 PM »
For $10 a month I decided to give it a shot. I don't save in Adobe proprietary formats so hopefully I will be pleased.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't trust adobe anymore. At some point they will switch there PSD format to make it incompatible with CS6. Then once everyone makes files in that version, wham, they raise the prices. And now you have nowhere to Run except to pay more. It's not about now but it's about the future and to me there is no way I'll pay into that. I'll find alternates instead of funding a bottomless pit.
So do you have proof it is a poor business decision, meaning in revenue not your desired piece of equipment. This is also being marketed to a certain region of the world. Where is this lack of competiveness you are claiming? Again the expected answer requires cold hard facts.
not at all. Proof is in the pudding. :-)
I don't owe you or any other Canon fanboy and Canon lobbyists a thing.
Get your cold facts yourself ... or wait until they materialize in CaNikon's next financial reports. Suit yourself.
I'll just lean back and keep watching Canon's announcement. But .. I'll continue to hold my wallet tight and my
checkbookonline banking account closed ... and will pass up on Canon's white kisses or any other sub-par stuff they may try to throw at me.
Until they go under or come up with an FF mirrorless the size of Sony's A7R with a better sensor (!), better IQ , better EVF and way better AF .. at less than 2000 Euros. And some nice ultracompact pancake prime lenses to go woth it. 20/4, 40/2.8 [got that already, so adapter will do] and a 85/2.0 IS.
Whatever comes first. Now go figure.
... Canon does not have to justify their business decisions to you, even if you think it is lame.
No. And we don't have to justify making fun of Canon' poor business decisions and criticizing them for producing crap like white kiss cameras instead of gear that is at least fully competitive, not to mention innovative. And you lnow what: we don't even care for the well-known canon paid canon lobbyists and assorted canon fanboys on this forum, who will always rush to canon's defense, no matter how ridiculous and off the mark their newest product offerings may be. :-)
2n10 - wow! A thrill I bet.
Yes, workflow is always an issue with DxO, but I was never happy with Lightroom's speed or it's database(s) and I've found that Photomechanic solves my asset management for me. My flow is to ingest with Photomechanic, select, label, and keyword my photos with it as XMP sidecars, drag & drop into DxO, output as TIFFs, then perform final edits as needed in PhotoShop and save the TIFF. I'll then save as JPEG, print, or whatever from there. When I do my monthly archive, I just do a batch process convert the CR2s to normal DNGs with Adobe's DNG tool and store the CR2, DNG, and final TIFF on my backup media.
Maybe it's not an elegant workflow, but it works better than it sounds and I don't have to worry about corrupt databases or anything else.
Even though people do the 'math' of, 'well, it's a 1.4 crop factor times a 35mm focal length, so that's right about 50mm....', that is not accurate. It's still the exact same distortion of a 35mm focal length.
Distortion is due to the focal distance (except for distortions due to lens design, which is mostly in ultra-wide zooms). 35mm on APS-C = 35 *1.6 FF Equiv = 56mm. Normally this would give little to no observable distortion in adult head and shoulder portraits. But for babies you have to get much closer, and distortion might be noticeable.
I have the 35 f/2 IS and it's a great lens, but if you're doing baby portraits you probably want something tighter. Most baby photographers use an 85 f/1.2 1.4 or 1.8 on a FF camera. That's pretty close to the 50 that you already have (80mm FF equiva.). Move in close to the baby and you should get nice portraits with shallow DOF. If you need tighter, go for the 85 1.8, which is sharp and shallow wide open.