November 28, 2014, 02:34:57 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - AvTvM

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 76
361
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 05:16:59 AM »
Well, DPP may be adequate to handle some needs. unfortunately not my needs. And unfortunately it is in no way competitive to what Lightroom offers. Yes, DPP is free of charge, so no problem there. But ...

LR gives me what I always wanted: "one-stop-shopping for everything I want do with my images".

Only one software to purchase, learn and keep current. Both powerful and reasonably intuitive to use. Only 2 file formats involved: RAW ["digital slide / positive"] and .jpg ["digital prints"].  No bloated TIFFS, no proprietary multi-layer .psd files, no complicated software with multi-month learning-curves, no absurdly outdated 80's style user-interface, no functions targeted solely at graphics professionals or print shops ...

And no more need for single-trick pony software apps just to import images, rename images, add and edit EXIF/ IPTC metadata, tag images, sort, organize, catalogue, show, share and edit them.

LR has allowed me to cut all the post-processing software clutter. One seamless workflow. All editing directly on the RAWs, but totally non-destructive. Since LR 4 with the ability to also apply local adjustments, not just global ones. Everything handled in one window, rather than separate windows popping open for different types of image editing and manipulation. Excellent de-noising. Fully automatic correction for all my lenses, if and when desired.

As I am not interested in creating composites or doing extensive pixel-level manipulations or CGI content I have no need for other post-processing software whatsoever. LR does it all. Yes, there are still improvements possible, but LR 5 is pretty darn "close to perfect" for me.

Therefoe, I do not want to revert to a mere RAW-processor like DPP or Capture One or SilkyPix. I want ONE "stills images handling program". Unfortunately LR is the only sensible software option currently available to me [thanks to Adobe killing off Pixmantec and others]. Aperture ... I do not use Apple Macs. And all other programs I have tried are either subpar or total overkill relative to my requirements.

This is why I have paid the license fees for every version of Lightroom so far. I am willing to pay for it in the future. I am also willing to pay a reasonable little extra money to use it on a mobile device as well.

But I am not willing to move to Adobes creative cloud/subscription-based model. 

I find DPP perfectly adequate for most needs. Of course it is not as powerful as Lightroom etc., but it does the job, nicely and efficiently. Every picture I take starts its life in DPP, and I do have Lightroom but will not be upgrading to the CC version (yet).

Of course eventually we will all have 5D Mark IVs, 1D X Mark IIs, and dare I say it a 7D mark ii (or iii  :o ), plus new lenses etc and Adobe's technology will move forward just as quickly, so eventually we may not have a choice of upgrading, but need to out of necessity.

Adobe are a business and I can see their logic.

What I really, really do not get is why I, or anyone else, would want this on their phone. I never edit anything on my phone.

362
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 03:56:08 AM »
Adobe and Lightroom and I go back many years.
Up to 2005 I used Canon DPP. Then I discovered Pixmantec Rawshooter, spent 99 Euro on the premium version in April 2006 and three months later Adobe acquired the technology assets of Pixmantec, only to take Rawshooter off the market. Adobe did issue me a free license to Lightroom 1.0, which I briefly tested only to find out it was totally inadequate compared to what I was used to from Rawshooter. I went back to Canon DPP as RAW Converter and various Non-Adobe programs for photo editing.  When Lightroom 2.0 came out, I gave it a try and found it useful. So I purchased the license, and subsequently also the ones for LR 3, 4 and 5. 

I find it arrogant of Adobe, to cut me and all other non CC users off using from using Lightroom on our mobile devices, even when we are holding perpetual licenses to LR. I do not want anything "for free" from Adobe. I would be ready to PAY EXTRA for the Lightroom Mobile APP ... if it delivers, what I would like out of it and if we are talking about a sensible one-time payment .. lets say anything from 3,99 to 9,99 USD/Euro - in line with regular mobile APP prices.   

As long as Adobe is denying their paying Lightroom customers full use of the program - both on PCs and in conjunction with mobile devices - and just to try to force us into their subscription / cloud model they can go f*ck themselves. I strongly resent all and any implications the Adobe CC model brings about:
* the ongoing subscription payment requirement
* "cloud" exchange and storage per se (I do not put images "into anybody's cloud ... they reside solely on hardware devices under my full, direct and utter control, where I and nobody else sets the rules of use)
* the fact, that countless hours of your own work on your own images will be lost, should you ever decide to stop paying and end usage of the Adobe creative cloud

So until Adobe enables EVERY paying LR user to also use LR on mobile devices I will continue to say: FU Adobe!

No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.
and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!
And do take note: I will not rent your software or join an annual pay subscription model ... ever, no matter what you do. And if you push me and if no better software alternative becomes available, I will revert back to Canon DPP to process RAWs.

+1

Why are they arrogant? And how does that justify FU?

It is their software, they can choose to license it how they like, if you don't like the terms then just don't buy it but there is no point to talking like that to an actual Adobe representative. He isn't going to take you seriously if you talk like that, thanks for blowing any chance we have of reasonable dialog with Adobe here now.

363
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 08, 2014, 08:04:59 AM »
No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.

and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!

And do take note: I will not rent your software or join an annual pay subscription model ... ever, no matter what you do. And if you push me and if no better software alternative becomes available, I will revert back to Canon DPP to process RAWs. 

364
IF it delivers image quality equal to Nikon D4s
AND IF Sony has improved AF performance notably
AND IF it had a better battery holding charge for 500 shots
AND IF it cost 999,- including dual-lens kit 35/2.8 + 55/1.8
THEN I would buy one ...despite all the useless 4k cr*p in it.  ;D

The way it is .. a 4k camera that cannot record 4k in-camera, wheras a tiny GoPro can do that ... well, I don't know ...  :P

What I do like however is Sony giving their customers a choice: one does not have to purchase "the video-optimized model" just to get a decent sensor or otherwise attractive stills features. Canon only offers some of that choice at 1D-X and 1D C price levels. 

A7/R/S ... strategywise exactly what I would like to get from Canon. A very compact, decent mirrorless body in 3 implementations:
1)  mid-rez sensor, really HI-ISO, 6+fps, no video other than liveview feed fppor EVF ... 5D IV
2) hi-rez sensor, 5fps, no video other than liveview feed for EVF ... 5D-R ["Resolution"]
3) low-rez sensor, video-optimized model ... 5D-C ... with zebra and peaking and quadrophonic microphones and HUGE rigs and follow focus gears on top of autofocus ... plus all that other stuuf all tjose videots are constantly clamoring for in stills cameras.
Of course the last version would be most exepnsive and the first version cheapest. :-)



365
I'll get one if the "s" has similar AF system as A6000.

+1

And in body 6-axis 4-stops IS.
And they can cut out the video cr*p on my copy. :-)

366
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M2
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:19:17 AM »
@ daemorhedron: thanks a lot for your summary/comparison. Excellent hands-on information!

367
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 30, 2014, 03:10:28 PM »
While i am not interested at all in 1" sensored digicams, i am still interested to see, whether canon is able to match the sony rx10. I expect no.

368
The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more.  This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

I guess Canon's preferred solution would be to sell no more zoom lenses.  ;D

369
Have I got this right?  Canon have sold 70m EOS cameras and 100m lenses?

There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

wrong conclusion. :-)

There are an awful lot of low-end Rebel DSLR buyers, who expect "better image quality than from compacts and smartphones" but will never buy another lens other than the kit lens supplied. Even if they do buy a double-zoom kit, most of them loathe taking along a second lens or changing lenses.

Obviously, they'd be much better served by a very compact, non-mirrorslapping, noise- and vibration-free, sturdy  APS-C sensored camera. Something like a G1X II but with a 3:2 sensor, reasonably fast dual-pixel hybrid AF (70D). Fully retractable zoom lens, no need for f/1.8 or so, but rather a bit more tele ... say 18-80mm/3.5-5.6 IS STM. The whole thing priced at a reasonable USD 299. It would sell liek hotcakes. :-)

Instead, Canon believes they can sell the weirdo G1X II for 799,-  ::) :P  ... that's why folks still buy DSLRs like Canon Rebels and Nikon D3xxx/5xxx. Each time with a "brand new" 18-55 kit zoom. :-)

370
Rather than disseminating useless marketing fluff, Canon should give us the raw data, so we can see whether their claim is substantiated or not.

371
Anyone else understand just what this product is for?
yep industrial camera for optical quality inspection in manufacturing of PV solar panels or LCDs or similar stuff.
And apparently there are only/more/better/cheaper (?) Nikon-F-mount lenses available for that field of application.

372
@neuro - you are right: it is an f-mount. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless this frankenstein canikon cam is really weird.

373
the picture showas clearly a Canon EF mount (not Nikon F-mount), only electrical contacts are not visible (or missing).

It looks exactly like the EF/EF-.M adapter, including the lens release switch/button.

374
unfortunately FW 1.02 update for A7 and A7R will only improve AF-speed whenn using the 70-200/4, but not in general.  :'(

375
Canon RT system is a brilliant and highly useful innovation for anyone ever using wireless flash. Unfortunately they chose to bring it in in the most limited manner only. 1 flagship speedlite, 1 controller - everything reliably working but with some (unnecessary) functional limitations. Priced at canon prices. An "affordable investment" for pros earning money with it and for well-heeled enthusiasts. BUT a fairly steep hurdle for all other Canon users.

I am convinced Canon would gain a lot by also introducing not only a sensibly-priced 430EX-RT but also a TX-RT transceiver that would allow to also include 580EX II / 430 EX II (possibly also mk 1) speedlites in a radio wireless setup. Ideally also select studio strobes where makers cooperate with Canon. Use of other third party ettl speedlites could be inhibited via some chip in such a canon RT transceiver.

By now, it would not hurt 600EX sales that much, since many who want and need them have purchased already. But it would go a long ways to make the Canon ecosystem even more useful and attractive to all existing users and to potential new clients. At least to everyone considering using wireless flash setups.

It would really be win/win for both Canon and their customers. They qould sell a ton of 430RTs and RT transceivers ... at very healthy margins. :-)





Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 76