pics

<p><strong>"Adobe has no competition and could easily charge twice as much imo."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Well they did try to do just that. Only large-scale public backlash caused them to rethink it. Large amounts of people locking themselves and their photo libraries into perpetual contracts will certainly embolden them in the future though.</p>

<p><strong>"So go on Kickstarter or Indiegogo and raise money for your own competition to it. It's that easy. Of course if it's that easy, someone out there must be doing it, right?"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong>"You too. What's stopping you from using Kickstarter and starting something to compete?"</strong></p> <p>I don't think anyone was claiming that developing image editing programs is easy. It's a discussion about the likes/dislikes of the business model. There are lots of products/businesses out there that I don't agree with, but funding kick-starters to replace them all is a little tough. Maybe someone will do it or existing companies will improve and better compete with Adobe. Consumers voicing displeasure is one method of getting the point across to the industry, inducing change and hopefully encouraging other companies to offer alternatives that don't currently exist. If you are happy with Photshop and prefer the subscription based method that's great.</p>

<p><strong>"If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value."</strong></p> <p>That's the main problem I think. There is effectively no competition to Photoshop and the people (mostly professionals) who depend on it are forced to buy into the business model whether they want to or not. There is also the issue of being dependent on the "cloud" and your available (or unavailable) internet connection to use the program. So regardless of whether or not it makes financial sense to go with a subscription plan, Adobe has made users less self-sufficient and more dependent on the wills of Adobe. Very Apple-like and it will probably help them rake in the cash, but it's not everyone's idea of a good time. Not offering a stand alone program alongside the subscription model gives it the impression of a forced "money grab" amongst a market that has no viable alternatives to turn to. Once they get loads of new users into the CC for a short time at $10 a month they effectively have them hooked since they aren't going to cancel their subscriptions and risk losing libraries, edits etc. At that point they can effectively raise the price to levels that may give one pause as to whether subscription based service really is a good value. It's about increasing profits. As a business this is certainly their right, but it is definitely not about Adobe being generous and making it easier for people to get updates and the latest software developments. Things like new camera and lens profiles are already updated for free in stand alone programs. Half of the other updates are mostly fluff. These things seem to be what irks people the most.</p>

<p>While I don't consider myself an advanced post-processor, there really isn't much Lightroom can't handle for me and as of now it is still sold as a stand alone program. If you actually need all the features Photoshop has to offer there isn't anything else quite like it. With that being said, you may consider Capture One. It seems to be very advanced and allows editing in layers as well. It may not have the same myriad of features and tools as the full blown version of Photoshop, but it seems to be quite capable and powerful. It also seems to be the go-to program for many professionals who shoot tethered in a studio (often with Phase one cameras no less). If you aren't a fan of cloud based "pay as you go" software (I'm not either) Capture One could be a good alternative and probably as close as you can get to Photoshop.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"Danirl I believe your assesment of this light as a tool to be used in a studio in mostly static situations, I believe your assesment to be flawed."<br /></strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Different strokes for different folks. I personally only see TTL as beneficial for on camera flash or situations where me and my light are moving from one location to the next in quick fashion. If the light is going to be on a stand and used in a repeatable manner for extended shooting I wouldn't be using TTL but that's just my preference. Since that would encompass almost every situation I could see myself using a like like this, TTL wouldn't make me want to pay extra. Thats what I was referring to as "static" whether it be in a studio or outdoors. Now remote power control would be something I would like to have in that situation.</p> <p><strong>"I've never used Yongnuo gear -I've also had questions about their reliability - so I'll take your word on that issue."</strong></p> <p>My experience is limited to the 560III manual flashes and the 602 and 603II triggers. The ones I currently own have done well. The original 560 flash was dogged with reports of poor reliability. Some of their early TTL attempts with reverse engineering were not well executed as either. Hopefully this light works out well since they have had some time to work on this stuff and later models of all their other products have shown gradual improvement.</p>

<p>I can't imagine them asking $500 for it. That would kind of defeat the purpose of buying Yongnuo if it was priced the same as a highly overachieving/proven unit like the Einstein. Maybe they will figure TTL demands a premium, but I would prefer reliability over features that are of limited use in a light that will mostly be used in studio/static environments. For the right price it looks like it could be intriguing, but anything over the $250-$300 range would cause me to scratch my head. Yongnuo also seems to miss the mark quite a bit when it comes to quality control of their initial product launches. They are more or less considered disposable if they break and spending a lot of money on something that has to go back to China for repair/replacement would make me nervous. It may be best to see what the reaction is 6 months to a year after it hits the market. </p>

<p>I don't have any scientific data to compare the resolution of my film scans to my DSLR files, but to my eye it is no contest that the DSLR is cleaner, sharper and higher resolution compared to my film scans (and I use an ancient 12 MP D300). If you are interested in shooting film and getting results that compare to modern digital it is definitely going to be a labor of love and not a labor of saving money. About the only way you can obtain film scans that rival modern DX and FF sensors is to have it drum scanned and that is insanely expensive. The flatbed scanners that most people use (myself included) are mediocre at best and the results get worse the smaller the film format you use. I still shoot and develop the occasional roll of film and scan it at home for web display purposes, but those files lack quite a bit of the resolution and dynamic range found in the actual negative or slide. It's something I do for fun, but if I wanted to shoot film with the goal of quality that exceeds today's Dslrs I would shoot B+W and print optically in a wet darkroom (if not for the sake of higher resolution, then simply the joy and feel of a darkroom print) or have them drum scanned and watch my bank account slowly vanish.</p>

<p><strong>"So how does the M4/3 cameras like the GH4 and Olympus EM1 play in this conversation. I know they aren't Nikons but those systems are seeing pros switching from FX to the smaller M4/3 format."</strong></p> <p>Like who? I keep hearing this, but outside of a few high profile types, who often happen to have connections to one of the mirrorrless manufacturers, I don't really see a plethora of mirrorless cameras being used by professionals in public (unless they are doing street photography). Many of those individuals curiously also own Medium format and high end DSLR systems that they keep quite about in public. </p> <p>The film to digital transition is over and now the industry needs to latch onto the next "thing" to obessively crave. Mirrorless is it.</p> <p><strong> </strong><br> <strong> </strong></p>

<p>The thing with DX is that it was (and for many still is) a format that wasn't really wanted, but rather tolerated due to the high cost of full frame. At one time there was a genuine need for a heavy-duty, pro-spec DX camera for people like wedding photographers or whoever might want such a quality built camera but couldn't justify the leap in price it took to go to full frame. That market has largely eroded now. At the time of the D300 there was no consumer grade FF camera like the D610. Low end full frame cameras like the D610 (and even older used FF bodies) would draw sales away from a prosumer DX camera like the D400. Most people would take the advantages of a full frame sensor over the build quality of the mythical D400 crop body.</p> <p><strong>I wish Nikon should have a dedicated DX system that Nikon really dedicates its effort to make excellent DX system (bodies and lenses)</strong></p> <p>I would venture to guess that the vast majority of crop body DSLR's sold today will never see anything other the the kit lens that was sold with it. For those that buy such a camera and have some quality FX lenses, its only a matter of time before they migrate to a FF body and it's unlikely they would invest in a D400.</p>

<p>I never shot much of the Agfa slide film but the few rolls of RSX II 50 I did shoot (about 10 years ago) were much more muted in saturation and contrast than any equivalent E-6 film I tried. It was known for having a much more faithful color reproduction than many other E-6 films. It may not be an issue of age, but rather the intended "look" engineered into the film. Compared to something like Velvia it will look much more tame and neutral by comparison</p>

<p>On a side note, the radio trigger will obviously protect your camera from a high voltage flash but you can still fry the receiver attached to the flash if it isn't rated for higher voltages. Many higher end transceivers/receivers are rated for higher voltages, but I did fry a couple of inexpensive Yongnuo transceivers trying to use them with an old Vivitar 283. (Two burnt transceivers later and I eventually realized what was going on.) It's best to double check the specifications of the wireless triggers and flash beforehand if you plan on using them with questionable or older flashes/lights.</p>

<p>Vineyard at night</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"The real significance to me is that, by collapsing two models into one, they have removed the option to buy one below $3,000, at least at list"</strong></p> <p>This is the only major downside I see to the camera as well. Knowing that they were going to remove the option of two different versions of the D800 I was hoping the cost was going to err on the side of the standard (sub 3K) version. Looks like this isn't the case (not surprisingly I suppose.) If Nikon is going to continue to add $200-400 to the cost of their pro-body FX cameras every two years it is going to be increasingly cost prohibitive for many people. It would be nice if they would scrap the junky consumer body layout of the D610 and put it in a D800 body with the 24MP D610 sensor and price it in the low to mid $2000 range. This would provide a good option for those waiting for a D400 (high end DX is dead and most have moved on to full frame anyway.)</p>

<p><strong>"New Fujifilm packaging is old news. There was a thread on this in February 2013."</strong></p> <p>Which would mean that if certain places are just seeing the new packaging now then it took a looooong time to sell of that old stock. That would equate to bad news.</p> <p> </p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"The YongNuo YN560 III does pretty much everything the Canon 580EX </strong><strong>can do, "</strong></p> <p>Except TTL which could be a pretty major downgrade to someone like a wedding shooter.</p>

<p><strong>"50% drop in sales? those are last year's numbers. the first four months of 2014 tell a different <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-growing-again.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">story"</a></strong><br /> <br /> Point taken. Yes that was from last year and yes MILC sales so far this year are growing higher than DSLR sales. Whether that will hold up over the course of the year and whether it will make up for last years losses is anyone's guess. Of course MILC shipments still are only 30% of DSLR shipments so there is some sizeable catcing up to do.</p> <p>I'm not saying it will never happen, just that the conditions, customer demand and technology aren't in place for it to happen right now and I think Nikon realizes this. At the moment, the best do it all camera that can handle anything you throw at it in all different environmental and lighting conditions from studio to fast paced action with a minimal amount of quirks and hiccups is still a DSLR like the D4s or 1DX. The people who buy these cameras most likely don't care too much about shaving a few ounces and inches off the size of the camera body considering they are probably carrying a pelican case full of gear to a shoot anyway. In the end I would have to ask would a MILC get the job done any better for a person like this or give any better image quality than what they are already getting? I personally don't think so and if that's the case is it worth abandoning an entire system (assuming zero backwards compatibility) to get a camera body with a slightly smaller form factor and a WYSIWYG viewfinder which may have difficulty in some shooting situations? The consumer market does what it does and usually ends up chasing the latest most "in fashion" piece of gear. Right now that's retro looking small form factor cameras, but a D5 wouldn't be geared towards that market. The "F" system is well developed and proven with a complete system of lenses/gear that can handle just about anything you throw at it. Nikon won't move away from it on a whim and I think they will wait and see how the MILC game plays out for a bit longer. Certain things about MILC's are genuine technical improvements but some things like camera size, shape, design, "retro look" could be fads that come and go. I wonder how many people are buying them for those reasons just to have something new and different and not because they have an intense hatred for mirrors and optical viewfinders which are currently doing a pretty darn good job getting the shots. The industry is on shaky ground and taking a big risk for a sliver of the 30% piece of the pie (which may end up alienating more current customers than it attracts new ones) may not be smart. For now I think their decision is a wise one.</p> <p> </p>

<div></div>

<p>No problem Nick. Nope you only need one trigger (transceiver) to mount on the hotshoe of your camera. The 560III's all have built in receivers and multiple 560IIIs can be triggered by a single 602/603. FWIW, I would go with the 603II triggers. They are an improvement over the 602 and original 603's and are an upgrade in areas like max synch speed and the usability/ergonomic department. If you want to trigger other non-Yongnuo lights (or Yongnuos without built in receivers like the 560 and 560II) then yes you will have to buy extra transceivers to mount on those flashes. I think they only sell them in pairs (about $30-40) if I remember correctly. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have two of them though. One goes on your camera obviously and you could use the other for one of the 560II's you already have.</p>

<p>The 560 has an optical slave so you shouldn't need to bother with the Wein's.</p> <p>If you want to continue with the Yongnuos your best bet would be to go with the 560III's. They have a built in radio receiver and work pretty well with the 602/603 series radio triggers. I think they may have also addressed some of the quality control issues of earlier Yongnuos. I use two of the 560III's with their triggers. For my needs they work well. I use the 603II triggers with my other non-Yongnuo speedlights as well. The 560III is still a manual flash however (no TTL). For what you shoot it doesn't seem like TTL is a necessity though. They also just released a remote power control device for the 560III, so that may be a (slightly more expensive) option as well. Radio triggers will make your life a lot easier but remote power control isn't too big of a deal if you are shooting static subjects in non changing light conditions. If you start using multiple lights more often and it becomes a regular routine then you may change your mind. TTL is even less useful in these situtations.</p>

<p><strong>"As this unfolds I find myself thinking that we are making several big mistakes by concentrating too much on the OP's "Should Nikon make a high end Mirrorless?" question and after thinking about it bit I'd now emphatically say "No". Nikon would do a lot better by looking very carefully at the evolution of image capturing in the last few years."</strong></p> <p>I agree. I think sales of mirrorless cameras would have to stop tanking in North America before Nikon (or Canon) would give serious thought to this. This is a nasty little fact that often gets lost amongst all of the mirrorless buzz from an enthusiastic fan base and the industry itself. It's hard to call a nearly 50% drop in sales a "sign of the future." While there are some pockets of the globe where mirrorless sales increased from 2012-2013, overall sales of mirrorless cameras declined at the same rate as DLSR's in 2013. People point out that Mirrorless sales increased in Japan, but so did sales of DSLRs (DSLR shipments in Japan from Jan-Oct 2013 were 140% of what they were during the same period the prior year.)<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.cipa.jp/index_e.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.cipa.jp/index_e.html</a></p> <p>It's not that Nikon and Canon need to jump on the Mirrorless bandwagon to ensure economic viability in the future. Quite honestly, the advantages of mirrorless (or what mirrorless users consider advantages) are actually quite minute in the grand scheme of things and mostly lost on the vast majority of potential customers. For those who do actually understand what mirrorless offers, its not unanimously agreed upon as being an improvement. Here in the U.S. "professional" means large and complex looking. Most mirrorless cameras (despite their technical prowess) look like glorified point and shoots to a novice or first time buyer. They want what they see the pros using and with the exception of a small number of pros (usually highly advertised by the mirrorless industry) their aren't too many mirrorless cameras being taken out on paid jobs.</p> <p>In reality Nikon needs to focus on the real changes that are making a difference in the industry (namely increased video capabilities) and improving the short comings of what they currently offer. Heck it wasn't even that long ago that people were shooting film and focusing manually (or coping with atrocious autofocus). The low hanging fruit has already been grabbed off of the vine in terms of the digital revolution. The improvements are getting more incremental and harder to come by but that doesn't stop photo mags and forum buzz from using every new technology as a replacement for the "film vs. digital" debate.</p> <p><strong>"I could go on but to me the "no brainer" is for Nikon to go for top end phone followed by most usable tool for current day journalism."</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong>Considering the times we live in yes, this would do infinitely more for their bottom line than another high end MILC on the market.</p> <p> </p>

<p>A wheel from an farm old irrigation system.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"now some are wishing the D5 is a mirrorless."</strong></p> <p>I'd like to see Nikon make a lot of things before a Mirrorless D5. Clearly the people in that market are not too concerned with size and weight of their gear. I would also imagine an EVF would be lacking in a low-light/action based environment. (an arena for which the D4s is designed to excel in)</p>

<p>I thought the binoculars near a popular birding location looked interesting at night.</p><div></div>