Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?
I have been able to pick up fast primes for dirt-cheap: A 50/f2.0 and 135/f2.5 both for about $140)
Hmmm, that puts a cat amongst the pigeons
A quick search on ebay reveals a nice semi-pro EF 35-70 lens for less than £50. I'm sure I could also find an old pre-digital prime for similar money or less. I think that might be my next step.
I used to love the 50mm prime on my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?
Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc. Handy for a hobbiest like me, invaluable to a professional. iPhoto's color correction tool is primitive in comparison as well. Its organisational tools are far beyond iPhoto's (at least the '06 version, I haven't used iLife '08 and with Aperture and Final Cut Express in my toolkit, see no reason to purchase iLife).
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian.oconnor
Hmmm, that puts a cat amongst the pigeons
A quick search on ebay reveals a nice semi-pro EF 35-70 lens for less than £50. I'm sure I could also find an old pre-digital prime for similar money or less. I think that might be my next step.
I used to love the 50mm prime on my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.
While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.
Any signs of that coming anytime soon to a software update near you ?
This is an Aperture 2 thread. Please don't litter it up with off topic inquiry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck
Well, they've finally sorted the website issues...
Anyway, it's still the good ole Aperture with a facelift. I mean, the image controls are the same. Maybe something has changed image-handling wise but I don't care. Somehow Lightroom results look so much better, take for example its auto white balance - it *really* gets things right. But do it in Aperture and you get that artificial nonsense correction that doesn't cut it at all. Anyone else experienced this? I tried to like Aperture, but Lightroom with all its quirks does image correction just so much better. Maybe it's because I use film and not digital... who knows.
What are your opinions?
Why did I read a blurb on the PR about a new engine but I glossed over the 103 new features and didn't find any substantial info about this "new" Engine? Hmmm we'll as soon as the demo is downloadable we'll know soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit
Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?
Do you have a nice DSLR? I agree Aperture is overkill for many. I probably won't buy it until I get a nice DSLR and start practicing my photography skills a bit better. iPhoto will have to hold me over until then.
An avalanche of Aperture users unhappy that 10.5.2 didn't provide RAW support for cameras released in the past 3 months or so has descended on any forum willing to listen. Then just a few hours after 10.5.2. is released, Apple shuts them all up.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
A new version of Aperture doesn't help if it still fails to support your camera.
The folks over at Inside Aperture seem to disagree. As for the auto-white balance tool, I know you just used this as an example, but I have always seen auto-correction tools as a good place to start, but never as a single "please fix me" button.
Yeah. You're right. But Lightroom's white balance works so right you really don't need to tinker any more. Well, or you could say you already have a good start and tweak from there. Not so with Aperture where it's the same using either manual mode or a loupe. I just can't get the image work right in Aperture, and there will always be something I don't like about the image, like a slight color cast or general lack of 'polish'.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.
What a shock! Apple put the same price in Canada and the US. Maybe this is a sign of things to come? I hope the new MBPs (when they come out) are the same price, or pretty close in both countries.
Can't wait to get my new MBP with Aperture 2, among other cool and worthwhile products on it.
anybody else get a weird messup with safari and this article? The text appears up higher in the tab. Its the only time I've ever noticed it happen. And I've loaded the article several times and it happens every time so it wasn't a one time fluke. I can't post a picture here it seems, and I'm not setting up some online account just to post one screenshot but its wierd.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
A new version of Aperture doesn't help if it still fails to support your camera.
i have a ricoh gx100. i downloaded the trial version to test. it appears that this camera's raw file is now supported. yay!
jokes about whining? you wait! i'll find something to give y'alll to whine about!
10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.
That article you linked doesn't say anything about Aperture 1.5 vs 2.0 support. Are you sure that Aperture 1.5 support wasn't updated as a result of 10.5.2? I thought it used the OS frameworks to deal with that. I mean, my current camera model is considerably newer than my copy of Aperture and iPhoto, but both work just fine.
Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc.
Aperture's system may be more powerful, but iPhoto '06 is non-destructive as well.
Quote:
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not).
I think you got the wrong impression or some misinformation. The Canon site puts EOS on all Canon SLRs, digital or film. Canon's site also says that the 40D supports EF, EF-S, TS-E, and MP-E lenses. I don't know what those last two are, but at least EF was common for film SLRs. I see nothing that says it won't take the old film lenses.
Quote:
I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
The fact that the IS has to be re-bought for every lens was a show-stopper for me. In-body IS is improving as new models are released, so it's not as big of an advantage to have it in the lens as it used to be. That said, I'm going multi-system for reasons I won't go into here, I did just pick up a used 300D.
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.
While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.
Canon changed from its FD lensmount decades ago. The EOS lensmount has been around since the '80's.
Actually you can get adapters that will allow FD lenses to work on modern EOS cameras, digital or not. You can't use any auto features though.
You can also get adapters for most other manufacturers lenses as well, including the superb Zeiss lenses.
But, all EOS lenses are compatible with their digital equivalents.
What you might be thinking is that older lenses, designed before digital became popular, are not optimized for digital shooting. This is true for all manufacturers, but does not mean the lenses in question won't work well.
A far as speed goes, IS lenses have obvioted the need for very fast lenses on the grounds of slow shutter speed shake. Am F4 lens is now equal to an F2 lens in that regard.
That doesn't mean the depth of field issues can be addressed with the slower lenses, or the ease of composing in dark areas.
I carry my 24 to 105mm F4 IS lens when I do a walkaround, and it's more than adequate in speed, except for extreme conditions.
I don't understand how you break out the EOS 40D (which I just bought for my daughter) from the other EOS cameras. This is a fine camera, which many pro's use as a secondary back. All of Canon's EOS cameras will take Canons full frame lenses, but the "C" type lenses are only meant for the "C" type cameras.
One advantage to lens based IS is that you can see the effects in the viewfinder, which can't be done with body based IS. This does matter. With body based IS it's difficult to tell if it being effective or not, and you can be unhappily surprised.
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
Have you tried it?
No, I will tomorrow perhaps. What computer are you running Spam?
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
Have you tried it?
I have all three, and can make some comparisons.
Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco, it lacked serious tools to improve upon the basic conversion. Both Lightroom, and Camera Raw, have been much more sophisticated in that regard. CS3 only increased that lead. Camera Raw 4.3 is so good, it may not be required to even go into Ps itself, unless one needs to make non global corrections, or editing.
Lightroom actually had slightly better sharpening, but CR 4.3 caught up pretty much.
With the long awaited Aperture 2, Apple has taken some of Adobe's ideas. That is good, but Apple is still behind. Its sharpening, and other correction tools still lag Adobe's.
To be fair, Adobe has been doing this for a much longer time. Their beta program is far more extensive than Apple's, as I can attest to. If Apple found it to be in their hearts to extend that beta program, they would get the feedback they need.
Quite frankly, very few pro's use Aperture. more use Lightroom, but most use CR and PS together.
Comments
I have been able to pick up fast primes for dirt-cheap: A 50/f2.0 and 135/f2.5 both for about $140)
Hmmm, that puts a cat amongst the pigeons
A quick search on ebay reveals a nice semi-pro EF 35-70 lens for less than £50. I'm sure I could also find an old pre-digital prime for similar money or less. I think that might be my next step.
I used to love the 50mm prime on my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?
Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc. Handy for a hobbiest like me, invaluable to a professional. iPhoto's color correction tool is primitive in comparison as well. Its organisational tools are far beyond iPhoto's (at least the '06 version, I haven't used iLife '08 and with Aperture and Final Cut Express in my toolkit, see no reason to purchase iLife).
Hmmm, that puts a cat amongst the pigeons
A quick search on ebay reveals a nice semi-pro EF 35-70 lens for less than £50. I'm sure I could also find an old pre-digital prime for similar money or less. I think that might be my next step.
I used to love the 50mm prime on my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.
While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.
Any signs of that coming anytime soon to a software update near you ?
This is an Aperture 2 thread. Please don't litter it up with off topic inquiry.
Well, they've finally sorted the website issues...
Anyway, it's still the good ole Aperture with a facelift. I mean, the image controls are the same. Maybe something has changed image-handling wise but I don't care. Somehow Lightroom results look so much better, take for example its auto white balance - it *really* gets things right. But do it in Aperture and you get that artificial nonsense correction that doesn't cut it at all. Anyone else experienced this? I tried to like Aperture, but Lightroom with all its quirks does image correction just so much better. Maybe it's because I use film and not digital... who knows.
What are your opinions?
Why did I read a blurb on the PR about a new engine but I glossed over the 103 new features and didn't find any substantial info about this "new" Engine? Hmmm we'll as soon as the demo is downloadable we'll know soon enough.
Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?
Do you have a nice DSLR? I agree Aperture is overkill for many. I probably won't buy it until I get a nice DSLR and start practicing my photography skills a bit better. iPhoto will have to hold me over until then.
You mean let it end.
An avalanche of Aperture users unhappy that 10.5.2 didn't provide RAW support for cameras released in the past 3 months or so has descended on any forum willing to listen. Then just a few hours after 10.5.2. is released, Apple shuts them all up.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
A new version of Aperture doesn't help if it still fails to support your camera.
The folks over at Inside Aperture seem to disagree. As for the auto-white balance tool, I know you just used this as an example, but I have always seen auto-correction tools as a good place to start, but never as a single "please fix me" button.
Yeah. You're right. But Lightroom's white balance works so right you really don't need to tinker any more. Well, or you could say you already have a good start and tweak from there. Not so with Aperture where it's the same using either manual mode or a loupe. I just can't get the image work right in Aperture, and there will always be something I don't like about the image, like a slight color cast or general lack of 'polish'.
Can't figure out how to attach images to posts.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.
From Apple:
Supported by Mac OS X 10.5.2 or later
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
Canon Powershot G9
Hasselblad CF-22
Hasselblad CF-39
Leaf Aptus 75s
Nikon D3
Nikon D300
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700
Full details here
Can't wait to get my new MBP with Aperture 2, among other cool and worthwhile products on it.
The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.
A new version of Aperture doesn't help if it still fails to support your camera.
i have a ricoh gx100. i downloaded the trial version to test. it appears that this camera's raw file is now supported. yay!
jokes about whining? you wait! i'll find something to give y'alll to whine about!
OMG Aperture 2.0 is soooooooooooo slowwwwwww. Ugh! I'll stick with Photoshop, thanks.
You mean Lightroom?
I'll try 2 out tomorrow. Hopefully, Apple is right about the better quality.
But, neither Aperture, nor Lightroom is making much headway in the pro market, where Camera Raw and PS is used by the vast majority.
Apple is admitting this with this more amateur oriented release, and the new, continued, lower pricing.
10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.
From Apple:
Supported by Mac OS X 10.5.2 or later
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
Canon Powershot G9
Hasselblad CF-22
Hasselblad CF-39
Leaf Aptus 75s
Nikon D3
Nikon D300
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700
Full details here
That article you linked doesn't say anything about Aperture 1.5 vs 2.0 support. Are you sure that Aperture 1.5 support wasn't updated as a result of 10.5.2? I thought it used the OS frameworks to deal with that. I mean, my current camera model is considerably newer than my copy of Aperture and iPhoto, but both work just fine.
Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc.
Aperture's system may be more powerful, but iPhoto '06 is non-destructive as well.
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not).
I think you got the wrong impression or some misinformation. The Canon site puts EOS on all Canon SLRs, digital or film. Canon's site also says that the 40D supports EF, EF-S, TS-E, and MP-E lenses. I don't know what those last two are, but at least EF was common for film SLRs. I see nothing that says it won't take the old film lenses.
I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
The fact that the IS has to be re-bought for every lens was a show-stopper for me. In-body IS is improving as new models are released, so it's not as big of an advantage to have it in the lens as it used to be. That said, I'm going multi-system for reasons I won't go into here, I did just pick up a used 300D.
Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...
Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.
While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.
Canon changed from its FD lensmount decades ago. The EOS lensmount has been around since the '80's.
Actually you can get adapters that will allow FD lenses to work on modern EOS cameras, digital or not. You can't use any auto features though.
You can also get adapters for most other manufacturers lenses as well, including the superb Zeiss lenses.
But, all EOS lenses are compatible with their digital equivalents.
What you might be thinking is that older lenses, designed before digital became popular, are not optimized for digital shooting. This is true for all manufacturers, but does not mean the lenses in question won't work well.
A far as speed goes, IS lenses have obvioted the need for very fast lenses on the grounds of slow shutter speed shake. Am F4 lens is now equal to an F2 lens in that regard.
That doesn't mean the depth of field issues can be addressed with the slower lenses, or the ease of composing in dark areas.
I carry my 24 to 105mm F4 IS lens when I do a walkaround, and it's more than adequate in speed, except for extreme conditions.
I don't understand how you break out the EOS 40D (which I just bought for my daughter) from the other EOS cameras. This is a fine camera, which many pro's use as a secondary back. All of Canon's EOS cameras will take Canons full frame lenses, but the "C" type lenses are only meant for the "C" type cameras.
One advantage to lens based IS is that you can see the effects in the viewfinder, which can't be done with body based IS. This does matter. With body based IS it's difficult to tell if it being effective or not, and you can be unhappily surprised.
You mean Lightroom?
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
Have you tried it?
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
Have you tried it?
No, I will tomorrow perhaps. What computer are you running Spam?
No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.
Have you tried it?
I have all three, and can make some comparisons.
Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco, it lacked serious tools to improve upon the basic conversion. Both Lightroom, and Camera Raw, have been much more sophisticated in that regard. CS3 only increased that lead. Camera Raw 4.3 is so good, it may not be required to even go into Ps itself, unless one needs to make non global corrections, or editing.
Lightroom actually had slightly better sharpening, but CR 4.3 caught up pretty much.
With the long awaited Aperture 2, Apple has taken some of Adobe's ideas. That is good, but Apple is still behind. Its sharpening, and other correction tools still lag Adobe's.
To be fair, Adobe has been doing this for a much longer time. Their beta program is far more extensive than Apple's, as I can attest to. If Apple found it to be in their hearts to extend that beta program, they would get the feedback they need.
Quite frankly, very few pro's use Aperture. more use Lightroom, but most use CR and PS together.