 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
Well, there are cheap student versions, and not everybody is as honest
as you are...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
$69 is jaw-droppingly expensive?
Even $600 for the full pacakge isn't jaw-droppingly expensive.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:16:01 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
£361.58 on buy.com.
Not really jaw-droppingly expensive; Windows Server 2008 by comparison is
£631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user CAL. People manage to get near that
quite readily, including many people studying for their MCSE at home.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > jaw-droppingly expensive...
>
> $69 is jaw-droppingly expensive?
that's one sexy price tag. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, there are cheap student versions
Oh yeah - I hadn't thought of that...
> and not everybody is as honest as you are...
Yeah, apparently. That's slightly unsettling, actually.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> the
>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>
> £361.58 on buy.com.
I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
Even so, this would still make it considerably more expensive than any
piece of software I've ever purchased in my life. (Although, when you
think about it, most *computers* cost more than this...)
> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user CAL.
Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> jaw-droppingly expensive...
>
> $69 is jaw-droppingly expensive?
That's only for the cut-down version with all the features removed.
(Even *I* own that...) Presumably the futuristic stuff Mike is talking
about isn't in that version.
> Even $600 for the full pacakge isn't jaw-droppingly expensive.
Usually if a piece of software costs more than about £70, I don't buy it
- unless it does something really, *really* good. I just don't have that
kind of money laying around.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:24:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> the
>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>
>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>
> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option, so
that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I could
find).
How much did you think it was?
> Even so, this would still make it considerably more expensive than any
> piece of software I've ever purchased in my life. (Although, when you
> think about it, most *computers* cost more than this...)
That they do, and they frequently come bundled with software. You can
get Photoshop Elements for fairly cheap - it even came bundled with my
Wacom tablet.
>> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user
>> CAL.
>
> Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
> other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
hobbiest user.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's only for the cut-down version with all the features removed.
> (Even *I* own that...)
Is it good for anything more than touching up photos? Can you draw things
with it? Can you do things easily like take four square photos and make a
bigger square out of them, or cut a photo exactly in half?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/3/2010 12:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> jaw-droppingly expensive...
>
> $69 is jaw-droppingly expensive?
>
> Even $600 for the full pacakge isn't jaw-droppingly expensive.
>
It is when you can buy PaintShop Pro and get 95% of the same features.
In fact, until it got bought up by Corel, it was far more comparable,
with very few things missing at all. Then they decided to make it the
"cheaper" sister product of their main application, which is another of
those damn $600 things...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It is when you can buy PaintShop Pro and get 95% of the same features.
It's not always features that are important. Ask a professional who uses
photoshop, and he'll tell you that the UI is at least as important as the
"features".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's only for the cut-down version with all the features removed.
>> (Even *I* own that...)
>
> Is it good for anything more than touching up photos? Can you draw
> things with it? Can you do things easily like take four square photos
> and make a bigger square out of them, or cut a photo exactly in half?
Drawing stuff with it is all that I use it for. (It came free with my
Wacom Bamboo.) I haven't really used it much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> the
>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>
> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option, so
> that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I could
> find).
>
> How much did you think it was?
ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
(Weirdly enough, I can't seem to see a price for just Photoshop by
itself, only Photoshop Elements is listed - or student versions, which
obviously has totally different pricing.)
>>> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user
>>> CAL.
>> Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
>> other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
>
> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
> hobbiest user.
Well, yeah, there is that. It's not the package I'd choose to go out and
buy. Then again, Mike apparently did...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 00:50:36 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It is when you can buy PaintShop Pro and get 95% of the same features.
>
> It's not always features that are important. Ask a professional who uses
> photoshop, and he'll tell you that the UI is at least as important as
> the "features".
But is that because that's the UI they're used to? I could never get on
with it and still mutter imprecations under my breath when using Elements
6 and Adobe's insistence that There can be only One mouse button ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2010 10:07, schrieb Invisible:
> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
>
> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
Ah, that's almost affordable...
MS Visual Studio 2010:
about 1400 € for the "Professional" (= smallest!) ed.
about 3150 € for the "Premium" ed.
about 6650 € for the "Ultimate" ed.
I can't remember having paid anything even remotely close to this for my
copy of VS 2005...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:02:50 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:24:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> the
>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>>
>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>>
>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>
> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option, so
> that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I could
> find).
That's not the upgrade price is it? The UK price for the cheapest CS4 is
£620 on buy.com. Amazon are selling PS CS5 at £644.
>> Even so, this would still make it considerably more expensive than any
>> piece of software I've ever purchased in my life. (Although, when you
>> think about it, most *computers* cost more than this...)
>
> That they do, and they frequently come bundled with software. You can
> get Photoshop Elements for fairly cheap - it even came bundled with my
> Wacom tablet.
Elements 6 came with my Vaio. Version 8 costs £60, they really don't want
you to upgrade though that costs £52 woo hoo £8 saving.
> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
> hobbiest user.
And that's part of the justification for the price tag. If you're using
this either the company has paid for it, or you're a professional who
needs it... or you're a student whom Adobe are trying to get hooked onto
their software for later gains. Like so much us proles have to wait until
the spanking new features trickle down to the affordable software ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
>>
>> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
>
> Ah, that's almost affordable...
>
> MS Visual Studio 2010:
> about 1400 € for the "Professional" (= smallest!) ed.
> about 3150 € for the "Premium" ed.
> about 6650 € for the "Ultimate" ed.
Weeeeell, if you want to look at it like that...
Oracle DB, basic edition: ~£8,000
Oracle DB, enterprise edition: ~£80,000
That's without any of the options (clustering, load balancing, advanced
analytics, etc.)
Still, if you actually need the enterprise edition, £80k is peanuts to
you...
(If, on the other hand, you have no idea what the difference is and you
only bought EE because it sounds more "enterprisey", then you deserve
everything that comes to you!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
>> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
>> hobbiest user.
>
> And that's part of the justification for the price tag. If you're using
> this either the company has paid for it, or you're a professional who
> needs it...
That I don't mind so much. For example, an Oracle DB will cost you
almost as much as a small house (!!), but then again, why the hell would
you even need it if you're only a hobbiest? It's a tad overkill just for
sorting your CD collection.
> Like so much us proles have to wait
> until the spanking new features trickle down to the affordable software ;-)
Well, these days with open-source and all, for every big commercial
application, there's at least one OSS alternative that's vaguely useable.
MS Windows => Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, ReactOS...
MS Office => OpenOffice
Photoshop => The GIMP
Illustrator => Inkscape
Oracle => MySQL, PostgreSQL
VMware => VirtualBox, QEMU, Bochs, Xen...
In each case [except Office], the commercial version is greatly
superior, but the free version does work. So it's a case of how badly
you need a high-quality product.
What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and* defective...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:35:47 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
> defective...
and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed five
times.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
>> defective...
>
> and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
> it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed
> five times.
Hehehe, yeah, that tickled me too. Questionable Content FTW! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:14:40 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> MS Visual Studio 2010:
> about 1400 € for the "Professional" (= smallest!) ed.
> about 3150 € for the "Premium" ed.
> about 6650 € for the "Ultimate" ed.
No, the smallest edition is "Express", which costs about 0 €.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2010 15:56, schrieb Fredrik Eriksson:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:14:40 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> MS Visual Studio 2010:
>> about 1400 € for the "Professional" (= smallest!) ed.
>> about 3150 € for the "Premium" ed.
>> about 6650 € for the "Ultimate" ed.
>
> No, the smallest edition is "Express", which costs about 0 €.
Not exactly. While there are "Express" editions of the individual
languages (e.g. Visual C++ Express, Visual C# Express, etc.) there is no
such thing as a "MS Visual Studio 2010 Express edition", unless I'm
grossly mistaken.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:19:06 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> No, the smallest edition is "Express", which costs about 0 €.
>
> Not exactly. While there are "Express" editions of the individual
> languages (e.g. Visual C++ Express, Visual C# Express, etc.) there is no
> such thing as a "MS Visual Studio 2010 Express edition", unless I'm
> grossly mistaken.
While you can download each separately, you can also get them all as one
big ISO image. I would say that counts as an "edition". The fact that you
then launch each application separately is irrelevant; the same applies to
e.g. Adobe's Creative Suite.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:20:04 +0100, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:02:50 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:24:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>>>
>>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>>
>> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
>> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option,
>> so that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I
>> could find).
>
> That's not the upgrade price is it? The UK price for the cheapest CS4 is
> £620 on buy.com. Amazon are selling PS CS5 at £644.
No, but I priced it on the US buy.com site and converted the cost. I
didn't look for CS5.
>> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
>> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
>> hobbiest user.
>
> And that's part of the justification for the price tag. If you're using
> this either the company has paid for it, or you're a professional who
> needs it... or you're a student whom Adobe are trying to get hooked onto
> their software for later gains. Like so much us proles have to wait
> until the spanking new features trickle down to the affordable software
> ;-)
Yep, or use something else. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While you can download each separately, you can also get them all as one
> big ISO image. I would say that counts as an "edition". The fact that you
> then launch each application separately is irrelevant; the same applies to
> e.g. Adobe's Creative Suite.
Are there not some issues with projects that make use of more than one
language?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:57:00 +0200, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> While you can download each separately, you can also get them all as
>> one big ISO image. I would say that counts as an "edition". The fact
>> that you then launch each application separately is irrelevant; the
>> same applies to e.g. Adobe's Creative Suite.
>
> Are there not some issues with projects that make use of more than one
> language?
That would be one of the features you have to pay for.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> But is that because that's the UI they're used to?
Apparently not. The UI was designed to make the whole flow from beginning to
end more efficient.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/3/2010 1:16 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
first serious telephoto zoom lens :) And I'm mostly normal :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/4/2010 5:43 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:35:47 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake thusly:
>
>> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
>> defective...
>
> and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
> it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed
> five times.
>
Yeah... I'm expecting an update soon. It appears to hemorrhage memory
like mad. Though it hasn't crashed. I sat down the other morning to a
very angry Windows 7 complaining that Photoshop needed to be closed to
free some memory.
I popped over to process explorer and took a look: Private Bytes: 11
Gig...
so, now I restart it occasionally while working with it. ;)
I will say with regard to hobby that Photoshop and Visual studio are
probably used pretty frequently by serious hobbyists in their respective
fields.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
> first serious telephoto zoom lens :)
OK, those really *are* expensive!
(It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
> And I'm mostly normal :)
You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
*normal*?? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> > I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
> > first serious telephoto zoom lens :)
>
> OK, those really *are* expensive!
>
> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
I think it's well worth it, but still amusing anyway! :)
> > And I'm mostly normal :)
>
> You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
> *normal*?? :-P
Bingo! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:07:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>>
>> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
>> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option,
>> so that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I
>> could find).
>>
>> How much did you think it was?
>
> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
could get it for £361.58.
> (Weirdly enough, I can't seem to see a price for just Photoshop by
> itself, only Photoshop Elements is listed - or student versions, which
> obviously has totally different pricing.)
Yeah, I noticed that as well.
>>>> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user
>>>> CAL.
>>> Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
>>> other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
>>
>> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
>> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
>> hobbiest user.
>
> Well, yeah, there is that. It's not the package I'd choose to go out and
> buy. Then again, Mike apparently did...
Well, yeah, I have PhotoShop Elements, but it doesn't really run well
under WINE. I prefer the GIMP anyways.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
makes for poor quality photos.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
>
> Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
> that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
> simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
> makes for poor quality photos.
Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio just
to record the sound of a broken music box?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not at
tach
> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Woul
dn't
> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio jus
t
> to record the sound of a broken music box?
No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then view
ed
from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
to
take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour eac
h
day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that aren't
motion-blurred, or etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
>> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
>> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio
>> just to record the sound of a broken music box?
>
> No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
> taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then
> viewed from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
>
> The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
> to take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour
> each day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that
> aren't motion-blurred, or etc.
I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k
to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
with it?
(And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom lense.
Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The
normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that
expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:53 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Mostly, it is because the sensor in your camera is much larger than the
one in hers. Sensor size matters a lot; pixel density not so much. The
focal length of the lens is not in any way a reliable indicator of
quality; the lens in her camera is smaller because the tiny sensor does
not require a larger lens.
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
Again, sensor size is what matters most. For a given sensor format, the
difference in sensor "quality" between the low and high ends of the price
range is quite small.
Sensor size is very much a determining factor for the price of a camera
though.
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth.
Better controls/ergonomics, more accurate & sophisticated auto-focus,
better build quality, weather-proofing, and so on and so forth.
> If you've got £7k to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most
> possible camera to go with it?
The kind of people who buy lenses for £7k a piece do indeed tend to also
buy "pro" type cameras.
> (And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a
> zoom lense.
"zoom" means "variable focal length". I think the term you are looking for
is "tele-photo".
Besides, £7k is mere pocket change:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html
Note that this is the price for a *used* lens.
> Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia.
I do not think that is even theoretically possible. Maybe if you climb
Mount Kilimanjaro; I am too lazy to do the math...
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Exactly. And 45mm is a *small* lens for a good camera.
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £
7k
> to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
> with it?
People often do. It depends what they need, tho. The less you spend on a
camera body, the more you can spend on the lenses. ;-)
> (And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom l
ense.
> Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The
> normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that
> expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)
Yep.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:49:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> People often do. It depends what they need, tho. The less you spend on a
> camera body, the more you can spend on the lenses. ;-)
Yep, and with standardization of attachments, if you start out with a
cheap body, you can upgrade the body and use the lenses you purchased for
the lower resolution camera.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k
> to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
> with it?
You presume that, but in my experience what you get are 5 to 10 cameras
in a range that all have the same sensor and image quality but have a
few 'neat' features tacked on each progressive model for more cash. The
base model might shoot at up to 1/2000s or ISO 1600, but jump up in
price and you get higher speeds that most people will not use. The real
high end models do use different sensors than the lower price ones, but
again you have a range of cameras that have the same physical body and
sensor and shutter, with some minor variation in button color, lcd
screen, or options made available to the user. And, in some cases, the
terms of the MPEG license attached to the camera.
That, and the lens is going to last longer than the camera body. A seven
grand lens is going to continue to work when you find that you really
need ISO 3200, or 1/8000s shutter speed, or finally have the money to
upgrade to a full-frame sensor*. Heck, if you stay with the same brand
camera the lens may last longer than the format it was designed for. I
have old Minolta lenses that still work just fine on a new Sony Alpha. A
teleconverter is needed for the older full manual to auto-focus mount,
but that is all. Nikon and Pentax, I am told, hasn't changed their lens
mount 50 years or so.
*Assuming the lens is not designed as an APS-C crop with 'equivalent
focus range' and a circular image on a larger sensor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> terms of the MPEG license attached to the camera.
You'd be surprised.
> have old Minolta lenses that still work just fine on a new Sony Alpha.
Yeah, actually, I wound up with a camera that was slightly more expensive
and a bit heavier than I needed because it supported lenses that were older
than I am, which I obviously don't own. Had I understood that, I would have
gone the next body down.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach it
> to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't that
> be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio just to
> record the sound of a broken music box?
Maybe you just want to take sports photos for the web? Like this one:
http://freefootballstreaming.com/goal.jpg
That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound lens
to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright compared
to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you need a
*really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:15:55 +0100, Mike Raiford
<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> did spake thusly:
> On 5/4/2010 5:43 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:35:47 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
>> spake thusly:
>>
>>> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
>>> defective...
>>
>> and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
>> it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed
>> five times.
>
> Yeah... I'm expecting an update soon. It appears to hemorrhage memory
> like mad. Though it hasn't crashed. I sat down the other morning to a
> very angry Windows 7 complaining that Photoshop needed to be closed to
> free some memory.
>
> I popped over to process explorer and took a look: Private Bytes: 11
> Gig...
>
> so, now I restart it occasionally while working with it. ;)
Might be my quirk, but a little tickle in my head suggests that memory
management has often been a problem with the first releases of Photoshop.
> I will say with regard to hobby that Photoshop and Visual studio are
> probably used pretty frequently by serious hobbyists in their respective
> fields.
I suppose the path is Windows own 'editor', then Photoshop Elements, then
Photoshop depending on how serious you are. Still when you consider you
can get the latest Paint Shop Pro for under £80 and Elements for under £55
jumping up to £644 for Photoshop is a chasm.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> How much did you think it was?
>> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
>
> That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
> ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
No, I'm pretty sure that's what it actually costs.
OK, let's try Insight. (Sure, they're not the cheapest people around...)
Adobe Photoshop CS4: £587
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: £2,420
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium: £1,815
I'm not making these numbers up!
(Photoshop Elements, however, is only £60 - which matches other prices
I've seen around.)
>> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
>
> I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
> could get it for £361.58.
I cannot believe it's the same product. Not for 1/3rd of the price. It
can't be.
Then again, you said you got the price from a US website? Last time I
checked [back when £1 = $2], Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional was £400 in
the UK and $400 in the US. (IOW, the UK version was 2x the price.) I
don't know if that's still the case...
>> Well, yeah, there is that. It's not the package I'd choose to go out and
>> buy. Then again, Mike apparently did...
>
> Well, yeah, I have PhotoShop Elements, but it doesn't really run well
> under WINE. I prefer the GIMP anyways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound
> lens to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright
> compared to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you
> need a *really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).
Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no
matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor
just isn't of high enough quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
>> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
>> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
>
> Mostly, it is because the sensor in your camera is much larger than the
> one in hers. Sensor size matters a lot; pixel density not so much. The
> focal length of the lens is not in any way a reliable indicator of
> quality; the lens in her camera is smaller because the tiny sensor does
> not require a larger lens.
And here I was thinking that a larger lense lets more light in...
> Better controls/ergonomics, more accurate & sophisticated auto-focus,
> better build quality, weather-proofing, and so on and so forth.
From what I've seen, if you buy an expensive camera, you get all kinds
of crazy things like external flash, external exposure control (i.e.,
you can have a 2-hour exposure if you want), software remote control,
more colour balance settings than any sane person could possibly need,
and so on.
>> If you've got £7k to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most
>> possible camera to go with it?
>
> The kind of people who buy lenses for £7k a piece do indeed tend to also
> buy "pro" type cameras.
Which is what I was trying to say. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:52:05 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> did spake thusly:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:53 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
>> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
>> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
>
> Mostly, it is because the sensor in your camera is much larger than the
> one in hers. Sensor size matters a lot; pixel density not so much. The
> focal length of the lens is not in any way a reliable indicator of
> quality; the lens in her camera is smaller because the tiny sensor does
> not require a larger lens.
Tooting my horn I did an entire 4 part guide to digital cameras last year.
http://flipc.blogspot.com/2009/03/digital-camera-guide-part-1.html
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Tooting my horn I did an entire 4 part guide to digital cameras last year.
Heh. And perhaps you remember me remarking at the time that you can
apparently buy a £200 Nikon D40 (?) and attach a £7,000 telephoto lense
to it - as if you'd want to. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound
>> lens to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright
>> compared to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you
>> need a *really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).
>
> Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no
> matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor just
> isn't of high enough quality.
If it was bright enough and you were a metre or two away from the action
then even a cheap consumer digital camera should give a pretty decent image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visithra/321853035/
That one was taken with a Canon A620.
The most obvious difference to the pro photo is that the background doesn't
get blurred (due to the small sensor size and low focal length).
And of course you can't always stand 2 metres from the action and ask for
daylight :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Heh. And perhaps you remember me remarking at the time that you can
> apparently buy a £200 Nikon D40 (?) and attach a £7,000 telephoto lense to
> it - as if you'd want to. ;-)
A friend of mine borrowed a 7K (or similar) telephoto lens to put on his old
Canon 300D body when he went to watch an air show. The photos are
absolutely stunning, and I don't think if he had used a more expensive body
the photos would have been *much* better (but on the other hand, without the
big lens they would have been rubbish).
If you want to take action photos of things from far away under dodgy light,
then even the cheapest dSLR body will be fine, just get the biggest lens you
can afford.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
