The good news is that there's some competition again for software to edit and catalog raw images, the detailed and flexible file formats from higher-end cameras. The bad news is that anybody buying the software has a harder choice to make.
With the new Aperture now available and Lightroom just celebrating its first birthday, I thought it opportune to survey readers. What would you buy? What would you advise somebody else?
News.com Poll
Please vote in the poll here, and share your reasoning in the Talkback section below to enlighten others.
Photographers would be best to think carefully about which software to purchase, and not just because of the necessary investments of time and money. Unlike applications such as Photoshop, which can easily be substituted or used in conjunction with other software, Lightroom and Aperture are equipped to extend their tentacles to manage your library of images.
In essence, that means the software can be a gatekeeper to your data--not the original images, but the editing settings, titles, captions, tags, and organizational structure. For me, having a rich, searchable catalog is definitely worth it, but tread carefully before you commit, because it'll be difficult to extricate yourself.
Apple was first to enter the higher-end photo software market with Aperture in 2005, but the software languished at the same time Adobe Systems released and rapidly updated Photoshop Lightroom over 2007. But now Apple is back in the game with Aperture 2.0, which reproduces some features in Lightroom, boosts performance, and has a price tag $100 less than Lightroom's $300.
Pros and cons
Both packages are solid overall, but there are some features I preferred with one or the other. Here's how I see things stacking up--be warned, though, that I've used Lightroom for countless hours but by comparison only dabbled with Aperture 2.0.
Let's start with the interface. I like Lightroom's pull-out panels--as many as four--that can be deployed or tucked away as needed. Most of the time I only have zero, one, or two showing.
But I think Aperture makes smart design decisions with a few interface options. Its movable panel isn't very obtrusive, and now in 2.0 you can toggle it easily between editing, tagging, and file management modes. For me, editing and adding metadata such as titles, captions, and tags are much closer operations than the big divide between Lightroom's develop and library modules would suggest, and I don't like switching back and forth between editing and tagging.
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is used to edit and catalog photos, chiefly the raw images that come from higher-end digital cameras.
(Credit: Adobe Systems)Speaking of metadata, though, one option I like better with Lightroom is the ability to assign five colors to photos (but where's the keyboard shortcut for purple?). The one- to five-star ratings that both packages offer is dandy, but I use colors to classify photos in other ways.
It looks to me like Aperture has a better search interface, especially for complicated operations that combine multiple parameters such as keywords, date ranges, and the handy photos-I-actually-edited filter. I've sometimes gotten bogged down swimming through Lightroom search. And I love the smart folders feature, which automatically updates a folder that's been set to watch for a particular attribute. For example, with Lightroom, I would love for the software to automatically add a photo with a specific recurring tag to a particular collection.
On to editing. For sophistication, I'd give the edge to Adobe, though to be fair I haven't looked in detail at important aspects of Aperture, namely noise reduction and edge sharpening. I sometimes find those wanting in Lightroom.
I like Lightroom's targeted adjustment tool (TAT), which lets you adjust the tone curve as well as color saturation and luminance by clicking on the relevant portion of the image directly and dragging the mouse up and down. And Adobe was smart to actually employ user testing to determine which colors are individually adjustable--orange has more psychological importance than most software, including Aperture, gives it. And I'm a big fan of tone-curve adjustments, though I sometimes wish Lightroom divided the curve up into five or six subranges instead of four.
One unknown is the plug-in future of both applications. Right now Lightroom has a software development kit for export options, and there's work of unknown scope to come. Apple said it's future SDK will permit editing plug-ins, too, which Adobe says is a difficult challenge. On the other hand, Adobe's already got some editing plug-ins of a sort, with the ability to import custom settings for all manner of adjustment options.
Apple's Aperture is used to edit and catalog photos.
(Credit: Apple)One major edge Lightroom has had is much earlier support of the raw image files of new cameras. Apple said it was held back by an overhaul of its raw-processing engine and that things should now go more swiftly, but it'll take real work to win back the hearts of disgruntled Nikon D300 owners. In the meantime, Apple now can make use of Adobe Systems' Digital Negative (DNG) format as an intermediate step to handle raw files Adobe supports and Apple doesn't.
Something Aperture does better is vignetting, the darkened corners that once were a lens deficiency but now have caught on (altogether too widely in my opinion) as an effect to focus attention on the center of an image. Lightroom can fix lens vignetting or add it to a full image, but if you want to apply the effect to a cropped version of the photo, only Aperture offers that mechanism.
Correcting lens problems is a real issue, though, and Lightroom has a chromatic aberration correction I find very useful. It lets you fix some of the magenta, red, yellow, and blue fringes that show up in high-contrast areas, especially near the corners of images, and it also can alleviate the purple fringing overall. Aperture lacks this.
Performance is better with Aperture 2.0 (it was faster on the dual-core iMac I played with than Aperture 1.5 was on a quad-core Mac Pro I used for Aperture 1.5), and a particularly nice feature is the ability to work in a preview mode that employs only JPEGs--either the images built into the raw image or an Aperture-rendered version. You can't edit with it, but it's good enough at least for the first pass through a photo shoot to delete the duds and add tags and titles.
Looking beyond editing, my expertise thins out because I don't do much in the way of exporting photos to Web galleries or printing at home. But I will note one Aperture advantage: Apple expanded its book-export options with 2.0, and Lightroom has no answer so far. That's a drag for wedding photographers and amateurs (like me) who want to whip up a quick birthday present for the grandparents.
Of course, one of the biggest advantages Lightroom has is a Windows version, and that alone is likely to ensure its market dominance over Apple. And where Apple has a lot going on with iPods and iPhones, image editing is Adobe's bread and butter. Should those externalities be factors, too? Weigh in.
LAS VEGAS--The camera companies keep telling me the megapixel race isn't over, but I'd like to see if you have a different opinion.
I'm one of those people who doesn't believe more megapixels necessarily makes for a better digital camera. Sure, at least theoretically having more megapixels permits larger prints and tighter cropping, but it also can impose penalties such as image noise, lousy low-light performance, smeary noise-reduction artifacts, and other drawbacks. There's a trade-off here.
News.com Poll
So it's time to vote now for what you'd benefit from more in a camera: more megapixels or higher sensitivity. Click the button to register your opinion and explain yourself below in the TalkBack section if you want to make your case in more detail.
Camera makers seem unable to resist the temptation of higher megapixels in compact cameras right now, marching on past 10 megapixels to 12. But in the SLR domain, where buyers are more sophisticated and larger image sensors provide more leeway, there are some interesting trade-offs going on.
Most interesting to me right now is Canon's approach. Its entry-level EOS Rebel XSi is a 12-megapixel model, but one step up the ladder is the 10-megapixel 40D. The Rebel's XSi top sensitivity is ISO 1,600, but the 40D offers 3,200.
Canon and Nikon provide another contrast with their top-end models. Canon's $8,000 1Ds Mark III offers 21 megapixels, while Nikon's $5,000 D3 has 12 megapixels. The 1Ds Mark III reaches ISO 6,400, but the D3 can go to 25,600 in a pinch. (Although these are top-end models, Canon's $4,500 1D Mark III, with 10.7 megapixels and maximum ISO of 6,400 but a smaller image sensor than the D3, is probably a more direct comparison with the D3.)
Now that we're beyond the 2-megapixel era, I'd prefer better sensitivity over a couple extra megapixels. I find myself much more constrained by dim conditions or fast-moving subjects such as children and wildlife than by insufficient pixel quantity. I've blown up my 8-megapixel camera's images to 20x30-inch prints without trouble.
Take a pixel peep at the cropped photo I took with the Nikon D3 of a BMW racing by on a Las Vegas track at about 80 miles per hour. The picture won't be gracing the pages of Sports Illustrated, but using ISO 6,400 let me freeze the action with a 1/8000 shutter speed, and the full image looks fine.
I recognize it's not a simple case that sensitivity is better than megapixels, and clearly some people may have different priorities. If you're in controlled studio conditions and shooting stock photos, a market that sometimes pays by the pixel, more pixels is probably helpful. And lacking a mammoth telephoto lens, I do sometimes wish I had more pixels left over after I crop heavily to better show a bird.
This is a 100 percent crop of a photo I shot with a 12-megapixel Nikon D3 at a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec., f/7.1, at ISO 6,400, with Nikon's new 24-70mm lens. Sure, there's lots of noise and the colors aren't as vivid as they could be, but ISO 6,400 will let you freeze the action of a BMW racing past at about 80 miles per hour (which means the top edge of the wheel is going about 160mph). This crop is from the in-camera JPEG.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET Networks)Optical resolution is another issue. Lower-end and sometimes even expensive lenses can lack sufficient sharpness to really take advantage of all the pixels on the sensor.
Gratuitous megapixels have other drawbacks besides noise. Image processors that convert sensor data into a JPEG have to do more work--especially with the double whammy that they often must use more sophisticated but power-hungry noise-reduction work.
Perhaps most obviously, more megapixels means memory cards and hard drives fill up faster. Sure, storage is cheap, but what if what you're storing is bulkier but no better?
There are signs that the industry is moving beyond its megapixels-uber-alles worldview. When Panasonic unveiled a number of compact cameras at a press conference Tuesday at the Photo Marketing Association trade show here, the company took pains to emphasize all the attributes besides megapixels it hopes to use to sell cameras.
You know where I stand on the issue. Let's hear your voice.
Update 8:30 a.m. PST: Here's my response to the issue of sensor size raised in some TalkBack comments.
Increasing the sensor size while holding megapixels constant can let manufacturers improve sensitivity, too. However, that's another trade-off because larger sensors cost a lot more to manufacture. I chose the 12 megapixel/ISO 1,600 vs. 10 megapixel/ISO 3,200 comparison because it's a real reflection of choices Canon had in its Rebel XSi vs. 40D.
It's not practical for Canon to fix the sensitivity problem simply by dumping smaller APS-C sensors and moving to full-frame. The cheapest full-frame camera today, Canon's 5D, costs at least $2,100 with no lens, which is hardly competitive in the entry-level SLR market.
It's easier to vary sensor size in compact cameras where the built-in lens can be matched to the sensor. (Indeed, Canon increased the sensor size slightly from the PowerShot G7 generation to the G9.) But the same cost trade-off applies there too, and compact camera buyers are even more price-sensitive.
Update 8:12 a.m. PST: We added Fujifilm to the poll.
Canon and Nikon dominate the SLR camera business, but if you're entering the market or buying a new camera, it would behoove you to look at other options, too.
One interesting question, though, is who's got the best alternatives today. It's a relevant question for someone buying a first SLR or deciding whether to stick with an existing brand or change. From another perspective, who should Nikon and Canon be fretting about most among competitors?
I'd love to see your vote and hear your likes and dislikes, and other thoughts in the Talkback section below.
News.com Poll
There are two broad classes of alternatives. First, the companies that already have an established presence in the camera market: Fujifilm, Leica, Olympus, Pentax, and Sigma. Second are the newcomers from the consumer electronics realm: Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony.
There are some alliances here that make that rough division more complicated than might appear at first blush. First, Sony's SLR effort is built on the assets it acquired from Konica-Minolta, a longtime SLR maker. Second, Samsung's SLRs at present are basically rebadged Pentax models with some minor differences, such as a blue ring around the lenses rather than a green one. Third, Panasonic has a technology partnership with Leica, and both those makers' lenses use the Four Thirds system that Olympus founded when it introduced digital SLRs.
Those partnerships all are important not just because the newcomers can get a technological boost, but also because it means buyers have a wider choice of lenses. A lot of people never buy any lens besides the basic "kit" lens that came with the camera. But for those who want to grow, it's good to have a bunch of telephotos, wide angles, fixed-focal length primes, macros, and fisheyes to choose from.
I'm not sure if this is a coincidence, but one thing that unites all those chasing Nikon and Canon is the decision to build image stabilization into the camera body rather than into the lens. With that approach, the image sensor shifts side to side and sometimes rotationally to compensate for the photographer's shaky hands. It also means that image stabilization works with older lenses and doesn't have to be built into new ones. On the flip side, Nikon and Canon argue for putting image stabilization into the lens, which they argue produces better results.
Another big difference is that only Nikon and Canon so far have models with full-frame image sensors.
If you're wedded to the big two, you might be curious to know how users voted earlier this month in our Canon vs. Nikon SLR poll: Nikon beat Canon with 55 percent of more than 11,000 voters. (Yes, we do employ measures to prevent people from voting multiple times.)
But for those evaluating the alternatives, here are some other tidbits to consider.
• The Four Thirds allies have the benefit of a clean break from the film past, with all-new lenses designed for the sensors that are smaller than a full frame of 35mm film. That means they could design lenses that are smaller and cheaper than those who have to worry about supporting older film cameras or who are planning on offering full-frame models in the future. And it means customers can intermix nice lenses from one company with cameras from another, a nice break from the usual SLR lens incompatibility barriers.
• Images from Four Thirds cameras have an aspect ratio of 4:3 (surprise!), the squarish proportions used in standard-definition TVs. But 35mm film cameras, as well as the digital SLRs from Pentax, Samsung, Sony, and Sigma, use a more 3:2 ratio. Personally, I prefer the latter, since it permits more dramatic vertical or horizontal orientations. And bear in mind that HDTV uses an even wider 16:9 ratio.
• Fujifilm uses the same camera bodies as Nikon, meaning that the lenses are compatible, but it uses its own sensor design, called SuperCCD. These sensors employ an unconventional pixel layout that in effect devotes two sensor sites to each pixel, expanding the dynamic range of the image at the expense of a lower overall pixel count.
• Sony not only has benefit of its Konica-Minolta history, it also has a lot of in-house manufacturing expertise--notably image sensors. That allows it to control more of its own destiny, plump up profit margins, and tightly integrate components.
• Sigma uses Foveon's unusual image sensor in its SD14 digital SLR. Most image sensors have a checkerboard pattern of red, green, and blue pixels; the camera processes the data to produce red, green, and blue values for each pixel after the fact. In contrast, Foveon's sensor captures red, green, and blue data for each pixel. In theory that could mean images with finer detail and fewer pesky artifacts, but in practice it's hard to overlook the conspicuous absence so far of Foveon chips elsewhere in the industry.
• Panasonic and Sony have released only two SLRs each so far, one in 2006 and one in 2007, but bet on them to flesh out their product lines to reach a broader market. Sony in particular has promised a new professional-grade model--an ambitious move--but the company already has released a sizable number of new lenses.
• Olympus and Pentax may not have the professional-market clout of Canon and Nikon, but they're trying hard to appeal to higher-end users. Olympus' new, top-end E-3 and Pentax's flagship K10D both are designed to resist water and dust, for example.
In this corner, Nikon's D3 and its brethren.
(Credit: Nikon)
And in this corner, Canon's 5D et al.
(Credit: Canon)Be honest here for a second.
If you're taking pictures with an SLR, there's a very good chance you're using either a Nikon or Canon camera, and therefore there's a good chance your loyalties are set. But what would you do if asked to give advice to somebody upgrading from a compact camera to a single-lens reflex model? Or what if you were a pro making a fresh start?
With SLRs suddenly very popular, we decided to run a poll to see what the fans out there have to say. So take a step back, think carefully for a moment, cast your vote in the News.com Poll box, then weigh in with your opinion in the Talkback section below.
Here's how I see the competition right now. Canon has dominated the digital SLR market, but Nikon is coming on strong.
Nikon's entry-level D40 and D40x models are relatively affordable, and it's putting image stabilization into even entry-level lenses. The image-stabilized 18-200mm lens has been Nikon's best-selling model ever, and Canon still doesn't have an equivalent for the folks who either want just one all-purpose lens or who are looking for a single lens to schlep on a vacation. Nikon's D80 and D200 were solid mid-range models, and the new D300 looks to be another strong contender.
News.com Poll
But Nikon's real broadside came with the D3, the first SLR to follow Canon's high-end lead with models featuring image sensors the size of a full frame of 35mm film. Most SLRs feature less-expensive, smaller sensors that, at least in theory, have lower sensitivity for a given number of pixels, and that make SLR lenses behave differently compared to the film era. The D3 emphasizes pixel quality rather than pixel quantity, with ISO levels reaching to 25,600 in a pinch. Unlike Canon's full-frame models, it accepts lenses designed for smaller-sensor cameras by employing data only from the smaller central portion of the sensor.
Take the case of Greg Wilson, whose side business is Tiger Aerial Photography and who just bought a D300 even though his D200 is relatively new. "With the D300, I can now shoot at ISO 400 or even ISO 640 and get the same quality image as my D200 at ISO 200," he said. "If I did aerial photography 40 hours per week, I'd jump at the D3."
At the same time, Canon stumbled with its new EOS-1D Mark III, repairing and updating thousands of cameras after problems with a central feature, autofocus. Longtime Canon photographer Michael Reichmann decided it's time to let Nikon back into the fold.
But it would be foolish to discount either Canon's current popularity or its future product pipeline.
Here are some strengths. Its midrange EOS 40D has won favorable reviews for features such as revamped autofocus, a fast frame rate, weather sealing, and low image noise. Canon's third-generation full-frame flagship, the 1Ds Mark III that just started shipping, has a whopping 21.1 megapixels, leading Canon to position it against even higher-end medium-format rivals. Canon's solid base of professional photographers, built up through years of work, helps ensure a steady supply of high-quality new lenses. By designing and making its own SLR sensors, it's able to control some its destiny and tightly integrate technology. And it's adding image stabilization to lower-end lenses.
Perhaps Canon's best competitive point against Nikon is its EOS 5D, its lower-priced full-frame camera. It currently costs about $2,100--not much more than a $1,800 smaller-frame D300 and a lot less than the $5,000 full-frame D3. The 5D is popular with enthusiasts, landscape photographers, stock-art specialists, and wedding photographers. And it's 2 years old, so don't be surprised if the rumored sequel (the 5D Mark II? The 7D?) is announced pretty soon.
I know there are plenty of other single-lens reflex choices out there besides the two heavyweights: Olympus, Sony, Sigma, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung. We'll save that for our next poll, though.
- prev
- 1
- next
