Ilkka Nissila

I can't work with LR alone, I also need Photoshop to do any meaningful editing and finishing of photos. 20 years ago Photoshop cost about $700 which in today's money is $1150. If you don't need a new version in five years then the permanent licenses for PS and LR would have been roughly on par with the subscription cost (as the photographer's bundle), but I certainly want key software that I use updated more often than once in five years. And if you occasionally need Illustrator, Acrobat, Premiere etc. but not on a regular basis, the subscription makes access to those much cheaper as well (the full suite as a permanent license cost $2500 which would in today's money probably over $3000). Thousands, in any case. With subscription pricing you could just pay for a month or two and get the work done without having to purchase the lot. Although these programs have a lot features I don't need or use (since it's not only used by photographers but also various kinds of graphic designers and artists), I frequently see Adobe improve the software in ways that are meaningful to me. I obviously do not work for Adobe. My point is just that for me and others that I know, the subscription pricing made Adobe software accessible while previously it was not. My guess is that Adobe likely went with subscription pricing because they had a huge problem with pirated software as a lot of people chose not to pay but used cracked copies of the software, basically stealing. For video editing it makes a lot of sense to use Davinci Resolve since a lot of people prefer it to Premiere on its own merits, but it can be used for free (if you don't need certain features which require the paid version). It also supports Nikon N-RAW. However I suspect that eventually the free version disappears and this software will also become something you have to pay to use since software development is expensive.

So if there was a permanent license available, the grandmothers with 20 or 30 year old licensed software would install old operating systems in virtual boxes to run these outdated software and all the while doing so, make sure that the old OS's notorious security flaws are not attacked by hackers and the computer's security violated? I can see some highly competent technical people doing this (in fact I have a couple of Windows XP laptops for running old software but I don't in practice use them except in emergency if it should happen that there is no other way) but for the majority of regular users of cameras, this isn't really the best option. Instead, updating key software regularly to keep it up to date security and OS compatibility wise, and gaining valuable new features (AI subject selection makes selective edits massively less time consuming than manual drawing of masks, new noise-reduction algorithms and raw conversion algorithms have also improved greatly since Adobe went into the subscription model) and all the while keeping the software industry healthy is the best way to go for most ordinary users. Getting regular software improvements without separate expensive purchasing decisions is a great benefit. And there are tons of alternatives to Adobe software, some are free and some cost a lot of money. IMO Adobe now is among the best value software for still photography, not so much for video. In the perpetual license era most of their software was too expensive to justify financially.

In Arri's case they offer (1) Alexa 35 with all features included in the purchase price, (2) Alexa 35 base model with the most commonly used features enabled, and (2a) subscription to optional features that you may need for a specific project, (2b) permanent licensing of those features that you want to keep, so the subscription is just one option and permanent licenses to those features are available if you want them. I don't understand what the issue is. Having more options in how the payment is made is good and means more people/companies will be able to afford the stuff. No one is complaining that leasing or renting cars (or getting a taxi ride) are available in addition to the option of purchasing and owning a car. Public transport tickets are available on a single trip, load value, or pay for use for a period of time basis. Again no one is complaining about the existence of these options. Why then is subscription software or firmware as an option a problem? I think people are complaing about these things because they don't understand that software development costs money and if you want to continue developing a particular piece software in the future you probably need to keep those same people who developed it continuously employed so that you can do it efficiently in the future. If you have to let the people who developed something go, to add features, the cost is multiplied because no one new initially understands the existing code. The subscription model works best for software because it enables continued employment so the knowledge of how the software works internally is not lost. Today since operating systems are continuously changed, the applications software also needs frequent maintenance. So for Adobe the subscription model works best. They are able to maintain broad hardware support and have a huge library of cameras and lenses that are supported in terms of raw processing and lens corrections. The subscription cost is really low for the (still) photography software kit (LR + PS) and while the other stuff is kind of expensive, it was always expensive even in the then-thought-permanent license era. And as there are free or inexpensive options available for the tasks which Adobe prices expensively (Davinci Resolve instead of Premiere Pro), there is something for everyone available in the market. What would be much worse is that people rely on a particular product and have a lot of material made with it and suddenly those files could not be opened or edited as a result of the company making the software ending their operations or support of the product.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd find Moire with this camera. With 4K120 and 4K60 without "Extended oversampling", sure, since these settings lead to line skipping, there will be aliasing. I did see aliasing occasionally with the 36 MP D810 but on the 45 MP models it seems to require using extremely sharp lenses at their optimal apertures. I usually shoot either wider than that (i.e. f/1.4-f/2.8) or stopped down (f/8-11) and at these apertures it is rare on 45 MP. At f/5.6, sure. Overheating should be mitigated by using cards that are cool-running and perhaps also avoiding the most demanding video modes. I've never seen a heat indicator on the Z8 though I have seen it on the smaller Zf body. Though it must be stated that I live in Finland which isn't the hottest place on Earth and I did base my card purchases on the available information on which cards run the coolest. 😉 A little bit of sunlight? How much exactly?

I completely agree. The fully articulating screen on the Zf is a pain to use, as in order to use it tilted, I need to fold it out to the left (rotating it on its axis 180 degrees and then 170 degrees to the left on the other axis), and at least for me the camera strap gets in the way often when doing this, and can also block the EVF proximity sensor which then turns off the LCD. Further, the LCD is then off axis vs. the optical axis of the lens. The LCD folded out gets in the way of supporting the camera when doing macro work on the ground (low to the ground). The Z8 two-axis tilting screen keeps the screen appoximately on-axis for all orientations and can be adjusted to different angles for vertical and horizontal shooting (including even mixed tilt angles) easily. I think the Z8 system is better for everything except photographing or videographing one's own face. However, I can believe that the fully articulating mechanism may be lighter and less expensive to make.

A 200-800 may be appropriate for wildlife documentary but adding TCs to an f/9 long lens to increase the size of long-distance subjects in the image is unlikely to be very useful. The aperture with a 2X will be f/18 and usually one starts to see significant blurring due to diffraction at f/13 and smaller. The best use of TCs is generally for increasing the magnification at close to intermediate distances where the image quality degradation is not significantly present. At long distances, especially when photographing over water, the temperature variations across layers of air, and humidity in the air, distorts and blurs the image and the longer your focal length, the more obvious it becomes. It's almost always better to be in a location which allows the wildlife to get closer and then shoot without a TC. I'm saying "almost" because there are situations where the light is good only when photographing subjects at longer distances and at closer distances the light is blocked by trees, hills etc. so in that case the longer focal length is needed to get the good light (but atmospherics still apply). In a video, the small aperture may not be a critical issue as the shutter speed is typically lower than in stills (e.g., 1/50s to 1/100 s when at 25 or 50 fps), bright sunlight giving f/16 1/100 s at ISO 100, for example. However, bright sunlight can lead to harsh shadows and in order it to look good, it should come at the right angle (which is usually low above the horizon). At low angles the sunlight is attenuated more by the longer distance of travel in the atmosphere. This generally improves the quality of light on the subject but the quantity is reduced. For stills, usually people want high sharpness in the details of the animal which can dictate a faster shutter speed such as 1/400 s or even 1/3200 s for birds-in-flight. A lot of the time there are clouds and in many cases the most atmospheric and beautiful light is before and after sunrise and sunset, and in those conditions you might be at ISO 25600 even with a f/5.6 lens. A lot of wildlife are the most active in these time windows. So the best times-of-day for photography might not be possible with an f/9 lens let alone f/18. Having the skills to pan effectively make it possible to do some shots successfully in lower light by allowing the subject to have controlled movement blur (sharp head, blurry wings, landscape blurred into trails) but this requires great skills. Even though some softness can be corrected with sharpening and noise-reduction algorithms, garbage-in-garbage-out still applies. A lens with a really small aperture means usually elevated ISO and increased noise. A 200-800+2X will have significantly reduced contrast over a native 1200 mm lens, for example, and if the noise is increased by the need to use fast shutter speeds and higher ISO, then the deciding parameter (contrast divided by noise) in terms of the clarity of subject details will be reduced from multiple factors: atmospherics, low-light-noise, reduced contrast due to use of imperfect optical system (with TC), all working to make it harder to get high-quality images. I'm not saying it's not a good idea to use a lens like the 200-800 for the stated purpose; especially for video with the camera+lens on a tripod and fluid head, it may be a very practical compromise for travel-based wildlife photography, but one should have realistic expectations and when people talk about 2X use to magnify long-distance subjects with a small-aperture lens, then I can't really but feel that the OP hasn't thought it out through and might not have a lot of experience with very long lenses. I think a lens like the 100-500 is much more travel-friendly and might give a greater pleasure of the experience but it also requires you to be closer to the wildlife or select subjects that work with that range. It might be a good idea to take both the 100-500 and 200-800 and use the 200-800 when you feel up to it (traveling can be exhausting) and when photographing subjects which require the reach while the 100-500 can be carried along more casually and with other lenses. For video I think fluid head and tripod give the best results when it comes to these focal lengths, but a fluid head won't easily adopt to regular photography with shorter focal lengths such as landscape in low light. A 1600 mm lens is going to be tough to keep steady no matter what gear is used.

I think the solution is to have distribution channels independent of the USA. Create your own streaming platforms for content made regionally and also internationally (among movie-producing countries that don't go into trade wars with each other). This way the market becomes much more healthy and less dominated by a small number of current players that are very large. Of course I understand that funding can be an issue, but such platforms could gather public financing (either via subscriptions that are a bit larger than the big platforms' fees initially, or via government or intergovernmental support from tax money). The streaming costs that a platform incurs are dependent on the quantity of content and if the focus is on quality, this shouldn't be a huge issue.

I think personally that while I can make the 24-70 & 70-200 combination to work for me, a lot of the time something in-between would be useful, as I mentioned before, in portraiture. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were still a lot of lenses with intermediate ranges such as 50-135/3.5, 75-150/3.5, 35-135/3.5-4.5, 35-105/2.8 etc. but somehow these disappeared and standard zooms started at 24 mm and telezooms at 70 mm, 80 mm, or 100 mm. In portraiture a range that is between the two (24-70 and 70-200) would be ideal. I think the reason why 24-70 became the standard "pro" zoom is that when the first digital SLRs came with 1.3x, 1.5x, and 1.6x sensors they needed the standard zoom to have shorter focal lengths, so instead of a 28-105 or 28-80 they would make a 24-70 and 24-105. Of course, then came lenses like the 17-55/2.8 specifically for 1.5x / 1.6x sensors. But anyway the 24-70 range stuck and now some photographers would consider a zoom that starts at 28 mm too limiting even "useless". This I don't agree with, and I'd be happy to have an in-between range zoom such as 50-150 or similar. To me this sounds a very practical lens and not at all weird. However, the f/2.0 maximum aperture does make it a bit big and heavy and I can see the objective is to replace primes for some users. If it becomes popular, perhaps they can make an f/2.8 zoom with a similar range. The f/2.0 makes the lens expensive as well. I notice a 4600 EUR initial price in Finland (incl. 25.5% VAT) vs. $3900 (not including VAT) at B&H. This seems absurd considering the tariff situation, it's like they slapped on the price increase from the tariffs on both regions instead of just where it is actually applied. I think it's completely unrealistic to expect most European customers to even consider this lens at a 4600 EUR price point. I would expect the price to fall rather quickly if Sony wants to sell these lenses.

I think an intermediate range like this would be good for portraits, where a 70-200 might not always be short enough and is a bit too head shot focused, while the 24-70 is a bit short for narrow head shots but otherwise is good. 50-150 mm sounds good, though because of the f/2 aperture, this lens is quite big and heavy. It has no in-lens stabilization so the stabilization is only in the body. I personally understand why manufacturers don't pre-fit their lens feet or cameras with quick-release dovetails as these can be uncomfortable to hold in the hand and there are so many different, incompatible systems. I would prefer something like a 40 mm to 135 mm range with f/2.8 aperture as the images from the f/2 zooms don't appeal to my sense of aesthetics and the focal range would be easier to get a full-body image if needed in a pinch. It would also be smaller and lighter than the 50-150/2.0.

Rich people do. "Buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own."

For (stills) photography, I actually calibrate my editing display so that its range is 0.4 to 90 nit. This matches approximately the contrast range of light reflecting from photographic prints. The display is capable of greater brightness and deeper blacks but I don't normally use that. If I use that display to view streamed video content, the limitation in dynamic range doesn't bother me (I'm not sure if the streaming actually follows the calibrated settings or go outside of it). The display has a "hood" which blocks stray light from the window and other parts of the room, so that avoids most of the reflections that might bother the viewing experience otherwise. I also have a TV which has an OLED screen and a very high contrast ratio (Sony xr-48a90k) and it gives a very high quality viewing experience. It takes into account ambient light brightness and adjusts the brightness and contrast to give an optimal experience in those conditions, so it works better than a projector when viewing during the day. The resolution is also very high, and the streaming applications adjust the TV settings to be optimal for the content they present. I think it's an amazing experience. I don't know what the actual contrast range of the display is (Sony says only that it's near infinite, marketing speak). Apple makes phone and computer screens with what they call Super Retina XDR where they claim the contrast range is 1000000:1 or something like that, but I don't know how accurate the claims are. That would be like 19 stops of dynamic range, if it is true. However, I suspect that kind of content dynamic range cannot be accurately seen in practice because of reflections from the display and also the viewing space. But, what these displays seem to give is a good viewing experience in varying ambient conditions. For stills photography, Adobe has some support for HDR images (I don't mean the usual way the HDR term is used in photography, where multiple exposures are tone-mapped to a result which displays well on SDR displays but actual support of HDR displays without tone mapping). However, the problem with this is that browser support is limited, and if you view a HDR image on an SDR display, you might get a distorted image that doesn't look correct. The Retina XDR display is amazing when viewing high scene contrast ratio photographs converted from RAW images for HDR viewing, it almost feels like a photo of a sunlit scene looks like you were viewing it in the location yourself. However, somehow software support needs to be developed so that both HDR and SDR versions of images can be distributed online and viewed according to the display that you have, since it's unlikely that all displays would be "real" HDR in the near future (increased power consumption etc.) I personally think the technology is amazing, but it's largely unnecessary and somewhat impractical (due to limiting the viewers that can see the images correctly). It seems HDR on the video side is more established and most TVs have some HDR capabilities, and the applications have some ability to adjust to the screen and ambient conditions for optimal experience (at least on my TV). So I would disagree that the displays don't exist, they do. But high dynamic range in cameras has uses also when producing content for SDR displays. On the stills side, people often make masks and dodge and burn the images to be able to get a more human-viewer-like experience within the limitations of SDR media such as SDR displays and prints. In video often there is the situation that you can't set up your own lights and the windows bring in bright daylight and you still have to be able to take video of people doing their activities indoors, hopefully without blowing out the windows. You can deal with this in post-processing somehow (I often reduce highlight contrast and lift the main subject up), or use in-camera tone-mapping techniques (such as Nikon D-Lighting). All of these approaches require a good dynamic range in the capture device to result in a low-noise image in the final result. In dimmer, artificial, lighting conditions when the daylight is gone, ideally one would not blow out the lights when the subject is correctly exposed, for a pleasing final result, again, log video here can help. If the purpose is just to make a video where the subject can be seen clearly and the functional purpose of the photography or video is satisfied, then most cameras made within the 15 years can easily suffice. However, often there are aesthetic objectives that go beyond just the functional information-transfer main goal, and these can be satisfied better with the newer tools.

What happens next is limitless exploitation of the planet's resources for the personal gain of the dictators of the various regimes. War and selfish overuse of resources are clearly not good for the planet. The people in charge couldn't care less about the world or its environment. Some European leaders have tried to show a different path but now are told to arm with 5% of their GDP (which is IMO ridiculous and can only lead to further harm). With current technology, a set of dictatorial powers fighting it out for resources will lead to damage on a previously unseen level.

I think it's not clear whether the MAGA politicians are rational or not. Clearly, many of them know little about the government of states, which explains why there is so much fumbling about and obvious mistakes and unintended consequences. However, it's clear that Trump is a con artist. He is using the power of the presidency for personal gain. Just now there are videos showing how Trump is bragging about how he and his friends made a lot of money by taking advantage of the stock market fluctuations caused by Trump's tariffs (being turned on and off). This is entirely rational behavior from a con artist and a narcissist. He's got the all-clear from the Supreme Court that he can't be held responsible for his official actions as president in court. Congress could still hold him responsible (impeachment), and the people maybe can (if there are free elections in the future) but it could very well happen that he gets away with it, and he's old enough that even if he does go into prison, he wouldn't be there for a long time. Tariff wars tend to be followed by actual wars where people die. That's why the EU was founded, by removing tariffs between European states, it was thought that wars between the states can be avoided, which has been the case so far. However, for Trump, the tariffs are just a means towards personal enrichment (and his friends' enrichment), plus getting a lot of personal attention in the media that he craves.

It's like the polar opposite of how people view things in my country. If someone is rich, in my country, many people will invariably feel that that person didn't get rich via honest work but instead probably did something either unlawful (stole something, didn't pay taxes, smuggled something etc.) or at least morally questionable (oppressed workers for personal gain). And so it's something to be ashamed of rather than proud.

Can you explain? As a European I am completely lacking understanding of how American voters make decisions. I did live in the US for two years, but things weren't then how they are now. And it was in Massachusetts, so that may not count. I would think that those who are poor and lower middle class would not want to be swindled and wealth transferred to the ultra-rich, nor can I see any benefit in voting in favor of policies of the current US government (including stock manipulation but also in general, high tariffs).