TMcD Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The update is available on Creative Cloud. I applied it 4 days ago and it will take care of your issue. I was once an Aperture user as well. I made the switch to Lightroom quite some time ago when Apple dropped their support. Now that I'm past most of the learning curve I find that I like it considerably more than Aperture.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Do a search on this site. Then formulate a question that it is possible to answer. I could waste my time telling you all about the virtues of the GX8 when what you want is a full frame camera. The term 'mirrorless' covers too large a gamut. Its like asking "Anybody using a digital camera? which one and why, or why not?"

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Aperture is dead. Apple announced quite some time ago that NO new development is forthcoming. Switch to Photos plus Affinity Photo, or the Lightroom and Photoshop CC bundle.

OTOH, Apple does add raw codecs to its operating system on a regular basis. As long as Aperture still works on your OS, and Apple still updates your OS, new camera profiles will probably work.

Still, I'd formulate an exit strategy now.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

That seems odd to me. I've been handling E-M5 Mark ii raw files for months in Lightroom.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

This might help: $100 off, plus a free lens:

https://www.adorama.com/iomem5m2b.html

tfblack Loc: Moraga, CA

Apple ceased support of Aperture since June of 2014. After ditching Aperture with 3.0 as most recent (and final) version, it came out with Photos, which is supposed to be an upgrade of iPhoto, ashcanned at same time as Aperture. Instead, there is Photos, which is a joke, a huge step backward for anyone serious about editing images. Apple seems content to have left millions of loyal Aperture users in the lurch. Shameful.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I have experience owning two Sonys and a Fuji. All three of them were excellent purchases. I got an a6000 in 2014 in anticipation of my 2015 trip to Europe and the Mediterranean. I had excellent results. The only negative was that the a6000 did not have mic jack and the only way to get sound to it is with the Sony microphones for the multi interface shoe. Since I enjoy shooting video and no camera mics work well, I was anxious for the a6300 which did have a mic jack.

The a6300 which I purchased within days of its release to the market has been providing me with many great images. It has a few additional features, with probably the fastest AF in any camera on the market. It has better "eye-af" than the a6000, but is only marginally better than the a6000 otherwise. If I didn't occasionally like to shoot video, I would have been happy to stay with the a6000.

I just finished mounting a showing of 14 prints. Most of the images came from one or the other of these Sonys. A couple were from my Nikon d7100. I like my Sonys enough that I have sold all my Nikon gear.

The Fuji was also a very fine camera. While it had a few less features, it took excellent photos. It was 16mpxl vs the Sony's 24mpxl. The Xe1 is a slightly older model and the more up to date models compete well with the Sony. They are more expensive, and the lenses are also pricier.

All three of these, and the even newer Sony a6500 have aps-c sensors which have allowed me to easily print 20x30.

Sony also has the 35mm "full frame" sensor in the A7 series, but I haven't actually used one.

The only two criticisms of my Sony alpha cameras have to do with the sdcard. I really appreciated the dual cards in my Nikons. I have had cards fail and have an backup was good. So far none has failed in the last few years however. The second is that the sdcard faces backward in the Sonys. This makes them a little awkward to remove. It's not a big deal but it is an annoyance when shooting fast and furious. I simply take the couple minutes to change the card before I really have to.

jsenear Loc: Hopkins, MN.

Nikon V1 Body.

le boecere

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Jamie, jump into the mirrorless pool - the water is fine. There are mirrorless cameras with sensors half the size of 4/3rds all the way up to medium format. Some are better than others, some cost more (or less) than others. Usually size, weight, and cost need to be balanced against one's wants/needs. There will be people's needs and wants that go beyond what mirrorless has to offer. But for most of us in this thread, mirrorless meets our needs and wants.

Having stated that, my suggestion is to go small rather than big. Hasselblad's X1D is an excellent camera with some of the best lenses this world will ever see. If you are constantly shooting large groups (30 to 60 people) on a regular basis, even as expense as it is, this would probably be the best camera for you. Not shooting large groups of people on a regular basis? Time to go smaller.

Full frame right now have the least developed mirrorless systems (in my opinion) and is most likely to satisfy you the least. But it is still worth a look to see if anything there will meet your needs/wants.

The next major size is the APS-C general size (some slight sensor size variation between brands). This has the largest amount of players. But from what I can see, Fuji and Sony are the most advanced in this particular mirrorless arena right now.

The next and most developed mirrorless system is the 4/3rds. Since both Olympus and Panasonic never tried to develop a fullframe or APS-C, they pioneered the 4/3rds system when other manufactures dropped the format. And at this time, I feel they have the most to offer as far as "bang for the buck". Both the Olympus OM-D E-M1mrII and the Panasonic GH5 are truely competitive with both the APS-Cs and full frames. Olympus tends to emphasize still photography while Panasonic tends to emphasize video. Both will shoot either still shots or video and do either quite well. There are over ninety 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds lenses available plus adapters that allow usage of many other lenses. From a size, weight, and cost point of view, it has the most to offer at this time.

There are smaller formats, but they will suffer in ISO, depth of field, and other issues. Still, just like full frame, they deserve at least to be looked at.

My suggestion is to go with the 4/3rds and get one of the weatherproofed models. They will be good for at least 3 to 5 years or longer, due to firmware and software updates. The E-M1mrII and soon GH5 are magnificent cameras if you can see fit to afford them.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Absolutely not..this is SOOP (straight out of the phone). I thought it was a wooden carving of a bird when I first saw it on the ground...and then it moved it's head! I kept inching closer to him until he flew off and I captured this awesome picture. On the iPhone, you can take LIVE pictures. When you hold your finger on the picture on your phone, it shows you the whole flight, like a mini video. Too bad I can't get those in-between shots, too! The locals said it was an Egret. Here's the before and after.

(Download)


(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Photos fits better with Apple's idea of a Mac app that fits into the iPhone Photos/iCloud Server/iDevice sharing world. They wanted a seamless experience from phone/tablet to desktop, with images backed up in the cloud, moved automagically through the cloud, etc. AND that worked the same way on MacOS as it does in iOS.

Then, too, iPhoto was old code that was going to be a problem going forward with the new operating systems. The same is true of Aperture. The Aperture app was over ten years old, and had languished in development compared with what Adobe did with Lightroom. Lightroom came out after Aperture. I was part of the early beta tests for Lightroom 1 & 2. Adobe had the right idea, going after the individual professional photographer market that was largely tired of fighting workflow issues. They asked all the right questions and talked to about 10,000 pros in the early going, and tens of thousands more, later. They also made Lightroom cross-platform equivalent, so they had a huge volume sales advantage. Apple shunned Windows with its professional apps.

I hate that Aperture is gone. I took an intense, four hour seminar on Aperture 2.0 and another intense, four hour seminar on Lightroom 2.0 at PMA's DIMA conference in the mid-2000s. I came away at that time, thinking, "Aperture is much better, but won't be for long." Too many photographers had moved to Windows by then, after Apple's existence scare of the late 1990s.

I'm not a huge fan of Adobe. They're big, arrogant, user hostile, and assume that everyone steals from them all the time. But they do have some of the best software on the planet. Working pros default to the Lightroom, Bridge, Photoshop CC bundle, and many use more of the full CC suite. At $10 monthly, the basic bundle is a steal if you make money with your cameras.

Mac users do have alternatives. Photos actually integrates quite well as a workflow tool for use with Affinity Photo, I'm told by a few who use both. Capture One Pro is available for Mac. There are wonderful utilities like Thorsten Lemke's Graphic Converter, which does a lot more than just convert file formats from one to another. You can find many packages in the App Store, and others by searching. Since I'm a Panasonic user, I have SilkyPix Developer Studio, which is excellent for developing both raw and JPEG files from my GH4. I often like the raw conversions MUCH better than those from Lightroom. Canon users have DPP4 for the same purposes. And on, it goes...

inbigd

I agree with everything you said. I'm still a beginner, for very basic edits and changes I feel that the Apple Photos is good enough for me and that Lightroom is too much. Now if I was a more experienced photographer I would definitely buy the Adobe subscription.

What I'm saying is that I need to work on learning how to take decent pictures before worrying about a fancy program.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

[quote=jerryc41]As always, I'll steer you toward reviews and comparisons. I use DSLRs except when I need something small and compact. Then I use my Sony A6000.

Same here. I was using the A5000, superseded by the A5100. That one is great if you don't need a viewfinder.

markjay

Hi
I'm using the new Canon M5.
I considered the Fuji line - but thought they were as heavy, or even heavier than most DSLR's (but yes - smaller), and also the Sony line - but found their user interface to be impossible.
So I bought the Canon. So far it is fabulous other than a few oddball items I have with controls. The AF doesnt always seem to point where I want it. If using AP priority, I have to click a second button to see the shutter speed in the viewfinder (not sure why it just isnt automatic). Some quirky things like that.
The lenses are excellent as far as I can tell - but limited choice. I bought it with the 18-150 and its fabulous.
Good luck choosing !