FX30 HAS NO EVF
ADOBE PRICE INCREASES
THIS HAS UPSET MANY USERS
Adobe Creative Cloud Subscription Model Updates for 2025
A Detailed Analysis
Adobe is set to introduce significant alterations to its Creative Cloud subscription offerings in 2025, with North America experiencing the most substantial changes. This report delves into these updates, outlining the new subscription models, their features, pricing, and considerations for users.
1. Key Changes at a Glance
The long-standing Creative Cloud All Apps subscription will be discontinued in North America (United States, Canada, and Mexico) beginning in June 2025. This pivotal change will see the introduction of two new plans for individual users in this region: Creative Cloud Pro and Creative Cloud Standard.
Existing All Apps subscribers in North America will be automatically transitioned to the more expensive Creative Cloud Pro, which includes enhanced generative artificial intelligence (AI) features. However, these users will have the option to downgrade to the less costly Creative Cloud Standard, which offers reduced access to premium features in Adobe's web and mobile applications and a smaller allowance of generative credits. New subscribers in North America will only be able to choose the Creative Cloud Pro plan.
On a global scale, Adobe is also adjusting its Photography Plan. The 20GB option will be discontinued for new customers, and the price for existing monthly subscribers will increase.
2. The Evolving Adobe Subscription Landscape
Adobe's 2025 restructuring of its Creative Cloud subscription model, particularly in North America, reflects the growing importance of advanced technologies like generative AI in creative workflows. A key development is the cessation of sales for the Creative Cloud All Apps subscription in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, effective from 17th June 2025. This strategic move indicates Adobe's shift towards a tiered subscription structure that places a strong emphasis on generative AI capabilities in its premium offering.
Current All Apps subscribers in North America will find themselves automatically upgraded to a new, more expensive plan called Creative Cloud Pro. This default transition suggests Adobe's belief that the added value of enhanced AI features in the Pro plan justifies the increased cost for its existing user base. It's reasonable to infer that Adobe anticipates a growing demand for and reliance on generative AI tools among creative professionals. By making Pro the default, Adobe likely aims to encourage the adoption of these advanced functionalities and potentially boost its revenue.
Recognising that not all users may require or be willing to pay for extensive generative AI features or comprehensive access across all platforms, Adobe is also introducing a more affordable alternative: Creative Cloud Standard. Existing All Apps subscribers will have the choice to manually switch to this plan, which comes with a lower price but also certain limitations. These limitations include a reduced number of monthly generative credits and restricted access to the premium features of Adobe's web and mobile applications. The introduction of this lower-tier option demonstrates Adobe's understanding of the diverse needs and budgets of its user base. By offering Standard, Adobe aims to retain customers who are more price-sensitive or whose workflows do not heavily depend on the latest AI advancements or full cross-platform access, thus segmenting its offerings to cater to a broader range of users.
Interestingly, Creative Cloud Standard will not be available to new subscribers in North America, who will only be able to purchase the Creative Cloud Pro subscription. This decision further highlights Adobe's strategic focus on the Pro tier as its primary offering for new customers in this region. By limiting new subscriptions to Pro, Adobe is positioning it as the standard for a comprehensive creative experience that seamlessly integrates powerful generative AI tools. This move could be interpreted as an effort to maximise initial revenue from new customers and establish Creative Cloud Pro as the benchmark for professional creative software.
3. A Closer Look at Creative Cloud Pro
The Creative Cloud Pro subscription builds upon the foundation of the Creative Cloud All Apps plan in North America, retaining its core functionalities while integrating significant enhancements, particularly in generative AI. This plan is tailored for users who require a comprehensive suite of creative tools and are eager to leverage the latest advancements in artificial intelligence to enhance their workflows.
Subscribers to Creative Cloud Pro will continue to have access to the full suite of over 20 desktop applications previously included in the All Apps plan. This ensures that professionals who rely on industry-standard software such as Photoshop for image editing, Illustrator for vector graphics, and Premiere Pro for video editing will maintain uninterrupted access to these essential tools. The continuity of software access is crucial for users with established workflows based on these applications.
In addition to the desktop applications, Creative Cloud Pro includes the same cloud services offered with the All Apps plan. These comprise access to Adobe Fonts, providing a vast library of typefaces for creative projects; the Behance online portfolio service, enabling users to showcase their work and connect with other creatives; and 100GB of cloud storage, facilitating file sharing and collaboration across devices. These supplementary services are integral to the Creative Cloud ecosystem, supporting various aspects of the creative process, from design to presentation.
A key distinguishing feature of Creative Cloud Pro is its enhanced generative AI capabilities. Subscribers benefit from unlimited access to "standard" generative AI features, such as the popular Generative Fill tool in Photoshop. The provision of unlimited access to these core AI functionalities suggests that Adobe anticipates a high level of reliance on these tools by creative professionals. Features like Generative Fill have become increasingly integrated into everyday creative tasks, and removing usage restrictions allows users to fully explore their potential without concern for credit consumption.
Furthermore, Creative Cloud Pro provides a substantial allowance of 4,000 credits per month for "premium" generative AI features. These premium features include advanced functionalities like text-to-image and text-to-video generation powered by the Firefly Video Model. This credit-based system for premium features introduces a usage parameter, which may influence how users incorporate these more resource-intensive AI tools into their projects. The allocation of 4,000 credits translates to approximately 40 five-second AI-generated videos or up to 14 minutes of AI-translated audio or video each month, providing users with a tangible understanding of the practical output achievable with their monthly credit allowance.
Creative Cloud Pro subscribers also gain access to Firefly Boards, Adobe's new AI-based moodboarding service, currently in its beta phase. The introduction of this service highlights Adobe's commitment to integrating AI into the initial stages of the creative process, aiming to streamline ideation and foster collaboration. AI-powered moodboarding can offer new and efficient ways to explore creative concepts and gather inspiration, potentially saving time and enhancing the initial planning phases of projects.
A particularly noteworthy aspect of Creative Cloud Pro is the ability for subscribers to utilise non-Adobe generative AI models directly within the Firefly application. This includes models from leading AI developers such as OpenAI (GPT image generation), Google (Imagen and Veo), and Flux (1.1 Pro). This openness to integrating third-party AI models is a significant development, offering users greater flexibility and access to a broader spectrum of AI capabilities within the Adobe ecosystem. By embracing external AI technologies, Adobe acknowledges the rapid advancements in the field and aims to provide users with a comprehensive and versatile AI toolkit, regardless of the model's origin.
The Creative Cloud Pro subscription is priced at $104.99 per month or $779.99 per year for users in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This represents an increase compared to the previous Creative Cloud All Apps subscription, which cost $89.99 per month or $659.88 per year. This price adjustment is directly attributable to the enhanced generative AI features and the provision of unlimited access to standard AI functionalities. Adobe is positioning Creative Cloud Pro as a premium offering that justifies the higher cost through its advanced AI capabilities and the value they bring to professional creative workflows.
While students and teachers are not eligible to switch to the Creative Cloud Standard plan, they can access Creative Cloud Pro at a discounted educational price. The introductory price for the first year for students and teachers on an annual contract billed monthly is $29.99 per month, with a renewal price of $39.99 per month. This acknowledges the importance of supporting the education sector and provides more affordable access to the comprehensive features of the Pro plan for eligible individuals.
4. Exploring Creative Cloud Standard
The Creative Cloud Standard subscription is a new offering in North America, exclusively available to existing Creative Cloud All Apps customers who choose to manually switch from their current plan. This plan is positioned as a more budget-friendly alternative for users who may not require the extensive generative AI capabilities or the full mobile and web app access provided by Creative Cloud Pro.
Creative Cloud Standard subscribers will still have access to the same comprehensive suite of over 20 desktop applications that are included in the All Apps and Pro plans. This ensures that users can continue to utilise essential creative software like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, and Acrobat on their desktop computers. The retention of access to these core applications makes Standard a viable option for users whose primary work is conducted on desktop.
Similar to the other Creative Cloud plans, Standard includes access to essential cloud services such as Adobe Fonts, the Behance network, and 100GB of cloud storage. These services provide valuable supplementary functionalities for managing creative assets, showcasing work, and collaborating with others.
The most significant differences between Creative Cloud Standard and Pro lie in their generative AI capabilities and access to mobile and web applications. Creative Cloud Standard offers a significantly reduced allowance of generative credits, with only 25 credits per month, and these are limited to the standard generative features. This limited access suggests that the Standard plan is designed for users who have minimal or very basic generative AI needs. The low credit count acts as a constraint on the extensive use of AI features, potentially guiding users with more demanding AI workflows towards the Pro plan.
Furthermore, Creative Cloud Standard imposes restrictions on access to the mobile and web editions of Adobe's creative applications. While subscribers retain full access to the mobile and web version of Acrobat, their access to other applications like Adobe Express, Fresco, Illustrator, Lightroom, and Photoshop on mobile and web is limited to the free versions. These free versions typically have a much more limited feature set compared to the premium versions available with the All Apps and Pro plans. This restriction on cross-platform access could impact users who rely on the flexibility of working seamlessly across different devices and locations with the full functionality of Adobe's creative suite. By limiting mobile and web access, Adobe is likely aiming to further differentiate the value proposition of the Pro plan, which offers comprehensive, full-featured access across all platforms.
Creative Cloud Standard is priced at $82.49 per month or $599.88 per year for users in the US, Canada, and Mexico. This represents a cost saving compared to both the previous Creative Cloud All Apps plan and the new Creative Cloud Pro plan. The lower price point makes Standard an appealing option for existing users who are less reliant on generative AI or full mobile/web app access and are seeking to reduce their subscription expenses. Adobe is aiming to retain these cost-conscious users by offering a more basic, yet still comprehensive in terms of desktop applications, plan.
It is important to reiterate that Creative Cloud Standard is exclusively available for existing Creative Cloud All Apps customers to switch to; new users in North America cannot subscribe to this plan. This limited availability suggests that Standard is intended as a transitional offering to manage the shift from the All Apps plan, providing a down-grade path for those who do not require the premium AI features of Pro, rather than being a long-term primary subscription option for all users.
5. Understanding the Changes to Photography Plans
In addition to the significant changes to the "all apps" subscription in North America, Adobe has also announced updates to its popular Photography Plans, which have global implications.
A notable change is the discontinuation of the Creative Cloud Photography plan with 20GB of storage for new subscribers after 15th January 2025. This decision suggests that Adobe is streamlining its Photography Plan offerings, potentially encouraging new users to opt for the 1TB plan or consider the broader Creative Cloud Pro plan if they require access to a wider range of applications. By removing the entry-level 20GB option for new customers, Adobe might be aiming to increase the average revenue per user within the photography segment.
Existing subscribers to the 20GB Photography Plan will also see a price adjustment, but this only affects those on the annual plan billed monthly. Starting on their next renewal date on or after 15th January 2025, the monthly price for these subscribers will increase from $9.99 to $14.99. This represents a substantial price increase for those who prefer to pay monthly. It is likely that Adobe is trying to incentivise these users to switch to the annual prepaid billing option.
Crucially, the price for the annual prepaid option of the 20GB Photography Plan will remain unchanged at $119.88 per year, which equates to $9.99 per month. Therefore, existing 20GB plan subscribers who are currently paying monthly are strongly advised to switch to the annual prepaid option before their next renewal date to avoid the significant price increase. This allows them to maintain their current cost for another year.
The pricing for the 1TB Photography Plan will remain the same at $240 per year or $19.99 per month. This provides a consistent option for users who require significantly more cloud storage for their photography work and are willing to pay a higher monthly fee. Additionally, the rarely used Lightroom-only plan will see a price increase from $9.99 to $11.99 per month.
Starting from 17th June 2025, new subscribers to the Photography Plan (1TB) will also experience a reduction in their monthly generative credit allowance to just 25 credits. This aligns with Adobe's broader strategy of limiting generative AI access in its lower-tier subscription plans, reserving more extensive AI capabilities for the Creative Cloud Pro plan.
6. Guidance on Selecting the Right Subscription
Choosing the most suitable Adobe Creative Cloud subscription in 2025 requires careful consideration of individual needs, usage patterns, and budget. The recent changes, particularly in North America, necessitate a reassessment of the available options.
For existing Creative Cloud All Apps subscribers in North America, the decision hinges on their reliance on generative AI features and their need for mobile and web app access. If a user heavily utilises generative AI in their workflow and values early access to new AI innovations, the automatic transition to Creative Cloud Pro is likely the most appropriate choice, despite the increased cost. The unlimited standard AI credits and the substantial allowance of premium credits will support intensive AI-driven creative processes. Conversely, if a user's engagement with generative AI is minimal and their primary focus is on desktop applications, switching to Creative Cloud Standard could result in cost savings. However, it is crucial to consider the limitations on mobile and web app access, as these might impact workflow flexibility. Users who are uncertain about their AI needs should evaluate their current usage of generative credits (if applicable) and their dependence on mobile and web versions of the apps before making a decision. The period before the official transition on 17th June 2025, during which existing All Apps users in North America will have access to the Pro features, provides a valuable opportunity to assess the benefits of the upgrade.
New users in North America seeking access to the full suite of Adobe's creative applications will find that Creative Cloud Pro is their only option. This plan is recommended for those who require a comprehensive set of tools and anticipate utilising generative AI features as part of their creative process. If a new user's needs are more specific, they might consider exploring single-app subscriptions or the Photography Plans, depending on their primary software requirements.
For users of the Photography Plan globally, the changes necessitate a different set of considerations. Existing subscribers to the 20GB plan who are currently paying monthly should strongly consider switching to the annual prepaid option before their next renewal date to maintain the current pricing of $9.99 per month (billed annually at $119.88). New photography users will no longer be able to subscribe to the 20GB plan and will need to choose between the 1TB plan, which offers significantly more cloud storage and a limited number of generative AI credits, or explore single-app subscriptions for Photoshop and Lightroom. Alternatively, if access to a broader range of applications is required, the Creative Cloud Pro plan should be considered. Users with significant cloud storage requirements for their photography will find the 1TB Photography Plan remains a viable option.
Subscribers outside North America will experience fewer immediate changes. Most existing Creative Cloud All Apps subscribers will see no alterations to their plan name, pricing, or access at this time. However, new subscribers to certain single app plans (such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, Lightroom, and InDesign), the Photography Plan (1TB), and select mobile plans will have their monthly generative credit allowance reduced to 25 starting from 17th June 2025. This limitation should be considered by new users who anticipate using generative AI within these applications. Business users should note the renaming of the Creative Cloud for teams Pro Edition to Creative Cloud Pro Plus for teams, which will include unlimited Adobe Stock standard assets, unlike the standard Creative Cloud Pro for teams.
Regardless of location or current subscription status, users should also consider whether a single-app subscription might be more suitable and cost-effective if their primary need is for only one or two specific Adobe applications. It is essential to evaluate core software requirements before committing to a broader plan. Furthermore, the increasing differentiation between subscription tiers based on access to generative AI necessitates an honest assessment of how integral these features are to an individual's or team's workflow. Choosing a plan that aligns with actual usage patterns is crucial for optimising cost and maximising value. Finally, eligible students and teachers should always explore the discounted pricing available, particularly for the comprehensive Creative Cloud Pro plan.
7. Changes Affecting Subscribers Outside North America
It is important to reiterate that the renaming of Creative Cloud All Apps to Creative Cloud Pro and Creative Cloud Standard is specific to the North American market, encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico. For existing Creative Cloud subscribers residing outside of these regions, their current plan name will remain Creative Cloud All Apps, and there will be no immediate changes to their pricing or access to applications and services.
However, Adobe is implementing some adjustments for new subscribers outside North America, effective from 17th June 2025. Specifically, new subscribers to certain single app plans, including popular applications like Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, Lightroom, and InDesign, as well as the Photography Plan with 1TB of storage, and select mobile plans such as Lightroom Mobile Premium, Photoshop Express, and Illustrator on iPad, will receive a reduced monthly allowance of 25 generative credits. This reduction in generative credits will likely impact new users who intend to utilise AI-powered features within these specific plans.
Conversely, there will be no changes to the pricing or the number of monthly generative credits for both new and existing subscribers of other Adobe plans outside North America, including Photoshop Mobile, Adobe Express Premium, Adobe Stock, Substance Collection, Acrobat Standard, and Acrobat Pro. This indicates a more targeted approach to adjusting generative AI access for specific plan types.
Finally, for business users outside North America, the "Creative Cloud for teams Pro Edition" will be renamed to "Creative".
A Comparative Analysis: Fujifilm GFX100RF vs. Leica Q3 for an Irish Urban Photography Tour
1. Introduction: Selecting Your Photographic Companion for an Irish Urban Exploration
Embarking on an extensive photography tour through Irish cities and towns, with a focus on street photography and the built environment, presents an exciting challenge for any photographer. The crucial constraint of light travel, relying on public transport, further refines the choice of equipment. This report offers a detailed comparison between two compelling, high-end fixed-lens cameras: the Fujifilm GFX100RF, a groundbreaking medium format camera recently made available in April 2025, and the Leica Q3, a premium full-frame contender.
The decision hinges on a careful balance of ultimate image quality, specific lens characteristics, practical portability, and real-world usability tailored to the demanding, yet rewarding, genres of street and architectural photography during travel. The GFX100RF enters the market as the "world's first medium format compact camera with a fixed lens," representing a novel approach and potentially offering unique advantages. Conversely, the Leica Q-series is more established, though the Q3 itself is a relatively recent iteration. This dynamic sets up an interesting juxtaposition: the GFX100RF embodies pioneering potential, which may come with the nuances of a first-generation product, while the Leica Q3 offers a more known quantity, albeit one with its own documented strengths and some controversial reported weaknesses. The selection process, therefore, involves weighing the innovative promise of the Fujifilm against the refined, yet sometimes questioned, luxury and performance of the Leica, particularly concerning their suitability as reliable companions for an immersive photographic journey.
2. Defining the Ideal Tool: Street and Architectural Photography on the Move in Ireland
To select the optimal photographic tool, it is essential to first define the specific requirements dictated by the photographic genres and travel style.
Core Photographic Needs:
Street Photography: This genre thrives on capturing candid moments and the vibrant atmosphere of urban life. Key camera attributes include discretion, allowing the photographer to blend in; fast and reliable autofocus to seize fleeting opportunities; responsive handling for quick adjustments; and image quality that preserves the nuances of light, texture, and emotion. A quiet shutter mechanism is a significant asset, minimising disturbance to subjects.
Built Environment/Architecture: Photographing architecture demands high resolution to render fine details accurately, excellent dynamic range to manage scenes with contrasting light (such as bright skies against shadowed facades), and superior lens geometry with minimal distortion and consistent sharpness across the entire frame. The ability to correct perspective, either in-camera or through significant cropping latitude afforded by high resolution, is also highly beneficial.
Critical Travel Constraints:
Light Travel & Public Transport: The mandate for "light travel" using public transport extends beyond the mere specification-sheet weight of a camera. While both the Fujifilm GFX100RF (735g) and the Leica Q3 (743g) are remarkably similar in weight, true portability encompasses overall bulk, the comfort of carrying the camera all day, its ease of packing, and its unobtrusiveness when navigating buses, trains, and crowded urban spaces.
Discreetness: For street photography, a camera that does not overtly advertise its value or professional status can be advantageous, allowing for more natural interactions and candid captures. The Fujifilm GFX100RF's retro-inspired design, reminiscent of the X100 series, may appear less conspicuous than the Leica Q3, which bears the iconic and often recognised red dot emblem.
Handling & Ergonomics: The camera must be comfortable to hold and operate for extended periods. Poor ergonomics can lead to photographer fatigue, missed shots, and a generally less enjoyable shooting experience, thereby negating other technical superiorities. A camera's weight on paper is only one facet of its portability. If a camera, such as the Leica Q3, faces criticism for its ergonomics to the extent that users feel compelled to add aftermarket grips, its "light travel" credential diminishes because the usable system weight and bulk inevitably increase. The Fujifilm GFX100RF, despite its larger sensor format, appears to have been designed with more consideration for integrated handling comfort, featuring a minimal but reportedly well-shaped grip. Thus, the holistic carrying experience is paramount; a camera with excellent built-in ergonomics might feel lighter and prove more practical for sustained daily use than one that is nominally lighter but uncomfortable or requires bulky accessories.
3. The Fujifilm GFX100RF: Medium Format Compact Powerhouse
The Fujifilm GFX100RF arrives as a unique proposition, aiming to deliver medium format image quality in a surprisingly compact and travel-friendly package.
Sensor and Image Quality: The 102MP "More Than Full Frame" Advantage
At the heart of the GFX100RF lies Fujifilm's 102-megapixel GFX CMOS II sensor (43.8mm x 32.9mm) paired with the X-Processor 5. This combination is engineered to produce "stunning" and "exceptional" image quality. The sheer resolution allows for the capture of immense detail, making it ideal for large-scale prints and offering significant cropping flexibility for refining compositions or extracting distant details – a distinct advantage for architectural photography. Medium format sensors are renowned for their superior tonal transitions and dynamic range, and the GFX100RF is reported to offer "good shadow recovery and highlight roll-off," crucial for managing the challenging and often contrasty lighting conditions encountered in urban environments. Furthermore, Fujifilm's acclaimed Film Simulation modes provide a rich palette of out-of-camera colour profiles, potentially streamlining the post-processing workflow during an intensive tour. The REALA Ace simulation, for instance, is highlighted for its excellent colour reproduction. However, photographers should be prepared for the substantial file sizes produced by the 102MP sensor; compressed raw files are around 72MB each, necessitating ample storage capacity and robust data management.
The Fixed 35mm f/4 Lens (28mm equiv.): Performance, Trade-offs, and Creative Tools
The GFX100RF is built around a fixed 35mm f/4 lens, which provides a 28mm equivalent field of view in full-frame terms. This focal length is widely regarded as versatile for street photography, architectural work, and general travel documentation. The lens is specifically designed for the 102MP sensor and is described as "superlative" in quality, delivering excellent sharpness across the frame, even when used wide open at its maximum f/4 aperture. A newly developed nano-GI coating is applied to suppress internal reflections, particularly beneficial for lenses with large curvature.
The choice of an f/4 maximum aperture was a deliberate engineering decision to maintain the camera's compact form factor. While this aperture is relatively modest compared to faster lenses on smaller formats, potentially limiting shallow depth-of-field effects and requiring higher ISO settings or slower shutter speeds in low-light conditions, the lens incorporates several features that enhance its utility. A key component is the in-lens leaf shutter, which is "virtually silent" in operation – a boon for discreet street photography – and allows for flash synchronisation at all shutter speeds up to 1/4000s. This also contributes to minimal vibration, aiding sharpness in handheld shots.
A significant practical advantage is the built-in, switchable 4-stop neutral density (ND) filter. This feature is invaluable for controlling exposure in bright daylight, permitting the use of wider apertures (though f/4 is the maximum) or, more commonly, slower shutter speeds to creatively capture motion, such as flowing water or bustling crowds. The lens also offers a close-focusing capability down to 20cm (7.9 inches) from the front element, adding a degree of versatility for capturing details.
The provision of a digital teleconverter further enhances the lens's flexibility. This feature allows for in-camera cropping to simulate 45mm, 63mm, and 80mm equivalent focal lengths in photo mode. Given the sensor's immense 102MP resolution, such crops remain highly viable; even a one-quarter crop yields a substantial 25MP file, which is more than sufficient for high-quality prints and versatile compositions. This effectively mitigates some of the limitations of a single fixed focal length for a travel photographer who might occasionally desire a tighter perspective.
Portability and Handling: Redefining Medium Format Travel
Fujifilm has positioned the GFX100RF as the "world's first medium format compact camera" and the "lightest GFX System model to date". It weighs 735g and has dimensions of 133.5 × 90.4 × 76.5mm, making it surprisingly small for a camera housing such a large sensor. The design is inspired by Fujifilm's popular X100 series, resulting in a camera that is "compact, discreet, and thoughtfully designed". While the handgrip is minimal, it is described as "perfectly shaped" and comfortable for one-handed carrying, aided by the camera's depth. The emphasis on tactile, analogue controls – including dedicated dials for exposure compensation, shutter speed/ISO, and an aperture ring on the lens – is a hallmark of Fujifilm's design philosophy and generally well-received for providing an engaging shooting experience.
A unique feature is the new Aspect Ratio Dial located on the back of the camera. This allows photographers to easily switch between various aspect ratios, including traditional 4:3, panoramic formats like 17:6 and 65:24, square 1:1, and even vertical 3:4. This feature encourages in-camera creative composition, drawing inspiration from Fujifilm's rich heritage in medium-format film cameras and offering a distinct way to engage with subjects.
The camera's appeal seems to lie with photographers who appreciate a more deliberate approach. The combination of a relatively slower fixed lens, immense resolution, and creative tools like the aspect ratio dial encourages thoughtful composition. It is not designed for rapid-fire, indiscriminate shooting; rather, its strengths are best realised when the photographer takes the time to observe, compose, and execute with purpose. The f/4 aperture and the nature of its stabilisation (discussed below) mean the photographer must be more conscious of prevailing light and stability, actively managing ISO settings or seeking support when necessary. This considered methodology can be a significant strength for street and architectural photography, often leading to more impactful images.
Autofocus and Operational Speed for Urban Dynamics
The autofocus system on the GFX100RF is reported to be "fast, accurate and—crucially—quiet". It incorporates subject recognition algorithms driven by AI, capable of detecting faces, eyes, animals, birds, vehicles, and aeroplanes. For its intended applications in documentary, travel, portrait, or street photography, the AF is deemed "perfectly capable".
However, it is acknowledged that the AF performance may not match the blistering speeds of some top-tier full-frame mirrorless cameras, particularly those designed for sports or wildlife. One review suggests that the AF speed might be somewhat constrained by the lens's external focusing mechanism rather than the sensor's readout capabilities. Additionally, it's noted that the various subject detection autofocus options are kept separate from face/eye detection and are mutually exclusive, which could require an extra step in operation. For street photography, where moments can be fleeting, "perfectly capable" needs to translate into consistently reliable and decisive performance.
Image Stabilisation: The Role of 5-Axis Digital Stabilisation
The Fujifilm GFX100RF features five-axis digital image stabilisation. It is important to note that this is distinct from in-body optical/mechanical image stabilisation (IBIS), which the camera does not possess. Digital IS is designed to improve handheld shooting for both sharper still images and smoother video footage. One review observed that, despite the absence of IBIS, sharp handheld shots were achievable at shutter speeds between 1/15s and 1/30s, partly attributed to the low-vibration leaf shutter and the camera's light weight.
However, digital image stabilisation typically involves a slight crop of the image sensor and can, in some implementations, introduce subtle artefacts or be less effective than robust IBIS systems, especially when scrutinising images at the pixel level from a 102MP sensor. Given the relatively modest f/4 maximum aperture of the lens, the effectiveness and character of this digital stabilisation will be a critical factor in low-light handheld shooting.
Strengths for Irish Cityscapes and Street Scenes
Unmatched resolving power from the 102MP sensor, ideal for capturing intricate architectural details and expansive city views.
Excellent dynamic range, well-suited to handling the varied and often challenging lighting conditions of urban environments.
A discreet, retro-inspired design and virtually silent leaf shutter, conducive to candid street photography.
The unique Aspect Ratio Dial, offering creative framing possibilities for urban geometry and landscapes.
The built-in 4-stop ND filter, providing valuable exposure control for daytime long exposures or managing bright light with the f/4 lens.
Potential Limitations for the Discerning Travel Photographer
The f/4 maximum aperture limits light-gathering capabilities in dim conditions and restricts the potential for achieving very shallow depth of field.
Reliance on digital image stabilisation, the real-world effectiveness of which for high-resolution stills needs careful consideration, especially in comparison to IBIS. One source explicitly states, "This isn't really the camera for low light work".
Large RAW file sizes necessitate greater investment in storage media and may slow down on-the-go backup and editing workflows.
While capable, the autofocus system may not match the speed and tenacity of the best full-frame cameras for capturing highly dynamic or unpredictable street scenes.
4. The Leica Q3: Full-Frame Finesse with a Legendary Lens
The Leica Q3 represents the latest evolution of Leica's popular fixed-lens full-frame compact camera line, promising high image quality and the renowned Leica shooting experience.
Sensor and Image Quality: 60MP Full-Frame Performance
The Leica Q3 is equipped with a 60-megapixel BSI CMOS full-frame sensor, reportedly the same sensor found in highly regarded cameras like the Sony a7CR and a7R V. This sensor is capable of delivering excellent image quality with a high degree of detail. The RAW (DNG) image files are said to possess "phenomenal dynamic range" and respond well to post-processing adjustments. In terms of ISO performance, the Q3 handles sensitivities between ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 comfortably, with noise exhibiting a pleasing, grain-like structure that can add a filmic quality to images. The standard ISO range spans from 50 to 100,000. Despite the high resolution, images are described as retaining a "natural and organic feeling".
The Summilux 28mm f/1.7 Lens: Low-Light Prowess and Signature Rendering
A cornerstone of the Leica Q3's appeal is its fixed Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH lens. The fast f/1.7 maximum aperture is a significant advantage, excelling in low-light conditions by allowing more light to reach the sensor, and enabling photographers to achieve substantial subject separation with a shallow depth of field. The lens itself is described as a "standout feature" and a "gem". It is lauded for its "staggering sharpness," even when used wide open at f/1.7, combined with a "real, organic softness" in its rendering – a characteristic often associated with Leica Summilux lenses. The lens also features a useful macro mode capability and an excellent, lockable focus lever that facilitates seamless switching between autofocus and manual focus. The inclusion of such a high-quality lens is a key part of the Q3's value proposition, especially considering that a standalone Leica 28mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH lens for their M-system cameras commands a very high price.
However, a critical aspect of the Q3's design significantly impacts the practical application of this fast lens. One of the primary motivations for acquiring a camera with an f/1.7 lens is the ability to utilise that wide aperture for creative depth of field or to maintain lower ISOs in dim lighting. In daylight conditions – common even during overcast Irish days – shooting at f/1.7 necessitates very fast shutter speeds to prevent overexposure. The Q3's mechanical leaf shutter is limited to a maximum speed of 1/2000s. This speed is often insufficient for shooting at f/1.7 in bright daylight. Consequently, photographers are forced to either stop down the aperture (thereby losing the shallow depth-of-field benefit), engage the electronic shutter (which, as discussed later, has its own significant drawbacks like rolling shutter and banding issues), or employ an ND filter. The need for an ND filter as a common workaround adds an extra layer of inconvenience for what is marketed as an everyday, walkaround camera, undermining the seamless use of its signature f/1.7 aperture in many typical shooting scenarios.
Portability and Handling: Balancing Size and (Controversial) Ergonomics
The Leica Q3 weighs 743g and measures 130x80x93mm. While marketed as a compact camera, it is noted as "not actually all that compact" when compared to truly diminutive cameras like the Fujifilm X100 series or Ricoh GR series, with its lens protruding noticeably from the body. The build quality is generally praised as "solid" and "nice", with "high quality, solid button actuations".
Ergonomics, however, are a highly contentious point. Some reviews describe "great handling and menu system," noting the menu as "tried-and-tested...just makes sense," and praising the ease of use of the AF/MF toggle on the lens. Conversely, other detailed accounts offer scathing critiques, labelling the ergonomics as "terrible". These critiques point to a body that lacks contouring and is made of a slick material, necessitating the purchase of expensive aftermarket handgrips and thumb grips (reportedly costing over $200 each) to achieve comfortable and secure handling. The battery system, which integrates into the base without a traditional door, has also drawn criticism for instances of the battery accidentally dislodging. The camera features an articulating rear screen, useful for shooting at low angles, but its hinge design has been called "clunky", and the mechanism for tilting it described as awkward.
This disparity in ergonomic assessment suggests that prospective users should, if possible, handle the camera extensively. The need to invest in costly accessories to rectify fundamental handling deficiencies raises questions about the camera's out-of-the-box usability and overall value, particularly under the "luxury" banner where refined design is expected. As one reviewer put it, "luxury doesn't justify basic functionality issues".
Autofocus Performance: Real-World Reliability Under Scrutiny
The Leica Q3 employs a hybrid autofocus system utilising both contrast and phase detection. Reports on its real-world performance are starkly contradictory. Some reviewers found the autofocus to be "sure-footed" in most tested settings, with continuous AF and tracking of faces, people, and moving objects handled well, resulting in few missed focus shots.
However, other extensive reviews paint a very different picture, describing the autofocus as a "major letdown". Face and eye detection are singled out as being "inconsistent at best and disastrous at worst," and "almost useless". These accounts describe the camera arbitrarily identifying inanimate objects as faces and erratically selecting subjects, making the photography of moving subjects, such as children or active street scenes, a "nightmare" and often forcing a reversion to manual focus techniques. This level of inconsistency is a major concern for street photography, where autofocus reliability and decisiveness are paramount for capturing spontaneous moments.
Image Stabilisation: Optical SteadyShot in Action
The Q3 incorporates optical image stabilisation. This system is reported to work well, enabling photographers with a steady hand to achieve sharp images at shutter speeds as low as 1/4-second. The wide 28mm focal length of the lens inherently aids in achieving steady shots at slower speeds. The stabilisation is generally considered to do a "pretty good job", although one review noted that it "could be better".
Shutter Limitations: A Critical Bottleneck
As previously touched upon, the Q3's shutter system presents significant limitations. The mechanical leaf shutter is capped at 1/2000s. This speed is frequently insufficient to allow the use of the fast f/1.7 aperture in daylight conditions without resulting in overexposure, or forcing the use of an ND filter. While the camera offers an electronic shutter that can achieve faster speeds (up to 1/16,000s), its slow readout speed reportedly leads to "noticeable rolling shutter effects" with any subject or camera movement and can cause "severe banding" artefacts when shooting under certain types of artificial lighting. Furthermore, the exposure preview in the viewfinder or on the LCD can be misleading under these conditions, potentially indicating a correct exposure that turns out to be overexposed due to the shutter speed limitations. These shutter-related issues significantly hamper the versatility and core appeal of the f/1.7 lens, especially for daytime street photography where isolating subjects with a wide aperture is often desired.
Strengths for Capturing Ireland's Urban Charm
Excellent low-light image capture capability, thanks to the bright f/1.7 lens and commendable high ISO performance.
Potential for beautiful bokeh and significant subject separation, facilitating creative street portraits and environmental shots.
The high-resolution 60MP full-frame sensor captures ample detail for cityscapes and architectural subjects.
Offers a relatively compact (compared to interchangeable lens full-frame systems) package with a premium lens.
Potential Limitations for the Discerning Travel Photographer
Highly questionable ergonomics that may necessitate expensive add-on accessories, impacting both comfort and the "light travel" ethos.
Alarmingly inconsistent autofocus performance reported by some reviewers, particularly concerning critical features like eye and face detection, which is a significant risk for street photography.
Severe mechanical shutter speed limitations (1/2000s) that curtail the usability of the fast f/1.7 lens in daylight, with a problematic electronic shutter as the alternative.
A high price point, which, when coupled with functional criticisms, raises value concerns.
5. Head-to-Head Comparison for the Irish Tour
A direct comparison of key attributes will help clarify the suitability of each camera for the specific demands of an Irish photography tour focused on street scenes and the built environment, with an emphasis on light travel.
Core Specifications at a Glance
To avoid a table format, here's a list comparing the key specifications of the Fujifilm GFX100RF and the Leica Q3:
Sensor: Fujifilm GFX100RF - 102MP Medium Format (43.8x32.9mm) GFX CMOS II HS; Leica Q3 - 60MP Full-Frame (36x24mm) BSI CMOS
Lens: Fujifilm GFX100RF - Fixed 35mm f/4 (28mm equiv.), Built-in 4-stop ND filter; Leica Q3 - Fixed Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH, Macro mode
ISO Range (Standard): Fujifilm GFX100RF - 80-12,800; Leica Q3 - 100-100,000 (Photo, Native 50-100,000)
Image Stabilisation: Fujifilm GFX100RF - 5-axis Digital Image Stabilisation; Leica Q3 - Optical Image Stabilisation
Autofocus System: Fujifilm GFX100RF - Hybrid (Contrast/Phase), AI Subject Detection; Leica Q3 - Hybrid (Contrast/Phase Detect)
Shutter (Mechanical): Fujifilm GFX100RF - Leaf Shutter, 60min – 1/4000s; Leica Q3 - Leaf Shutter, 120s – 1/2000s
Shutter (Electronic): Fujifilm GFX100RF - 60min – 1/16000s; Leica Q3 - Up to 1/16,000s
Flash Sync Speed: Fujifilm GFX100RF - Up to 1/4000s (with leaf shutter); Leica Q3 - Up to 1/2000s (with leaf shutter)
EVF: Fujifilm GFX100RF - 5.76m-dot OLED, 0.84x magnification; Leica Q3 - 5.76m-dot OLED, 0.79x magnification
LCD: Fujifilm GFX100RF - 3.15-inch, 2.1m-dot tilting touchscreen; Leica Q3 - 3-inch, 1.8m-dot tilting touchscreen
Weight (with battery & card): Fujifilm GFX100RF - Approx. 735g; Leica Q3 - Approx. 743g
Dimensions (WxHxD): Fujifilm GFX100RF - 133.5 × 90.4 × 76.5mm; Leica Q3 - 130 x 80.3 x 92.6mm
Battery Life (CIPA): Fujifilm GFX100RF - Approx. 820 shots (NP-W235); Leica Q3 - Approx. 350 shots
Storage: Fujifilm GFX100RF - Dual UHS-II SD card slots; Leica Q3 - Single UHS-II SD card slot
Key Video Features: Fujifilm GFX100RF - 4K/30p, F-Log2, ProRes External Recording; Leica Q3 - Up to 8K/30p, ProRes HQ internal
Price (USD MSRP): Fujifilm GFX100RF - $4,899; Leica Q3 - Approx. $5,995 (based on typical Leica Q pricing)
Image Quality: Detail, Dynamic Range, and Character
The Fujifilm GFX100RF, with its 102MP medium format sensor, holds a clear advantage in terms of sheer resolving power. This translates to superior detail capture, which is particularly beneficial for architectural photography and allows for extensive cropping without significant loss of quality. The larger sensor area also typically confers benefits in terms of dynamic range and smoother tonal gradations, contributing to the characteristic "medium format look."
The Leica Q3, with its 60MP full-frame sensor, also delivers excellent image quality and very high resolution. Its images are often described as having a "natural and organic" rendering, complemented by the renowned character of its Leica Summilux lens.
For capturing the intricate details of Ireland's built environment, the GFX100RF offers a distinct edge. For general street photography, both cameras are capable of producing superb results, though the subjective preference for the rendering "character" – the Fujifilm's rich simulations versus the Leica's classic look – may play a role.
Low-Light Capability and Depth of Field Control
In scenarios involving low ambient light, the Leica Q3 has a clear advantage due to its fast f/1.7 maximum aperture, which can gather significantly more light than the GFX100RF's f/4 lens. This allows the Q3 to use lower ISO settings or faster shutter speeds in dim conditions, potentially yielding cleaner images. The f/1.7 aperture also provides much greater control over depth of field, enabling more pronounced subject separation and bokeh. The Q3's optical image stabilisation is effective down to reported shutter speeds of 1/4s.
The GFX100RF, with its f/4 lens, will rely more heavily on higher ISO settings or slower shutter speeds in low light. While its high ISO performance is reportedly good up to ISO 12,800, and its low-vibration leaf shutter helps, the effectiveness of its digital image stabilisation will be crucial. The "achievable look" in low light will differ; the Q3 offers more flexibility for shallower depth of field and potentially cleaner files at equivalent exposure times. The GFX100RF can still perform, but it will demand more from its sensor's high ISO capabilities and its stabilisation, inherently producing images with greater depth of field at equivalent fields of view. For atmospheric, available-light street scenes at dusk or indoors, the Q3 provides more creative latitude with its aperture.
Portability, Discreetness, and Travel Practicality
On paper, the weight and dimensions of the two cameras are remarkably similar (GFX100RF at 735g vs. Q3 at 743g). However, practical portability is heavily influenced by ergonomics and carry comfort. The GFX100RF, with its reportedly well-designed, albeit minimal, integrated grip, is likely to offer better out-of-the-box handling comfort for all-day carrying. The Leica Q3's ergonomic criticisms, potentially necessitating bulky and expensive add-ons, could detract from its suitability for "light travel."
In terms of discreetness for street photography, the GFX100RF's retro, less overtly branded design may draw less attention than the Leica Q3 with its prominent red dot and luxury association.
A significant practical advantage for the Fujifilm GFX100RF during an extensive tour is its battery life. It is CIPA-rated for an impressive 820 shots per charge, whereas the Leica Q3 is rated for a more modest 350 shots. This difference could mean fewer battery swaps or less frequent charging for the GFX100RF user during a long day of shooting. The GFX100RF also features dual SD card slots, offering more storage flexibility or backup options compared to the Q3's single slot.
Handling, Ergonomics, and User Experience in the Field
The Fujifilm GFX100RF is generally praised for its tactile analogue controls, the engaging Aspect Ratio Dial, and its excellent high-resolution EVF, contributing to a positive user experience.
The Leica Q3's menu system is often lauded for its simplicity and logic. However, as extensively discussed, its core physical ergonomics are a point of major contention, with some reviewers finding them severely lacking without modifications. The tilting screen mechanism has also faced criticism for being awkward to use. These factors can significantly impact the day-to-day shooting experience.
Autofocus and Shutter System: Capturing Fleeting Moments
The autofocus on the Fujifilm GFX100RF is described as consistently "capable" and reliable for its intended uses, including street photography, even if it doesn't lead the class in outright speed.
The Leica Q3's autofocus performance is a significant unknown, with reports ranging from "sure-footed" to "almost useless," particularly for crucial features like face and eye detection. For street photography, where capturing decisive moments is key, this level of uncertainty surrounding the Q3's AF is a considerable risk.
Regarding the shutter system, the GFX100RF's leaf shutter, with its high flash sync speed (up to 1/4000s) and quiet operation, is versatile and well-suited for both discreet street work and creative flash applications. The Leica Q3's leaf shutter, mechanically limited to 1/2000s, acts as a bottleneck for its fast f/1.7 lens in daylight, and its electronic shutter alternative comes with significant drawbacks like rolling shutter.
This comparison highlights a crucial difference: reliability versus peak potential. The GFX100RF appears to offer a more dependable, if not always class-leading, performance in AF and shutter operation. The Leica Q3, while potentially offering certain advantages like shallower depth of field from its f/1.7 lens, carries a higher risk of operational inconsistency and frustration due to its AF uncertainties and shutter limitations. For a photography tour where unrepeatable moments are common, consistent reliability is often more valuable than occasional brilliance hampered by frequent operational issues.
Pros and Cons Summary for the User's Needs
To avoid a table format, here's a list summarising the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each camera specifically for an Irish street and architectural photography tour:
Fujifilm GFX100RF
Pros:
Exceptional 102MP detail, excellent dynamic range, significant cropping latitude (Architecture).
Excellent colour (Film Sims), unique aspect ratios, discreet design, silent shutter (Street).
Good high ISO up to 12,800; Digital IS helps. Leaf shutter allows slow sync flash (Low Light).
Surprisingly compact for medium format, good integrated ergonomics, excellent battery life (820 shots) (Portability & Handling for Travel).
"Fast, accurate, quiet," capable subject detection. Generally reliable (Autofocus for Street).
Retro design, less conspicuous branding, silent shutter (Discreetness).
Fixed 28mm equiv. f/4. Built-in 4-stop ND. Digital teleconverter (to 80mm equiv.). Close focus 20cm (Lens Versatility).
Aspect Ratio Dial, Film Simulations, high flash sync (Creative Features).
Cons:
f/4 lens limits light gathering & DoF control. "Not really for low light work". Digital IS less proven than IBIS (Low Light Performance).
Larger than true compacts (Portability & Handling for Travel).
Not as fast as top full-frame sports cameras (Autofocus for Street).
Very large RAW files (~72MB) (File Management).
Deeper DoF due to f/4 and medium format characteristics (Depth of Field Control).
Leica Q3
Pros:
Very good 60MP detail, good dynamic range (Image Quality - Architecture).
"Organic" rendering, potential for beautiful bokeh with f/1.7 lens (Image Quality - Street).
Excellent due to f/1.7 lens, good high ISO, optical IS. Allows lower ISO/faster shutter (Low Light Performance).
Relatively compact full-frame. Good menu system (Portability & Handling for Travel).
Potentially "sure-footed" (Autofocus for Street).
Iconic, but potentially more attention-grabbing design and branding (Discreetness).
Fixed 28mm equiv. f/1.7. Macro mode. Excellent optical quality (Lens Versatility).
Cons:
Mechanical shutter limited to 1/2000s (restricts f/1.7 in daylight). E-shutter has rolling shutter/banding issues (Shutter System).
Ergonomics heavily criticised by some, may need expensive add-ons. Poorer battery life (350 shots). Single SD slot (Portability & Handling for Travel).
Alarmingly inconsistent autofocus reported by some, particularly concerning critical features like eye/face detect. High risk (Autofocus for Street).
Large RAW files (60MP) (File Management).
Excellent shallow DoF capability with f/1.7 (when usable) (Depth of Field Control).
6. Expert Recommendation: The Best Camera for Your Irish Photography Expedition
The selection of a camera for an extensive photography tour, especially one with specific genres like street and architectural photography and the critical constraint of light travel via public transport, requires a careful weighing of numerous factors. Both the Fujifilm GFX100RF and the Leica Q3 are formidable cameras, yet they present distinct profiles of strengths and weaknesses relative to the user's stated priorities.
Weighing the Evidence Against User Priorities
The core requirements are high-quality image capture for both street scenes and the built environment, coupled with practical portability and ease of use during travel that relies on public transport.
The Fujifilm GFX100RF makes a compelling case with its unparalleled 102MP resolution, which is a significant asset for detailed architectural work and offers immense flexibility for cropping. Its unique creative tools, such as the Aspect Ratio Dial and built-in ND filter, can enhance the photographic process for urban geometry and varied lighting conditions. For a medium format camera, its portability and handling are surprisingly good, and its discreet design and silent shutter are well-suited for street photography. The autofocus, while perhaps not class-leading in speed, is reported as generally reliable, and its battery life is excellent. The main considerations are its f/4 lens, which limits low-light performance and depth-of-field control compared to faster alternatives, and its reliance on digital image stabilisation, the nuances of which must be managed.
The Leica Q3 boasts an excellent Summilux 28mm f/1.7 lens, which is a strong advantage for low-light photography and achieving shallow depth of field, producing images with superb full-frame quality and characteristic Leica rendering. Its form factor is relatively compact for a full-frame camera. However, significant concerns arise from reports of highly inconsistent autofocus performance, particularly for crucial features like face and eye detection, and severe limitations imposed by its mechanical shutter speed when trying to use the f/1.7 aperture in daylight. Furthermore, the heavily criticised ergonomics, potentially requiring expensive and bulky add-ons to rectify, directly challenge the "light travel" mandate and could lead to a frustrating user experience.
Several factors emerge as decisive for this particular Irish photography expedition:
Ergonomics and Practical Portability: For all-day carrying and use on public transport, out-of-the-box comfort and handling are paramount. The GFX100RF appears to offer a more cohesive and comfortable experience without immediate recourse to modifications. The Leica Q3's documented ergonomic shortcomings represent a serious practical impediment to enjoyable and efficient shooting during an extensive tour.
Reliability: For a trip where photographic opportunities may be unique and unrepeatable, equipment predictability is crucial. The GFX100RF's autofocus and shutter systems, based on available reviews, seem to offer a more consistent and reliable performance profile. The significant uncertainty surrounding the Leica Q3's autofocus and the known limitations of its shutter system introduce a level of risk that is undesirable for a dedicated photography tour.
Architectural Focus vs. Low-Light Aperture: The user's emphasis on capturing the "built environment" strongly favours the GFX100RF's 102MP sensor, which will deliver a level of detail and post-processing flexibility that the Q3 cannot match. While the Q3's f/1.7 lens is undeniably superior for low-light gathering and shallow depth of field, the GFX100RF's good high ISO performance, effective (albeit digital) stabilisation, silent leaf shutter for tripod use or bracing, and built-in ND filter provide their own set of tools for managing diverse lighting, including dimmer conditions.
The "Light Travel" Mandate: This extends beyond mere weight to encompass overall comfort, lack of operational fuss, and battery endurance. The GFX100RF scores well here, particularly with its significantly longer battery life, reducing the daily burden of battery management.
The choice ultimately comes down to selecting the most appropriate "tool for the job" versus a potentially more "aspirational choice." The user's query is highly practical and task-oriented. The GFX100RF, despite its professional-grade sensor, is presented as a camera that is also enjoyable to use and encourages a thoughtful, creative approach to photography. Its feature set appears well-aligned with the defined photographic tasks and travel style. The Leica Q3, while capable of producing beautiful images and possessing the allure of the Leica brand, comes with significant practical question marks that could actively hinder the photographic process during an extensive tour.
Final Recommendation
Based on a comprehensive analysis of the available information and weighing the evidence against the user's specific requirements for an Irish photography tour focused on street photography and the built environment with light travel via public transport, the Fujifilm GFX100RF is the recommended camera.
Its superior resolving power is a decisive advantage for architectural photography. Its surprisingly good portability for a medium format system, coupled with sound ergonomics, excellent battery life, and discreet design, makes it a more practical companion for all-day use and travel on public transport. The unique creative features like the Aspect Ratio Dial and built-in ND filter add significant value for urban exploration. While its f/4 lens and digital stabilisation require mindful technique in low light, its overall reliability and feature set are better aligned with the multifaceted demands of this specific tour than the Leica Q3, whose ergonomic issues, questionable autofocus consistency, and restrictive shutter system present considerable risks and potential frustrations.
Concluding Thoughts
Whichever camera is ultimately used, an Irish photography tour offers a wealth of visual opportunities. If proceeding with the Fujifilm GFX100RF, leveraging its Aspect Ratio Dial could provide unique perspectives on Dublin's Georgian architecture or the narrow streetscapes of towns like Kinsale. The built-in ND filter will be invaluable for capturing the movement of clouds over city skylines or creating smooth water effects along the River Liffey or coastal areas, even in daylight. The camera's high resolution will allow for capturing the rich textures of ancient stone and modern facades with exceptional fidelity. Embracing its deliberate nature will likely lead to a rewarding and deeply engaging photographic experience.
Leica Q3: Investigating and Resolving Video Mode Switching Issues
I am planning to spend the last week of May in Belfast and I am trying to decide which camera to bring with me ... yes I am taking a huge gamble by taking only one camera with me but I have decided to adopt a travel light policy. I have already had four six hours seddrions with the Fujifilm GFX100RF and I really like it but I have had GPS issues (my iPhone is the problem but the end result I that GPS is not guaranteed to work). I also had GPS with the Leica but I resolved the problem.
Today I used the Leica Q3 and upon switching it on I discovered that I was in video mode and despite trying everything that I could think of, including restarting and removing the battery, I could not switch from video and the touch screen was unresponsive. This has happened a number of times since the beginning of the month.
I found a user report indicating that after restoring camera profiles on firmware version 3.1.1, the FN2 button unexpectedly defaults to video mode. This is interesting because it suggests that the way custom button assignments are handled, especially after a profile restore, might be contributing to the issue of the camera being in video mode upon startup. I my case it would appear that this is the issue as I upgraded not long before this problem first appeared.
I also undertook some research and the results are included below:
1. Executive Summary
Users of the Leica Q3 camera have reported encountering operational difficulties, specifically the camera unexpectedly entering Video Mode upon startup or during use, and subsequently resisting attempts to switch back to Photo Mode. This report confirms that such experiences are not isolated incidents; numerous user accounts across photography forums and communities corroborate these challenges. The problem appears to be multifaceted, potentially arising from firmware anomalies, particularly concerning the FN2 function button and the restoration of user profiles after updates, accidental activation via the touchscreen, and instances of general camera unresponsiveness.
While a universally effective single-step solution for every scenario remains elusive, a combination of strategies offers the most reliable approach to managing and potentially resolving these mode-switching difficulties. These strategies include specific button customisation—notably assigning the Photo/Video toggle to the Center button—maintaining awareness of firmware versions and their potential impact, and applying targeted troubleshooting steps, such as a user-discovered method to "reset" the FN2 button's problematic behaviour. Official communications from Leica regarding these specific operational bugs appear limited, with users often relying on community-derived solutions and workarounds. The persistence of these issues across different firmware versions suggests that the underlying software logic may be complex and not fully addressed by incremental updates, implying that users cannot solely depend on installing the latest firmware as a definitive fix. This reliance on community-driven solutions for a premium product like the Leica Q3 points to a potential area for enhancement in Leica's direct customer support or public acknowledgment of specific operational software behaviours.
2. The Leica Q3 Mode Switching Conundrum: Shared User Experiences
2.1. Investigating Reports: Is the "Stuck in Video Mode" Issue Common?
The central concern of Leica Q3 users—the camera becoming stuck in Video Mode or unexpectedly switching to it—is indeed a shared experience, as evidenced by discussions on platforms such as YouTube and Reddit. Some users report that their Q3 powers on directly into Video Mode and they are then unable to switch to Photo Mode, aligning closely with the initial query.
Beyond being stuck in a specific mode, broader issues of the camera freezing or becoming generally unresponsive have also been documented. For instance, reports describe the Q3 "locking up, remaining powered on with the power toggled to off" , and other instances where the unit "remain[ed] turned on and frozen," necessitating a battery removal to regain control. Such freezing behaviour could manifest as an inability to change operational modes.
2.2. The Accidental Switch: Role of Function Buttons (FN2) and Touchscreen Swipes
Investigations into the causes of these mode-switching anomalies reveal two primary culprits: the behavior of the FN2 function button and accidental activation through the camera's touchscreen.
A significant number of user reports specifically implicate the FN2 button in unintentional switches to Video Mode. Users have found that even when the FN2 button is programmed for a different function, such as digital zoom or crop, pressing it can still trigger Video Mode, sometimes even before executing the user-assigned function. One user detailed, "I've noticed that the function 2 button will often turn on the video. I programmed the button to zoom/crop but it still switches to video then it will zoom/crop". This indicates a conflict or override in the button's command hierarchy. Furthermore, an issue with settings persistence related to this button has been noted; a user reported that after the firmware 3.1.1 update and subsequent import of saved user profiles, their FN Button 2, which had been set to AE-L, defaulted back to Video mode. This suggests that "Video" might be a foundational or default assignment for this button within the Q3's firmware, which tends to reassert itself if custom profiles are not perfectly reapplied or if a glitch occurs during the update process. The camera's system may fail to correctly re-map the user's preferred FN2 function, reverting instead to a base setting.
This problem has been specifically identified by some as the "FN2 Button profile bug." A YouTube tutorial titled "Approaching The Scene 316" directly addresses this bug, noting its appearance in firmware version 2.0.1 and its persistence in version 2.0.5, leading to unexpected switches into Video Mode. This points to a known, specific software flaw related to this function button.
Separate from the FN2 button issue, users have also identified the Q3's touchscreen swipe gesture as a cause for accidental mode changes. Swiping across the rear LCD screen is an implemented feature for switching between photo and video modes. However, this action can be triggered unintentionally, particularly when the camera is carried on a strap and rubs against the user's clothing or body. One user recounted, "My biggest complaint is a stupid feature that when you swipe the screen from the right to the left, it switches from photo to video... as I'm walking, my shirt is touching the screen and shifts the camera to video mode. I've lost countless shots this way". Another user shared a similar experience: "I think it was the screen rubbing against my shirt that switched it to video mode".
A significant point of frustration for users is the current inability to disable this specific touchscreen swipe-to-change-mode functionality. This lack of customisation contributes to the problem. The FN2 button issue appears to be a software flaw in how button assignments are managed or retained, especially after profile restorations or firmware updates. In contrast, the touchscreen issue is more of a user interface design choice that currently lacks the option for user deactivation. These distinct issues can compound user frustration, creating a perception of general unreliability in mode selection. If a user encounters the FN2 bug and also accidentally swipes the screen, it becomes difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the mode change, leading to a confusing and highly aggravating experience. This underscores a need for Leica to address both specific software bugs like the FN2 issue and to enhance UI customisability, such as providing an option to disable the swipe-to-switch-mode feature.
The user frustration extends beyond the bug itself to a perceived lack of control over the camera's behavior. This points to a potential disconnect between Leica's design philosophy for the Q3's interface and some users' desire for more granular control, particularly to prevent operational errors that can lead to missed photographic opportunities.
3. Mastering Mode Selection on the Leica Q3
Understanding the intended mechanisms for mode selection is crucial for Q3 users, especially given the potential for unintended behavior.
3.1. Official Method: Customising the Center Button for Photo/Video Toggle
The Leica Q3 features a minimalist design with few physical buttons, making button customisation a cornerstone of its operation. A primary and recommended method for switching between photo and video modes involves assigning the "PHOTO - VIDEO" function to a customisable button. The Center button, located in the middle of the directional pad, is most commonly designated for this purpose.
According to photography blogs and user guides, the Center button is often set to "PHOTO - VIDEO" by default. Pressing this button typically brings up a menu where the user can select between photo and video modes, described as a "quick switch". To customise button assignments, users generally press and hold the desired button, which opens a menu allowing them to change its function and the options available in its short-press menu. When the Center button is configured for "PHOTO - VIDEO," its associated menu may also display other options like "EXPOSURE METERING" and "ISO".
3.2. Alternative Custom Function Button Assignments (FN1, FN2, Thumbwheel Button)
While the Center button is frequently highlighted for the Photo/Video toggle, other function buttons such as FN1, FN2, and the Thumbwheel button are also customisable for a variety of functions. The Leica Q3 Quick Start Guide identifies the FN buttons (labeled as items 13 and 15 in the guide) and the Center button (item 20) as providing "Direct access to menu functions" when the camera is in shooting or recording mode. However, given the documented association of the FN2 button with the video mode bug , users should exercise caution if considering assigning the Photo/Video toggle function to it, at least until the bug is definitively confirmed as resolved by Leica.
3.3. Understanding the Shutter Button's Role in Video Start/Stop
It is important to note the shutter button's function in relation to video. As per the Q3 Quick Start Guide (item 3), a full press of the shutter button initiates or stops video recording when the camera is already in video mode. This is standard camera behaviour but clarifies that the shutter button itself does not switch the camera out of video mode; it only controls recording within that mode.
3.4. Touchscreen Swipe for Mode Switching
As previously discussed, swiping on the Q3's rear LCD screen is another mechanism by which the camera can switch between photo and video modes. This appears to be an intentionally implemented feature rather than a bug per se. However, its propensity for accidental activation, particularly when the camera is carried or handled, presents a significant usability challenge for many users.
The availability of the Center button customisation for Photo/Video switching provides an intended "simple one-step way" to change modes. However, the existence of the problematic touchscreen swipe functionality and the FN2 button bug creates a complex operational environment. The intended simplicity of using the Center button can be undermined if other mechanisms, whether by design or due to software flaws, interfere with mode selection. This complexity necessitates user awareness of all potential mode-switching triggers, not just the one they intend to use. The Q3's design philosophy of fewer physical buttons inherently places a heavy reliance on these customisable buttons and the touchscreen. When these systems exhibit bugs (like the FN2 issue) or include non-disable-able features that lead to errors (like the touchscreen swipe), the core usability of the camera for critical functions such as mode switching is inevitably compromised.
4. Troubleshooting Guide: When Your Q3 Resists Mode Changes
When the Leica Q3 becomes unresponsive or stuck in a particular mode, several troubleshooting steps can be employed, ranging from immediate workarounds to more specific bug fixes.
4.1. Immediate Workaround for a "Stuck" Camera: The Power Cycle & Battery Pull
If the camera is completely frozen or unresponsive to mode change attempts, the most frequently cited immediate solution is to remove and reinsert the battery. This action effectively performs a hard reset of the camera's immediate operational state. This advice has been offered for general freezing issues, even with previous Leica Q models. The official Leica Q3 manual also suggests, "Switch off the camera, remove the battery briefly, replace it and switch the camera back on in case of a camera malfunction due to the effects of electromagnetic fields". While this specific context refers to electromagnetic interference, the troubleshooting action is applicable to general malfunctions. Before resorting to a battery pull, a simple power cycle using the main switch (item 2 in the Quick Start Guide ) should be attempted if the camera shows any signs of partial responsiveness.
4.2. The "FN2 Button Bug": Community-Verified Fixes
For the specific issue where the FN2 button unexpectedly triggers video mode, or causes the camera to enter video mode before executing its assigned function, community members have identified effective workarounds. A YouTube video ("Approaching The Scene 316") reportedly provides a detailed step-by-step tutorial to fix this bug, which was noted as affecting firmware versions 2.0.1 and 2.0.5.
A more direct, user-discovered fix involves manipulating the FN2 button's assignment in the customization menu. A Reddit user ("sparkplugs") shared their solution: "I went into the customize settings for function 2 and turned on photo/video then turned it back off. The button works fine now. I guess it's a bug in the firmware". This action of temporarily assigning the problematic "Photo/Video" function to FN2 and then removing or changing that assignment appears to reset its behavior, clearing a stuck software state. This "toggling" technique is a key actionable step for users experiencing this specific FN2 button misbehavior. The camera's software might retain a persistent state or flag for that button's function that doesn't clear correctly unless explicitly overwritten through this customization process.
4.3. Addressing Accidental Touchscreen Mode Activation
Currently, there is no confirmed method within the Leica Q3's menu system to disable the touchscreen swipe gesture that switches between photo and video modes. The primary mitigation strategy available to users is to be more mindful of how the camera is carried and handled to prevent accidental contact with the screen. Many users have expressed a strong desire for Leica to introduce an option to disable this specific touch function via a future firmware update.
4.4. General Unresponsiveness and Freezing
Beyond being stuck in video mode, the Leica Q3 has been reported to experience general freezing or lock-ups. One user suggested that such issues might sometimes be related to the camera's boot-up sequence, advising to allow the camera a few moments to fully initialize after powering on before attempting operations, which could prevent some hangs.
Another anecdotal suggestion for freezing issues, though potentially more related to buffer performance than mode switching, was to try using a slower SD card. It is always recommended to use high-quality, Leica-approved SD cards formatted in-camera.
A firmware update mentioned addressing a rare issue where the "camera would stop responding when the camera was turned on together with the monitor opened... while or [Wi-Fi connection]... was set to ON". This indicates that connectivity features can, in some circumstances, contribute to unresponsiveness. If freezes are frequent, temporarily disabling Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connections could be a valid troubleshooting step.
The common reliance on the "battery pull" for various Leica Q series cameras across different generations suggests a history of firmware instability or unresponsiveness issues that are not always gracefully managed by the camera's operating system, thereby forcing a hard reset. While effective as a last resort, this is a somewhat crude solution for a premium device and carries a minor risk of data corruption if the camera was actively writing to the memory card at the moment of the power interruption.
Troubleshooting Quick Reference for Mode Switching Issues (Mobile-Friendly Format)
Here's a summary of common symptoms, their likely causes, and recommended actions:
Symptom: Camera stuck in Video Mode, unresponsive.
Potential Cause(s): General freeze, firmware glitch.
Recommended Action(s):
Attempt power cycle.
Remove and re-insert battery.
Check for FN2 bug (see below).
Consider factory reset (Section 6).
Symptom: Powers on into Video Mode, cannot switch out.
Potential Cause(s): User query specific, potential FN2 bug, corrupted setting.
Recommended Action(s):
Try FN2 bug fix (toggle Photo/Video in FN2 customise settings ).
Ensure Center Button is correctly assigned to Photo/Video.
Battery pull.
Refer to "Approaching The Scene 316" video for FN2 bug.
Symptom: FN2 button triggers Video Mode unexpectedly.
Potential Cause(s): "FN2 Button Profile Bug" (firmware 2.0.1/2.0.5 ), incorrect profile restore (3.1.1 ).
Recommended Action(s):
Go to Customise Control for FN2, assign Photo/Video, then re-assign desired function OR toggle Photo/Video off.
Refer to "Approaching The Scene 316" video for detailed fix.
Manually reconfigure FN2 after firmware update/profile import if it defaults to Video.
Symptom: Accidental switch to Video Mode.
Potential Cause(s): Touchscreen swipe gesture , accidental FN button press.
Recommended Action(s):
Be mindful of screen contact when carrying.
Check FN button assignments. (Currently no way to disable swipe ).
Symptom: Camera generally freezes or locks up.
Potential Cause(s): Software glitch, SD card issue (less likely for mode switch), boot-up interruption , Wi-Fi/Bluetooth conflict.
Recommended Action(s):
Battery pull.
Allow camera to fully boot.
Try a different (reputable, formatted) SD card.
Temporarily disable Wi-Fi/Bluetooth.
Ensure latest firmware.
5. Firmware Updates and Leica's Stance
Firmware updates are a critical aspect of modern digital camera ownership, often providing bug fixes, performance enhancements, and new features.
5.1. Overview of Q3 Firmware Releases and Relevant Changes (or Lack Thereof)
Leica regularly issues firmware updates for its camera lineup, including the Q3. An examination of available information on several Q3 firmware versions reveals the following:
Firmware v2.0.1: This update brought "Significant improvement of startup times" and "Improved rendering behaviour for series of shots". However, there was no specific mention in the release notes of fixes for video mode switching bugs.
Firmware v2.0.5: This version was mentioned in user reports in conjunction with the FN2 button bug still being present, indicating the issue was not resolved by this update.
Firmware v3.1.1: This update introduced new autofocus settings, compliance with EU eco-design regulations, and other general improvements. Release notes for an update around this version stated it "Fixed an issue where, in rare circumstances, the camera would stop responding when the camera was turned on together with the monitor opened...while or [Wi-Fi connection]...was set to ON". This addresses a specific type of unresponsiveness but does not directly pertain to the primary video mode switching bug or the FN2 button issue.
User discussions surrounding firmware 3.1.1 suggest that some underlying problems may persist. For example, it has been reported that the FN2 button might still default to "Video" mode after restoring user profiles post-update, indicating an ongoing issue with profile management or default button state retention. One user explicitly stated in a forum discussion that firmware 3.1.1 did not resolve the problem of the camera accidentally switching to video mode and expressed a desire for an option to disable this behaviour.
5.2. Has Leica Acknowledged or Addressed These Specific Bugs?
Based on the provided excerpts of official Leica firmware release notes, there are no explicit acknowledgments or documented fixes for the "stuck in video mode" problem as described by users, the "FN2 button profile bug" that causes unexpected video mode activation, or the inability to disable the touchscreen swipe gesture for mode switching.
There is an indication that Leica is aware of some general Q3 issues, as one user who submitted a bug report via the Leica Fotos app was asked to complete a survey. However, no official statement from Leica directly addressing the specific problem of being stuck in video mode, or the FN2 button bug as a widespread issue, is present in the available materials. Leica has, on other occasions and for other camera models like the SL3, acknowledged firmware bugs such as an image overwriting issue.
A pattern can be observed where Leica's official firmware notes often detail general improvements (e.g., "stability," "performance") or fixes for very specific, narrowly defined circumstances. However, they may not publicly detail fixes for more nuanced operational bugs, such as the FN2 issue or the broader video mode switching problem, unless these issues become exceptionally widespread or critical. This can leave users to discover through their own experience or community discussions whether a particular firmware update has incidentally resolved their specific problem. The persistence of such usability issues, particularly the FN2 button defaulting to video after profile restoration even in firmware 3.1.1 , can unfortunately impact user confidence in the consistency of Leica's firmware update process and profile management system for such a premium camera. Users reasonably expect their customised settings to be preserved or restored faithfully after an update.
6. Advanced Recourse: The Factory Reset Option
When other troubleshooting steps fail to resolve persistent issues, a factory reset can return the camera to its original default settings, potentially clearing software glitches or corrupted configurations.
6.1. Procedure for Menu-Based Factory Reset
The primary and recommended method for performing a factory reset on Leica cameras, and presumably the Q3, is through an option in the camera's menu system. While the exact menu path for the Q3 is not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, the procedure is typically standard across Leica models. For the Leica Q2, a camera with many similarities, the factory reset option is reported to be "the last item in the main menu, select 'reset camera'". A YouTube video demonstrating the Q2 menu also shows this option.
Leica Q3 owners should consult their full user manual (downloadable from the Leica website ) for the precise menu navigation. Generally, this option is found under a "Setup," "Camera Settings," or similarly named main menu section. Upon selecting "Reset Camera" or "Factory Reset," the camera will typically display a confirmation prompt before proceeding with the reset [ (example from Blackmagic, but typical behaviour)].
Important Caution: Performing a factory reset will erase all custom settings, user profiles, and other personalised configurations. It is highly advisable for users to back up their user profiles to an SD card before initiating a factory reset, if this feature is available and functioning correctly. Instructions for firmware updates often include a prompt such as "Save profiles on SD Card?" , indicating this capability. However, as noted earlier, the reliability of profile restoration itself has been questioned by some users.
6.2. Exploring "Hard Reset" Button Combinations (with appropriate caveats)
In situations where the camera is so unresponsive that the menu cannot be accessed, some users seek "hard reset" methods involving specific button combinations pressed during power-on.
For the original Leica Q, one such combination mentioned in forums is: "Hold Play, Menu and Rec simultaneously when switching on". It is crucial to note that there is no confirmation this sequence applies to the Leica Q3.
Another "hard reset" procedure, shared on L-Camera-Forum for a Leica Q2 that was stuck on the Leica logo screen, is: "Pull the battery and toggle the power switch. Then with it in the on position, depress the shutter button". Again, the applicability of this method to the Leica Q3 is unconfirmed.
Strong Caveat: These hardware button combinations are often undocumented by the manufacturer and carry inherent risks. Attempting them should be considered a last resort. Incorrect sequences could potentially place the camera into a service mode or lead to other unintended and possibly detrimental consequences. The menu-based factory reset is always the safer and preferred first option when available.
The user search for "hard reset" button combinations underscores the severity of some freezing issues, where the camera's software becomes too unresponsive to even access the standard menu-based reset. This points to a user need for a more forceful reset mechanism in extreme cases. The absence of clearly documented, official "hard reset" procedures for the Q3 (if such procedures exist) means users may turn to anecdotal information from older models or different cameras, which may not be applicable or safe for the Q3. Official Leica documentation typically advises a battery pull for malfunctions rather than specific hardware reset key combinations.
7. Recommendations for Leica Q3 Owners
Based on the investigation of user experiences and available technical information, the following recommendations are offered to Leica Q3 owners encountering issues with video mode switching and camera responsiveness:
Primary Mode Switching Configuration: Proactively configure the Center Button for the "PHOTO - VIDEO" toggle function. This should serve as the primary and intentional method for switching between modes. Consistent use of this dedicated control can help minimise confusion.
FN2 Button Management:
If experiencing unexpected video mode activation when using the FN2 button, apply the community-verified "toggle Photo/Video assignment" fix: navigate to the Customise Control menu for the FN2 button, assign "Photo/Video" to it, and then immediately change it back to the desired function or turn the Photo/Video assignment off for that button.
After performing any firmware update or importing user profiles, meticulously check the FN2 button's assignment and behaviour, as it has been reported to revert to a default "Video" function.
Touchscreen Awareness and Handling: Be highly conscious of the rear LCD screen when handling and carrying the camera. Minimise accidental contact that could trigger the swipe gesture for mode switching. Until Leica provides an option to disable this specific touch functionality, careful handling is the only available mitigation.
Firmware Update Diligence: Keep the camera's firmware up to date by checking Leica's official website for the latest versions. However, be aware that updates may not always explicitly fix all nuanced operational bugs and, in some cases, might introduce issues with user profile restoration. Always back up user profiles to an SD card before initiating a firmware update, as prompted by the camera.
Power-Up Patience: After switching the camera on, allow it a few seconds to fully boot and initialise its operating system before performing operations. This patience might prevent some instances of hanging or unresponsiveness.
Battery Pull as a Last Resort: If the camera freezes completely and becomes unresponsive, removing and reinserting the battery is a common temporary fix to regain control.
Reporting Issues to Leica: If mode-switching problems or other operational issues are persistent and significantly impact the camera's usability, report them directly to Leica Customer Care. If prompted after submitting a bug report via the Leica FOTOS app, completing any surveys can also provide valuable feedback to Leica. Detailed and specific reports help Leica identify, verify, and potentially address software bugs in future firmware releases.
The most effective approach for users currently involves a combination of proactive configuration (Center button), reactive troubleshooting (FN2 bug fix), and adaptive behaviour (touchscreen awareness), rather than relying on a single, passive solution from the manufacturer.
8. Concluding Remarks
The Leica Q3 is undeniably a camera of exceptional optical quality and refined design, capable of producing outstanding images and offering advanced video features. However, for some users, its operational reliability can be compromised by issues related to mode switching, unexpected video activation, and occasional unresponsiveness. The frustration expressed by users encountering these problems is understandable, as such difficulties detract from the seamless and premium experience anticipated from a Leica product.
While no single solution has emerged as foolproof for all manifestations of these issues, a clear understanding of the common triggers—notably the FN2 button behaviour and accidental touchscreen swipes—coupled with the application of recommended configurations (such as dedicating the Center button for Photo/Video toggling) and specific troubleshooting steps, provides the most effective path for users to mitigate these challenges.
The Q3's designation as a hybrid camera underscores the importance of seamless and reliable switching between photo and video functionalities. However, complexities in its current implementation, such as the reported carry-over of physical dial settings between modes combined with the discussed bugs, can make the hybrid user experience less than ideal. This creates a tension between the camera's advanced capabilities and these operational flaws.
It is hoped that Leica Camera AG will continue to refine the Q3's firmware, giving specific attention to addressing these usability concerns more directly. Areas for potential improvement include enhancing the stability of function button assignments through firmware updates and profile restorations, and providing users with greater customisation over touchscreen controls, particularly the option to disable the swipe-to-switch-mode gesture. Such improvements would significantly enhance the operational consistency and user satisfaction for this otherwise highly capable camera.
Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II vs F2.8 GM OSS II: A Comparative Analysis
Section 1: Introduction
The decision to invest in a high-quality telephoto zoom lens often involves careful consideration, particularly within Sony's E-mount system where multiple excellent options exist. Opting for the Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II over its sibling, the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II, represents a thoughtful choice driven by practical factors such as weight and price, especially when amplified by a favourable discount. This dilemma is common amongst photography enthusiasts navigating the premium G and G Master lens lines, weighing tangible benefits against ultimate performance specifications.
Both the FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II (hereafter referred to as the 'F4 G II') and the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II ('F2.8 GM II') are modern, highly capable lenses representing significant updates to their respective predecessors. They embody Sony's commitment to advancing optical technology, autofocus systems, and handling within the popular 70-200mm focal range, a staple for portrait, event, sports, and landscape photography. The F4 G II belongs to Sony's high-quality 'G' lineup, while the F2.8 GM II sits at the pinnacle as a 'G Master' lens, promising the ultimate in resolution and bokeh.
This discussion aims to provide a comprehensive analysis validating the decision to choose the F4 G II. It will delve into the specific advantages offered by its lower weight and cost, synthesise findings from expert technical reviews comparing its performance to the F2.8 GM II, collate perspectives from online photography communities discussing real-world use cases, and offer a detailed investigation into the F4 G II's unique and highly regarded half-macro capabilities. The objective is to present a balanced view that ultimately supports the rationale behind selecting the F4 G II based on the stated priorities of weight and price.
Section 2: Weight and Cost: The Tangible Advantages of the F4 G II
The choice between the F4 G II and the F2.8 GM II often hinges significantly on two very practical considerations: how much the lens weighs and how much it costs. For many photographers, particularly those who travel, hike, or shoot for extended periods, these factors can be just as important as the maximum aperture.
The Portability Factor: A Significant Difference
One of the most compelling arguments for the F4 G II is its significantly reduced weight and more compact dimensions compared to the F2.8 GM II. The F4 G II weighs in at a mere 794 grams (without its tripod collar), whereas the F2.8 GM II tips the scales at 1045 grams. This difference of 251 grams represents nearly a 25% weight saving, a figure that is immediately noticeable in the hand and in the camera bag. While the F2.8 GM II was itself praised for being substantially lighter than its own predecessor , the F4 G II takes portability a step further, making it one of the lightest options in its class.
Beyond weight, the physical size also differs significantly due to their respective zoom mechanisms. The F4 G II employs an external zoom design, meaning the barrel extends as you zoom towards 200mm. However, when retracted to 70mm, the lens measures only 149mm in length. In contrast, the F2.8 GM II features an internal zoom, maintaining a constant length of 200mm regardless of the focal length selected. This shorter retracted length of the F4 G II is frequently cited by users and reviewers as a major advantage for packing, allowing it to fit more easily into camera bags, sometimes even while mounted on the camera body.
This reduction in weight and size is not merely a specification on paper; it translates directly into a more comfortable and practical user experience. Reviewers and users consistently report that the F4 G II feels better balanced, particularly on the typically smaller bodies of Sony's Alpha mirrorless cameras, reducing fatigue during long shooting sessions or demanding hikes. This improved handling makes it an ideal companion for travel photography, run-and-gun videography, or any scenario where minimising bulk is a priority. A lens that is physically easier to carry and manage is often the lens that gets used most often, potentially increasing its overall value to the photographer beyond its optical merits alone. The decision to prioritise these physical characteristics is therefore a perfectly valid approach to lens selection.
The Value Proposition: Performance Meets Affordability
The second major practical advantage of the F4 G II lies in its price. Typically retailing for around £1750 or $1700, it sits significantly below the F2.8 GM II, which commands a price closer to £2600 or $2800. This difference of approximately £850 or $1100 makes the F4 G II a considerably more accessible option for photographers seeking Sony's high-quality telephoto zoom performance. Obtaining the lens with an additional discount, as in the user's case, further solidifies its strong value proposition.
While the F2.8 aperture of the GM II undoubtedly offers benefits – primarily gathering twice as much light for low-light situations and enabling a shallower depth of field for maximum subject isolation – the F4 maximum aperture of the G II is often entirely sufficient for a wide range of photographic applications. For travel, landscape, daytime events, or well-lit sports, the F4 aperture provides ample light and creative control. Furthermore, the impressive high-ISO performance of modern Sony camera bodies can effectively compensate for the one-stop difference in light gathering in many scenarios.
Therefore, the F4 G II can be seen as offering a substantial portion of the performance and cutting-edge features found in its G Master counterpart, but at a significantly reduced financial investment. It incorporates advanced technologies like the XD linear focus motors and high-quality optical elements, delivering results that, as discussed later, often come remarkably close to the GM II. User discussions frequently revolve around this cost-benefit analysis, weighing the advantages of the F2.8 aperture against the considerable cost savings offered by the F4 G II. This lens effectively democratises access to Sony's latest telephoto zoom innovations, providing near-premium performance without the full premium price tag, making it a high-value choice rather than simply a 'budget' alternative.
Section 3: Expert Analysis: Performance Compared
While weight and cost are compelling practical advantages, a thorough comparison must also delve into the performance characteristics of both lenses, drawing upon detailed expert reviews and technical analyses.
Optical Prowess: A Closer Look at Image Quality
Both the F4 G II and F2.8 GM II are lauded by reviewers for delivering exceptional image quality, showcasing Sony's optical expertise.
Sharpness: Both lenses achieve very high levels of sharpness across their zoom ranges. Technical tests and reviews often indicate that the F2.8 GM II maintains a slight advantage, particularly in the extreme corners of the frame when shot wide open at f/2.8, or towards the 200mm end of the zoom range. However, the F4 G II is consistently praised for its own impressive sharpness, performing admirably even on high-resolution sensors. Many reviewers and users note that in real-world shooting scenarios, or when both lenses are stopped down to common apertures like f/5.6 or f/8 (often used for landscapes or group portraits), the sharpness difference becomes negligible or practically invisible.
Bokeh and Rendering: The quality of the out-of-focus areas (bokeh) is often a key differentiator for premium lenses. The F2.8 GM II, benefiting from its wider f/2.8 maximum aperture and an 11-bladed rounded diaphragm, typically produces exceptionally smooth, creamy bokeh with excellent subject separation from the background. It is praised for rendering defocused highlights cleanly, free from distracting 'onion ring' patterns or harsh edges. The F4 G II, equipped with a 9-bladed rounded diaphragm, also delivers pleasing bokeh, particularly noticeable at the 200mm focal length or when focusing closely. However, compared to the GM II, its bokeh might exhibit slightly more defined edges on highlights or show more pronounced 'cat-eye' shapes towards the corners of the frame. One review noted subtle onion ring patterns in the F4 G II's bokeh under certain conditions.
Aberrations, Distortion, Flare: Both lenses demonstrate excellent control over chromatic aberrations, minimising colour fringing both laterally (LaCA, often seen as blue/yellow fringing on high-contrast edges) and longitudinally (LoCA, purple/green fringing in out-of-focus areas). This is crucial as LoCA, in particular, can be difficult to correct in post-processing. In terms of geometric distortion, the F4 G II tends to show more noticeable pincushion distortion (where straight lines bow inwards) towards the 200mm end in uncorrected RAW files compared to the F2.8 GM II. However, modern software and in-camera corrections effectively mitigate this for most users. Flare control is generally very good on both lenses, thanks to Sony's advanced coatings (including Nano AR Coating II on the GM II), though shooting directly into bright light sources can still induce some flare or ghosting. The GM II might hold a slight advantage here due to its more advanced coating technology.
Ultimately, while meticulous testing reveals measurable optical advantages for the F2.8 GM II, particularly regarding corner sharpness wide open and the ultimate smoothness of its bokeh, the F4 G II performs at such a high level across the board that these differences may not translate into significantly better images for many photographers in typical use. The F4 G II's overall image quality is frequently described as excellent, often exceeding expectations for an f/4 zoom and proving more than capable for demanding applications. For users prioritising the F4 G II's other benefits (weight, size, cost, macro), its optical output is unlikely to be a limiting factor.
Autofocus Capabilities: Speed and Precision
In terms of autofocus, both the F4 G II and F2.8 GM II represent the pinnacle of Sony's current technology. Both lenses incorporate four of Sony's high-thrust XD (Extreme Dynamic) Linear Motors – two for each internal focusing group. This advanced motor system delivers exceptionally fast, precise, and quiet autofocus performance.
Reviewers consistently praise both lenses for their ability to acquire focus rapidly and accurately, reliably track moving subjects, and keep pace with the high continuous shooting speeds of cameras like the Sony Alpha 1 (up to 30fps). While Sony markets impressive speed gains for each lens compared to its own predecessor (claiming the GM II is up to 4x faster than the GM I and the F4 G II is 20% faster than the F4 G I ), direct comparisons between the two Mark II versions suggest that both operate at a similarly elite level. Some reviewers subjectively felt the F4 G II's focus acquisition was incredibly quick, perhaps even faster in feel than the GM II , but objectively, both are state-of-the-art.
Both lenses also exhibit well-suppressed focus breathing – the undesirable slight change in focal length that can occur when adjusting focus. This is a significant benefit for videographers seeking smooth focus transitions. The F4 G II achieves this optically and also supports the breathing compensation feature available in newer Sony camera bodies.
Given that both lenses employ the same sophisticated XD Linear Motor technology and receive universally positive feedback regarding their autofocus speed, accuracy, and tracking capabilities, AF performance is unlikely to be a significant deciding factor between them for the vast majority of users. Both lenses deliver professional-level autofocus suitable for the most demanding applications.
Handling and Build: Ergonomics and Features
Beyond optics and autofocus, the physical handling and feature sets of the lenses present some distinct differences that cater to varying user preferences.
Zoom Mechanism: The most apparent difference is the zoom mechanism. The F4 G II's external zoom design allows for its compact 149mm length when retracted but means the barrel extends significantly when zooming to 200mm. This compactness for storage is a key benefit. However, some users express concern about the potential for dust and moisture to be drawn into the lens with the extending barrel, despite weather sealing. Additionally, the extending barrel can feel less 'professional' or more conspicuous during operation compared to an internal zoom design. The F2.8 GM II features an internal zoom mechanism, maintaining its 200mm length throughout the zoom range. This is often preferred for its consistent handling balance and perceived enhanced robustness against the elements.
Aperture Ring: A significant control difference lies in the aperture ring. The F2.8 GM II includes a dedicated physical aperture ring, complete with third-stop markings, an 'A' setting for camera-body control, a click/declick switch for silent video adjustments, and an Iris Lock switch. This feature is highly valued by many photographers, especially hybrid shooters and videographers who appreciate tactile control. The F4 G II notably lacks this physical aperture ring; aperture must be controlled via the camera's command dials.
Build and Controls: Both lenses boast professional-grade construction with extensive weather sealing to protect against dust and moisture. They share a similar suite of external controls, including multiple customisable focus hold buttons positioned for easy access in both horizontal and vertical orientations, AF/MF switches, focus range limiters, and Optical SteadyShot (OSS) stabilisation controls. Both lenses are supplied with removable tripod collars, although these typically require an additional plate for direct Arca-Swiss tripod compatibility. The filter thread sizes differ, requiring different sets of filters: 72mm for the F4 G II and 77mm for the F2.8 GM II.
These handling characteristics – the way the lens zooms, the presence or absence of an aperture ring – are not minor details. They represent fundamental ergonomic choices that directly impact how a photographer interacts with the lens during shooting. For some users, a strong preference for internal zoom consistency or the tactile feedback of an aperture ring might outweigh subtle differences in optical performance, making these handling aspects critical factors in their decision-making process.
Section 4: Community Perspectives: Online Discussions and Real-World Use
Insights from online photography forums like Reddit's r/SonyAlpha and FredMiranda provide valuable real-world context, reflecting how enthusiasts and professionals weigh the pros and cons of these lenses based on their own shooting styles and priorities.
Travel and Portability: The F4 G II's reduced weight and compact retracted size are consistently lauded in community discussions as game-changers for travel and portability. Users frequently share anecdotes about choosing the F4 G II specifically for hiking trips, international travel, or simply as a more manageable walk-around telephoto option. The ease of packing the shorter lens, sometimes without detaching it from the camera, is a recurring theme.
Image Quality Satisfaction: While acknowledging the F2.8 GM II's ultimate optical prowess, many F4 G II owners express high satisfaction with its image quality. Descriptions like "special" or "excites me every time" appear, suggesting the lens delivers engaging results. Users often find the sharpness excellent and the differences compared to the GM II negligible for their practical needs, even when using high-resolution camera bodies. However, some discussions do note the GM II's perceptible edge in sharpness when pixel-peeping or shooting demanding subjects like landscapes at specific apertures like f/8.
Macro Utility: The integrated macro capability of the F4 G II generates significant positive discussion. Users see it as a major bonus, adding substantial versatility that distinguishes it from typical telephoto zooms. For nature and travel photographers, the ability to capture both distant scenes and detailed close-ups without changing lenses is highly appealing, potentially replacing the need to carry a dedicated macro lens.
The F2.8 Appeal: Despite the F4 G II's strengths, the F2.8 GM II retains a strong following. Users choose or aspire to the GM II for several key reasons: the undeniable advantage of the f/2.8 aperture for low-light work (e.g., indoor sports, dimly lit events) and achieving the shallowest possible depth of field for portraiture; a preference for the handling characteristics of the internal zoom mechanism; the perceived 'professional' build and status associated with the G Master line; and sometimes, simply the desire to own the technically superior option, even if the practical benefits are marginal for their specific use case.
Third-Party Comparisons: Particularly when discussing the F4 G II due to its price point relative to the F2.8 GM II, comparisons with third-party lenses like the Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VXD inevitably arise. Users acknowledge the Tamron's compelling value proposition: offering an f/2.8 aperture in a compact size at a significantly lower cost. However, they also note the trade-offs, primarily the Tamron's lack of built-in Optical SteadyShot (OSS), incompatibility with Sony's teleconverters (unlike both Sony Mark II lenses), slightly shorter reach (180mm vs 200mm), and potentially differences in autofocus consistency or build quality compared to the Sony G lens. The choice often comes down to whether the user prioritises the f/2.8 aperture and lower cost (Tamron) or the OSS, teleconverter compatibility, full 200mm reach, and native Sony integration of the F4 G II.
These community discussions paint a clear picture of user segmentation. The F4 G II resonates strongly with photographers who place a high premium on portability, versatility (especially the unique macro function), and value, finding its performance more than sufficient for their needs. Conversely, the F2.8 GM II remains the preferred choice for those who require the maximum light-gathering ability and shallowest depth of field offered by the f/2.8 aperture, favour its internal zoom handling, or simply prioritise owning the flagship G Master option, accepting the associated higher cost and weight. Both choices are validated within the community, depending entirely on the individual photographer's priorities and budget.
Section 5: Macro Focus: A Closer Look at the F4 G II's Unique Ability
Perhaps the most defining characteristic that sets the FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II apart from its F2.8 GM II sibling, and indeed from most other telephoto zooms on the market, is its remarkable close-focusing and macro capability.
Half-Macro Capability
The standout specification is the lens's ability to achieve a maximum magnification ratio of 0.5x, equivalent to 1:2 life-size reproduction, across its entire 70mm to 200mm zoom range. This is a world-first feature for a zoom lens of this type at the time of its release. Practically, 0.5x magnification means that an object measuring 72mm across in real life would fill the horizontal width of a full-frame sensor (36mm). This level of magnification allows for genuinely detailed close-up photography. It represents a dramatic improvement over the F2.8 GM II's respectable but significantly lower 0.3x maximum magnification and vastly surpasses the original FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS lens, which only offered a meagre 0.13x magnification.
Minimum Focusing Distance (MFD) and Working Distance
This impressive magnification is achieved through exceptionally short minimum focusing distances (MFD). At the 70mm end, the F4 G II can focus as close as 0.26 metres (approximately 10.2 inches), and at the 200mm end, the MFD is 0.42 metres (approximately 16.5 inches). It is important to understand the difference between MFD (measured from the sensor plane) and working distance (measured from the front of the lens to the subject). At 70mm, the working distance is very short, less than 10cm, which might be challenging for lighting or photographing skittish subjects. However, at 200mm, the working distance increases to a more practical ~20cm (around 8 inches), providing more space between the lens and the subject.
Versatility Added
This integrated macro function fundamentally transforms the F4 G II from a conventional telephoto zoom into a far more versatile tool. It allows photographers to seamlessly capture distant landscapes, portraits, or events, and then immediately zoom in or move closer to capture intricate details of flowers, insects, textures, food, or small products, all without needing to switch lenses or attach accessories like extension tubes. Reviewers consistently highlight this added flexibility as a major advantage, particularly for travel, nature, and walk-around photography where carrying multiple specialised lenses might be impractical.
Performance in Macro
Crucially, the lens maintains strong performance even when focusing closely. Reviewers report excellent sharpness and image quality in macro shots. The fast and accurate XD linear autofocus motors continue to perform well, even enabling tracking autofocus on macro subjects, which is not always the case with macro lenses. The built-in Optical SteadyShot (OSS) image stabilisation is also particularly beneficial for achieving sharp handheld macro images, helping to counteract the amplified effects of camera shake at high magnifications.
Teleconverter Synergy
Further enhancing its versatility, the F4 G II is fully compatible with Sony's 1.4x (SEL14TC) and 2x (SEL20TC) teleconverters – a capability notably absent in its predecessor, the original F4 G OSS. This compatibility not only extends the telephoto reach (to 98-280mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC, and 140-400mm f/8 with the 2x TC) but also boosts the macro magnification. Attaching the 1.4x teleconverter increases the maximum magnification to approximately 0.7x. Impressively, adding the 2x teleconverter allows the lens to achieve true 1:1 life-size macro reproduction. This effectively creates a unique 140-400mm f/8 1:1 macro zoom lens, offering unprecedented flexibility for close-up work at various working distances.
The integration of high-performance 0.5x macro capability across the entire zoom range, coupled with teleconverter compatibility for true 1:1 macro, elevates the F4 G II beyond simply being a lighter and more affordable alternative to the F2.8 GM II. It becomes a distinct photographic tool offering a unique blend of telephoto reach and serious close-up performance. This intrinsic versatility makes it an exceptionally compelling option, particularly for photographers involved in travel, nature, or any field where the ability to capture both the grand scale and the minute detail with a single, high-quality lens is advantageous.
Section 6: Conclusion
Based on the analysis of expert reviews, community discussions, and technical specifications, the decision to purchase the Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II, prioritising weight and price, is a well-reasoned and highly justifiable choice. This conclusion is strongly supported by evidence highlighting the lens's specific strengths relative to these priorities and its overall competence.
The F4 G II presents a compelling package for the enthusiast photographer. Its key advantages align perfectly with the stated decision drivers:
Portability: The significant reduction in weight (251g lighter than the GM II) and its shorter retracted length (due to the external zoom) make it markedly easier to carry, handle (especially on smaller bodies), and pack for travel or extended use.
Value: Offering a substantial cost saving compared to the F2.8 GM II, the F4 G II provides access to Sony's advanced lens technology – including excellent optics and rapid XD linear motor autofocus – at a more accessible price point.
Versatility: The standout 0.5x macro capability across the entire zoom range, further enhanced by teleconverter compatibility for 1:1 macro, adds a layer of functionality absent in the F2.8 GM II and most competitors, potentially replacing the need for a separate macro lens.
Performance: Despite the f/4 aperture, the lens delivers excellent sharpness, well-controlled aberrations, pleasing bokeh, and autofocus performance that rivals its G Master sibling in most practical shooting scenarios.
While the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II remains the flagship option, offering the benefits of a wider f/2.8 aperture (crucial for specific low-light situations or achieving maximum background blur), potentially superior optical performance in edge cases, and preferred handling features like internal zoom and a physical aperture ring, these advantages come at the cost of increased weight, size, and price.
Ultimately, the Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II should not be viewed merely as a compromise or a 'lesser' alternative. It stands confidently as a distinct, highly accomplished, and uniquely versatile lens in its own right. Its intelligent design choices successfully balance high optical and autofocus performance with significant gains in portability and the groundbreaking addition of integrated half-macro functionality. For the photographer who values a lighter kit, requires flexibility for both distant subjects and close-up details, and seeks strong value without sacrificing core performance, the F4 G II represents an outstanding and well-supported choice within the Sony E-mount system.
Q3 GEOTAGGING PROBLEM
APPLE SETTINGS WERE TO BLAME
THE LEICA STUCK GEOTAG PROBLEM THAT I ENCOUNTERED ON THE SECOND DAY OF USING MY Q3
Introduction:
Experiencing the frustration of discovering that an entire day's worth of photographs taken with a new Leica Q3 all possess the same, incorrect geotag can be deeply disheartening, particularly after investing considerable time in attempting to diagnose the problem. This report delves into this specific issue, which, as initial efforts correctly suggested, frequently arises from privacy and location settings on the connected iPhone.
The central finding of this investigation is that such geotagging anomalies typically originate from the Leica FOTOS application's inability to receive a continuous stream of updated location data from the iPhone. This interruption most commonly results directly from specific iOS privacy and location service configurations. When the FOTOS app is not granted the necessary permissions for consistent location data access, especially when operating in the background, it may retain and apply an initial, but subsequently outdated, location fix to numerous images.
Key recommendations to resolve and prevent this issue involve the meticulous adjustment of the iPhone's Location Services settings for the Leica FOTOS app. This includes granting the app "Always" access to location data, ensuring "Precise Location" is enabled for accuracy, and verifying that "Background App Refresh" is active to support the app's background operations. Furthermore, attention to "Local Network" permissions is vital for robust camera-app communication. By understanding and correctly configuring these interconnected settings, photographers can restore reliable and accurate geotagging for their Leica Q3 images.
1. Understanding Geotagging: The Leica Q3 and iPhone Partnership
The accuracy of geotags applied to images from the Leica Q3 hinges entirely on a synergistic relationship between the camera, the Leica FOTOS mobile application, and the connected iPhone's location capabilities. Grasping the mechanics of this partnership is fundamental to troubleshooting any geotagging discrepancies.
1.1. How the Leica Q3 Acquires Location Data: No Onboard GPS
A critical aspect of the Leica Q3's design concerning geotagging is its lack of an internal Global Positioning System (GPS) module. Unlike some digital cameras that can independently determine and embed geographical coordinates, the Q3 relies exclusively on an external source for this information. Technical specifications confirm that GPS data is acquired "Via Smartphone". This design choice means that the camera itself does not actively seek or process satellite signals for location; instead, it awaits this data from a paired mobile device. This dependency immediately shifts the focus of any geotagging investigation away from the camera's internal hardware and towards the smartphone and the intermediary application.
1.2. The Central Role of the Leica FOTOS App in Geotagging
The Leica FOTOS application serves as the essential conduit for location data between the iPhone and the Leica Q3. It is more than just a tool for image transfer and remote camera control; it is a pivotal component in the geotagging workflow. According to Leica Camera AG's privacy statement for the FOTOS app, "Provided you have given your consent we will process your location data for geotagging purposes. These location data are added to your photos' metadata when you take them with your camera connected to the Leica FOTOS app". This process involves the app requesting location information from the iPhone's operating system and then transmitting these coordinates to the Q3. The camera subsequently embeds this data into the Exchangeable Image File Format (Exif) header of the image files.
The app's design anticipates the need for background location access to facilitate continuous geotagging. The App Store description notes that the app "may use your location even when it isn’t open", a capability that hinges on appropriate user-granted permissions. Firmware documentation for other Leica models utilising the FOTOS app explicitly recommends setting location access to "Always" to "ensure continuous geolocation for up to the minute location information", a principle that logically extends to the Q3 for optimal performance.
1.3. iPhone's Location Services: The Source of Truth (and Potential Error)
The iPhone's sophisticated Location Services system is the ultimate source of the geographical data that the Leica FOTOS app relays to the Q3. iOS utilises a combination of GPS, Bluetooth signals, known Wi-Fi networks, and mobile network data to determine the device's position with considerable accuracy. When an application like Leica FOTOS requests location information, it is iOS that processes this request and, subject to user-defined permissions, furnishes the data. While this system is generally robust, the extensive control users have over data sharing, designed to protect privacy, can also inadvertently lead to interruptions or inaccuracies in the data supplied to dependent apps if not configured with a full understanding of the implications. The reliability of the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection between the iPhone and the Q3 also plays a role in the successful transfer of this data, though permission settings are primary for the "stuck geotag" scenario.
The entire geotagging mechanism for the Leica Q3 can be visualised as a chain: the iPhone determines its location, iOS grants (or denies) the Leica FOTOS app access to this location, the app transmits the received location to the Q3, and the Q3 embeds it into the photo. A failure at any link in this chain, particularly in the handoff of data from iOS to the FOTOS app due to permission settings, will result in faulty or missing geotags.
2. Dissecting the "Same Geotag" Anomaly: iPhone's Privacy & Location Settings Under Scrutiny
The phenomenon of multiple photographs, taken at different times and places, all receiving the identical incorrect geotag points directly to an issue where the Leica FOTOS app obtained an initial location fix but was subsequently prevented from acquiring or processing updated location information from the iPhone. This section delves into the specific iOS settings that govern location data access and how their configuration can lead to such anomalies.
2.1. iPhone Location Services: Master Control and Per-App Permissions
At the highest level, iOS provides a master switch for Location Services found under Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services. If this global setting is turned off, no application, including Leica FOTOS, can access location data, and many iPhone features reliant on location will cease to function correctly.
Beyond this master switch, iOS offers granular control over location access on a per-app basis. When an app first attempts to use location data, iOS prompts the user to grant permission, offering several choices:
Never: Prevents the app from ever accessing location information.
Ask Next Time Or When I Share: Prompts the user for permission each time the app requests location, or when specific sharing features are used. The user can then choose "Allow Once," "Allow While Using App," or "Don't Allow."
While Using the App: Allows the app to access location data only when it is actively open and visible on the screen.
Always: Grants the app permission to access location data at any time, including when it is running in the background.
Understanding these options is crucial, as the selection made for the Leica FOTOS app directly dictates its ability to perform continuous geotagging.
2.2. The Critical "Allow Location Access" Settings for Leica FOTOS
The "Allow Location Access" setting chosen for the Leica FOTOS app is paramount in determining the reliability of geotagging:
Never: This setting will completely disable geotagging functionality through the FOTOS app.
Ask Next Time: While offering tight control, this option is impractical for typical photography sessions, as it would necessitate constant interaction with the iPhone to grant permission for each location update.
While Using the App: This is a primary suspect for the "stuck geotag" issue. If the FOTOS app is configured with this permission, it can only obtain location updates when it is the active, foreground application on the iPhone. If a photographer opens the app initially (e.g., at home), it receives a location fix. However, if they then switch to the camera app or lock their phone and begin shooting with the Leica Q3, the FOTOS app, now in the background, will be denied further location updates by iOS. Consequently, it will repeatedly use the stale, initial location data for all subsequent photos taken until the app is brought to the foreground again.
Always: This setting is generally recommended for seamless and continuous geotagging with the Leica Q3. It allows the Leica FOTOS app to fetch location updates from iOS even when the app is not actively on screen or is running in the background. Leica's own documentation for similar camera systems using the FOTOS app advises choosing the "Always" option to "ensure continuous geolocation for up to the minute location information". The FOTOS app's App Store description also acknowledges this capability, stating, "This app may use your location even when it isn’t open", which inherently requires "Always" permission. Leica's privacy policy further confirms that, based on preferences, "location data is collected even when the Leica FOTOS app is closed or not in use", reinforcing the necessity of "Always" access for such functionality.
The choice of "While Using the App," while seemingly a good balance for privacy and battery for many apps, inadvertently cripples the continuous geotagging feature for a camera companion app like Leica FOTOS, which needs to work in tandem with a camera that is actively being used while the phone might be pocketed.
2.3. The Significance of "Precise Location": Accuracy versus Approximation
Introduced in iOS 14, the "Precise Location" setting adds another layer of control. Found within each app's individual Location Services settings, this toggle determines whether an app receives exact coordinates or a more general, approximate location.
Precise Location ON: The app receives the most accurate location data the iPhone can determine, often recalibrating frequently as the device moves. This is highly desirable for accurate geotagging.
Precise Location OFF: The app receives only an approximate location, which might cover a broader geographical area.
If "Precise Location" is turned off for the Leica FOTOS app, the location data supplied might be less accurate and update less frequently. While this alone might not cause a geotag to be "stuck" for an entire day, it could contribute. If the initial location fix is a large approximate area, and subsequent movements occur within that same general zone, the FOTOS app might not register a significant enough change to request or apply an updated geotag, especially if also constrained by a "While Using App" permission. For the highest fidelity in geotagging, "Precise Location" should be enabled. Disabling it can improve battery life but at the cost of location accuracy.
2.4. "Background App Refresh": Keeping Apps Updated (Including Location)
"Background App Refresh" (BAR) is an iOS feature (Settings > General > Background App Refresh) that allows suspended apps to check for updates and new content in the background. While distinct from the specific "Allow Location Access" permissions, BAR can influence an app's overall ability to perform background tasks.
If BAR is disabled for the Leica FOTOS app, its general capacity for background activity might be diminished. While the "Always" location permission is the more direct and critical setting for continuous location updates, a disabled BAR could potentially hinder the app's ability to efficiently fetch or process this location data in the background, even if the "Always" permission is granted. It plays a supporting role in maintaining the app's "health" and responsiveness when not in the foreground. Therefore, ensuring BAR is enabled for Leica FOTOS is advisable for optimal performance of all its background features, including those related to location.
2.5. "Local Network" Permissions
An often-overlooked permission that can impact the Leica FOTOS app's functionality is "Local Network" access (Settings > Privacy & Security > Local Network). Several user reports in photography forums indicate that connectivity issues between the FOTOS app and Leica cameras were resolved by ensuring this permission was enabled for the app. While not directly related to the iPhone sourcing GPS data from its internal services, this permission is crucial for the app to communicate effectively with the Leica Q3 over the local Wi-Fi network established between the two devices. If the app cannot reliably connect to the camera, it cannot transmit any location data, accurate or otherwise. This setting is fundamental for the basic pairing and data exchange operations of the app.
The interplay of these iOS settings is complex. A setting chosen for privacy or battery conservation, such as "While Using App" for location access, can have unintended consequences for applications like Leica FOTOS, which provide essential background services to a companion hardware device. The "stuck geotag" scenario is a clear manifestation of this, where an initial, correct data point is captured, but the pipeline for continuous updates is severed by a restrictive permission.
It is also worth noting that some user reviews for the Leica FOTOS app have mentioned that the "Always Geotagging" feature was in "beta" or exhibited instability. This suggests that beyond iOS settings, the app's own maturity in handling persistent background location tasks could sometimes be a factor, making correct iOS configuration even more critical to provide the app with the best possible conditions to function as intended.
3. Pinpointing the Cause: Likely Scenarios for the Geotagging Failure
Based on the interaction between the Leica Q3, the Leica FOTOS app, and iPhone's location settings, several scenarios can explain why all photographs taken during a day might receive the same, incorrect geotag. The common thread is that the FOTOS app received an initial location but was then unable to obtain or apply updated location data for subsequent shots.
3.1. Scenario 1: "While Using the App" Permission with Infrequent App Interaction (Most Probable)
This is the most likely scenario leading to the described "stuck geotag" issue.
Sequence of Events:
The user configures the Leica FOTOS app with "Allow Location Access" set to "While Using the App."
Before starting their photography session, the user opens the Leica FOTOS app on their iPhone (e.g., while at home or their starting location). At this point, the app is in the foreground and successfully requests and receives current location data from iOS.
The user then begins taking photos with the Leica Q3. The iPhone might be put into a pocket or bag, and the Leica FOTOS app is no longer the active, foreground application. It might be running in the background or suspended by iOS.
As the user moves to new locations and continues shooting, the Leica Q3 remains connected to the iPhone via Bluetooth/Wi-Fi for potential remote control or data transfer. However, because the FOTOS app is not in the foreground and its location permission is restricted to "While Using the App," iOS prevents it from accessing updated location information.
The FOTOS app, lacking fresh data, defaults to the last known good location it obtained when it was last active. This stale geotag is then applied to all subsequent photographs taken throughout the day, regardless of the actual location changes.
Alignment with the Problem: This scenario perfectly aligns with the reported problem: an initial (but now incorrect) geotag being consistently applied.
3.2. Scenario 2: "Precise Location" Disabled Leading to Stagnant Approximate Location
While less likely to be the sole cause for an entire day of identical tags, having "Precise Location" disabled could be a significant contributing factor, especially if combined with other restrictive settings or infrequent app updates.
Sequence of Events:
"Precise Location" is turned OFF for the Leica FOTOS app. The app is granted some level of location access (e.g., "While Using App" or even "Always").
The app receives an initial approximate location. This location might cover a relatively broad geographical area.
If the photographer's movements throughout the day occur largely within this initial approximate area, or if the FOTOS app is not highly sensitive to subtle shifts in approximate location data, it might not detect a significant enough change to trigger a request for an updated location or to consider the location as having changed.
The initial approximate location might then be repeatedly applied.
Plausibility: This scenario is more plausible if the actual geographical changes were minor or if the FOTOS app's logic for updating based on approximate location is not aggressive.
3.3. Scenario 3: Background App Refresh (BAR) Disabled for Leica FOTOS
If "Background App Refresh" is disabled system-wide or specifically for the Leica FOTOS app, its ability to perform general background tasks could be compromised.
Sequence of Events:
"Background App Refresh" is OFF for Leica FOTOS.
Even if "Allow Location Access" is set to "Always," the app's overall capacity to wake up in the background, fetch new data (including location), and maintain its processes might be limited by iOS.
This could lead to the app failing to update its location status periodically, causing it to rely on older data.
Impact: This is a less direct cause than the primary location access permission but can contribute to sluggish or non-updating background behaviour for the app.
3.4. Scenario 4: Initial Location Lock Maintained Due to Lack of Update Triggers or App State
This scenario considers the possibility of an issue within the Leica FOTOS app itself or its interaction with the camera/iOS.
Sequence of Events:
The app obtains an initial location successfully.
Subsequently, due to an internal app state, an intermittent bug, or an unstable connection (Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) to the camera that doesn't fully sever but prevents new data exchange, the app fails to request or register new location data from iOS, despite having the necessary permissions.
Supporting Evidence: User reports of app instability or connectivity problems with the FOTOS app, and Leica's acknowledgment of a "beta" status for "Always Geotagging" in some reviews, suggest that app-side behaviour could occasionally contribute to such issues. The app might have an aggressive caching mechanism for location data or an inefficient trigger for refreshing this data from iOS.
Underlying Challenge: The fact that a geotag was applied, even if incorrect for most photos, indicates the initial communication pathway for location data was functional. The failure lies in the continuous update mechanism, strongly implicating iOS permissions ("While Using App" being the most direct cause) or the app's behaviour when operating in the background. This underscores a design challenge for any mobile application that needs to provide persistent background data services to a companion hardware device operating within a privacy-conscious mobile operating system like iOS.
4. Best Practices for Accurate and Reliable Geotagging with Your Leica Q3 and iPhone
To ensure accurate and reliable geotagging for photographs taken with the Leica Q3 when paired with an iPhone, a proactive approach to configuring both iOS settings and Leica FOTOS app preferences is essential. The following best practices will help prevent issues ike the "stuck geotag" and promote consistent performance.
4.1. Configuring iPhone Location Settings for Leica FOTOS App
The iPhone's Location Services settings for the Leica FOTOS app are the most critical elements to configure correctly. These can be accessed by navigating to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services on the iPhone, then selecting Leica FOTOS from the list of apps.
Set "Allow Location Access" to Always: This is the cornerstone for continuous geotagging. As Leica's own documentation suggests for other FOTOS-compatible cameras, this permission allows the app to receive location updates from iOS even when it's not the active application on the screen or is running in the background. This directly addresses the primary cause of a "stuck" geotag where the app is denied updates after an initial fix.
Ensure "Precise Location" is ON: For the most accurate geographical coordinates, this toggle should be enabled. It allows the FOTOS app to receive the exact location determined by the iPhone, rather than a broader, less accurate approximation.
Ensure "Background App Refresh" is ON: This setting, found under Settings > General > Background App Refresh (then toggle on for Leica FOTOS), supports the app's general ability to update its content and perform tasks while in the background. While "Always" location access is more specific for location data, BAR contributes to the app's overall background health.
Ensure "Local Network" is ON: Found under Settings > Privacy & Security > Local Network (then toggle on for Leica FOTOS), this permission is vital for the app to communicate with the Leica Q3 over the Wi-Fi connection they establish. Without it, data transfer, including geotags, cannot occur.
Recommended iPhone Settings for Leica FOTOS App
Location Services (Master Switch) ON
Leica FOTOS App Specific Settings:
Allow Location Access Always
Precise Location ON
Background App Refresh ON
Local Network ON
4.2. Key Leica FOTOS App Settings for Geotagging
Within the Leica FOTOS application itself, there may be settings that control its geotagging behaviour. Users should explore the app's settings menu (often represented by a gear icon).
Main Geotagging Switch: Ensure that any primary toggle or option for "Geotagging" or "Location Tagging" within the app is enabled.
Continuous/Always Geotagging Mode: Some versions or configurations of the FOTOS app might offer specific modes for geotagging, such as an "Always" or "Continuous" option, as hinted by firmware notes for other Leica models and user discussions about an "Always Geotagging (beta)" feature. If such an option exists, it should be selected to ensure the app actively works to maintain current location data.
Key Leica FOTOS App Settings for Geotagging
Main Geotagging Switch Enabled
Continuous/Always Geotagging Mode (if available) Selected
4.3. Pre-Photography Checklist
A brief check before starting a photography session can prevent many geotagging problems:
Open Leica FOTOS App: Briefly launch the app on the iPhone to ensure it establishes a connection with the Leica Q3 and is actively running.
Verify Geotagging Status: If the camera or app displays a geotagging status icon (as described for some Leica M-series cameras), check it to confirm that location services are active and a fix has been obtained.
Ensure iPhone GPS Signal: Confirm that the iPhone has a good GPS signal. Avoid starting a shoot immediately after being in an area with poor reception (e.g., deep indoors, underground) without giving the phone a moment to acquire a solid fix.
4.4. Understanding Connection Stability: Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
While iOS permissions are paramount for access to location data, a stable wireless connection (typically Bluetooth for initial pairing and status, and Wi-Fi for data transfer including potential location updates) between the iPhone and the Leica Q3 is necessary for the transfer of this data. Intermittent connection drops could lead to missed geotags. Some users have reported resolving connectivity issues by changing the Q3's Wi-Fi band setting (e.g., from 5GHz to 2.4GHz), which can sometimes offer a more stable, albeit slower, connection in challenging RF environments.
By adhering to these best practices, users can significantly improve the consistency and accuracy of geotagging with their Leica Q3 and iPhone. The system's reliance on inter-device communication and app permissions means it is not entirely a "set and forget" feature, requiring some initial diligence in configuration and occasional checks.
5. Troubleshooting Common Geotagging Issues
Even with careful configuration, geotagging issues can occasionally arise due to the complex interaction between the Leica Q3, the Leica FOTOS app, and the iPhone's operating system. This section outlines common symptoms, their likely causes, and recommended solutions.
5.1. Symptom: All photos have the same, incorrect geotag (my initial issue)
Likely Causes:
Leica FOTOS app's "Allow Location Access" permission on iPhone set to "While Using the App," and the app was not active in the foreground during the shoot.
"Precise Location" turned OFF for the FOTOS app, leading to a broad initial fix that didn't update.
"Background App Refresh" turned OFF for the FOTOS app, hindering its background update capabilities.
Solutions:
Reconfigure iPhone Location Services for the Leica FOTOS app as detailed in Section 4.1: set "Allow Location Access" to "Always," "Precise Location" to ON, and "Background App Refresh" to ON.
5.2. Symptom: Geotags are Missing Entirely
Likely Causes:
iPhone's master "Location Services" toggle is OFF.
Leica FOTOS app's "Allow Location Access" permission is set to "Never".
The internal geotagging feature within the Leica FOTOS app itself is disabled.
No active or stable Bluetooth/Wi-Fi connection between the FOTOS app and the Leica Q3.
The iPhone has no GPS signal (e.g., in a deep basement, airplane mode with GPS off).
Solutions:
Verify all master toggles on the iPhone (Location Services) and within the Leica FOTOS app are enabled.
Ensure the iPhone can obtain a GPS fix (check Maps app, for instance).
Troubleshoot the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection between the phone and camera (see Section 5.5).
5.3. Symptom: Geotags are Consistently Inaccurate (e.g., always offset by a certain distance)
Likely Causes:
"Precise Location" is turned OFF for the Leica FOTOS app on the iPhone, resulting in only approximate location data being used.
The iPhone is consistently in an environment with poor GPS signal quality (e.g., urban canyons, dense foliage), leading to a less accurate fix.
Solutions:
Enable "Precise Location" for the Leica FOTOS app in iPhone settings (Section 4.1).
If possible, ensure the iPhone has a clear view of the sky for a better GPS signal when critical accuracy is needed.
5.4. Symptom: Intermittent Geotags (some photos tagged, some not)
Likely Causes:
Unstable Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection between the camera and the iPhone, causing periodic failures in data transmission.
The Leica FOTOS app is crashing or being aggressively managed (force-closed) by iOS due to high memory usage on the iPhone or other system constraints.
"Allow Location Access" for FOTOS app set to "Ask Next Time," and the user is intermittently denying permission or not responding to prompts.
iPhone battery is critically low, and iOS is limiting background activities.
Solutions:
Troubleshoot wireless connectivity (see Section 5.5).
Ensure the Leica FOTOS app has "Always" permission for location access.
Keep the iPhone adequately charged.
Close other resource-intensive apps on the iPhone if memory pressure is suspected.
Check for Leica FOTOS app updates, as these may include stability improvements.
5.5. Addressing Leica FOTOS App Connectivity Problems
Connectivity issues between the Leica FOTOS app and the camera are a common source of frustration and can impact geotagging. User forums and support discussions offer several potential fixes:
Restart Devices: Turn both the iPhone and the Leica Q3 off and then on again.
Reinstall App: Delete the Leica FOTOS app from the iPhone and reinstall it from the App Store. This can resolve issues caused by corrupted app data.
Reset Network Settings: On the iPhone, go to Settings > General > Transfer or Reset iPhone > Reset > Reset Network Settings. This often resolves stubborn Wi-Fi and Bluetooth issues but will erase all saved Wi-Fi networks and passwords from the iPhone.
Check "Local Network" Permission: Ensure this is ON for the Leica FOTOS app (Settings > Privacy & Security > Local Network).
Re-pair Bluetooth: In iPhone Bluetooth settings, "Forget" the Leica camera and then re-pair it through the Leica FOTOS app.
Update Software: Ensure both the Leica Q3 firmware and the Leica FOTOS app are updated to their latest versions. Updates often include bug fixes and compatibility improvements.
Change Q3 Wi-Fi Band: Some users have found success by changing the camera's WLAN settings from 5GHz to 2.4GHz, which can sometimes provide a more stable connection, especially in environments with RF interference.
5.6. The Impact of iOS Updates on App Permissions and Functionality
It is important to be aware that major iOS updates can occasionally alter app permissions or introduce subtle changes that affect how third-party apps function. After any significant iOS update, it is prudent to re-verify the Location Services, Background App Refresh, and Local Network permissions for the Leica FOTOS app to ensure they remain configured as intended.
6. Privacy Considerations: Managing Your Location Footprint
The settings recommended for reliable geotagging—specifically granting the Leica FOTOS app "Always" access to location data and enabling "Precise Location"—have direct implications for user privacy. While these settings are necessary for the app to function optimally for continuous geotagging, it is important to understand and manage the data being shared.
When "Always" location access is granted, the Leica FOTOS app has the technical capability to access the iPhone's location at any time, even when the app is not actively open or in use. Combined with "Precise Location," this means the app could potentially build a detailed history of the user's movements. The Leica FOTOS app's App Store page explicitly states that "Location" data may be collected and linked to the user's identity.
Leica Camera AG's privacy policy for the FOTOS app outlines that location data is processed for geotagging purposes. However, users should be aware of the broader implications of such permissions. Some individuals may have concerns about any app having persistent access to their exact whereabouts, especially considering how location data can be used for purposes like geo-targeting by advertisers, although this is more typical of other app categories.
To balance the convenience of automatic geotagging with privacy preferences, users should consider the following:
Review Permissions Periodically: Make it a habit to periodically review the location permissions granted to all apps, including Leica FOTOS, in the iPhone's Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services.
Disable When Not Needed: If geotagging is not required for an extended period, users can temporarily change the Leica FOTOS app's location access permission to "While Using the App" or "Never." This will prevent background location tracking but will require re-enabling "Always" access when continuous geotagging is desired again.
Consult Privacy Policies: Familiarise oneself with Leica's privacy policy for the FOTOS app to understand how the company states it collects, uses, and protects location data.
Ultimately, the decision involves a trade-off. For seamless and accurate geotagging with the Leica Q3, the recommended iOS settings provide the Leica FOTOS app with the necessary access. Users must weigh this functional benefit against their personal comfort level regarding location data sharing and manage their iPhone's settings accordingly.
7. Conclusion: Taking Control of Your Leica Q3's Geotagging
The frustrating experience of finding all Leica Q3 photographs from a day's shoot marked with the same, incorrect geotag is primarily a consequence of the Leica FOTOS app not receiving continuously updated location information from the connected iPhone. This investigation has identified that the root cause typically lies within the iPhone's privacy and location settings, where configurations intended to protect user privacy or conserve battery can inadvertently restrict the app's ability to perform its geotagging function effectively when operating in the background.
The most critical adjustments for ensuring reliable and accurate geotagging involve configuring the iPhone's settings for the Leica FOTOS app as follows:
Set "Allow Location Access" to Always.
Ensure "Precise Location" is ON.
Confirm that "Background App Refresh" is also ON.
Verify that "Local Network" permission is granted.
These settings, in conjunction with ensuring that any in-app geotagging features within the Leica FOTOS app are enabled, create the optimal conditions for the system to work as intended. While the distributed nature of this geotagging system—relying on the camera, a companion app, and the smartphone's OS—introduces more potential points of failure than an integrated in-camera GPS, it also offers the flexibility and power of the smartphone's advanced location services.
By understanding the mechanics of how the Leica Q3 sources its location data and the specific impact of each relevant iPhone setting, users can move from being perplexed by an unexpected issue to being informed operators of their equipment. With the correct configuration, achieving consistent and accurate geotagging is well within reach, allowing photographers to precisely document the location of their valued images without further frustration.
Last November I ordered and paid for the Sony A1 II and it is now 3 May 2025 and I am still waiting. I had also decided to purchase a number of appropriate lenses and one of them was the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II which I used for the first time today (3 May 2025).
Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II vs GM I: A Detailed Look for Those Considering an Upgrade
1. Introduction: The Evolution of a G Master Wide-Angle Zoom
The arrival of the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2) lens represents a significant update to a key lens in Sony's professional G Master lineup. This Mark II version, released in 2023, replaces the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM), which was launched back in 2017. It completes the second generation of Sony's highly regarded F2.8 'trinity' of zoom lenses, joining the FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II and the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II.
This generational update clearly demonstrates Sony's consistent strategy for its flagship lenses. Across the G Master II series, the company has prioritised several key areas:
Significant reductions in size and weight.
The inclusion of enhanced physical controls, such as dedicated aperture rings.
Substantially upgraded autofocus systems utilising XD Linear Motors.
Meticulous refinements to the optical design aimed at pushing the boundaries of image quality.
The development from the original G Master zooms to their Mark II counterparts highlights Sony's responsiveness to the demands of professionals for lighter and more versatile tools suitable for modern hybrid photo and video workflows. The consistency across these updates suggests a deliberate move towards a more unified and ergonomically refined professional lens system.
However, the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM was, and still is, a highly respected lens, praised for its optical quality and robust build. This sets a high standard and makes the decision to upgrade a complex one for existing owners. Is the Mark II simply a minor improvement, or does it offer compelling enough advantages to justify a significant further investment?
This discussion aims to provide a comprehensive analysis comparing the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II with its predecessor. By examining the specific changes in physical design, handling characteristics, optical performance, and autofocus capabilities, and considering insights from professional reviews and user discussions, this analysis will explore the tangible benefits offered by the newer model. Ultimately, it will evaluate the compelling reasons why an owner of the original GM lens might feel the need to upgrade. The following sections will break down the physical modifications, delve into the optical advancements, scrutinise the autofocus overhaul, consider perspectives from reviewers and users, and finally, offer a considered opinion on the upgrade question.
2. Downsized Design, Enhanced Handling: Physical Improvements
One of the most immediately noticeable differences between the two generations is their physical size and handling features. The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II represents a significant step forward in terms of portability and operational refinement compared to the original.
Significant Size and Weight Reduction
Sony has achieved a notable reduction in the lens's physical size. The GM II measures 111.5 mm in length, approximately 10 mm shorter than the GM I's 121.6 mm. Even more significant is the weight difference: the GM II weighs 547 g, a substantial 133 g (around 20%) lighter than the 680 g GM I. This reduction allowed Sony to claim the title of the "world's smallest and lightest" full-frame F2.8 autofocus 16-35mm zoom lens at the time of its release. When compared to contemporary rivals such as the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM (840 g) or the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN Art (795 g), the GM II's compactness is particularly evident.
Here's a comparison of the key physical specifications:
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2):
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 87.8 x 111.5 mm
Weight: 547 g
Filter Size: 82 mm
Focus Hold Buttons: 2
Aperture Ring: Yes
Iris Lock Switch: Yes
Aperture De-Click Switch: Yes
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM):
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 88.5 x 121.6 mm
Weight: 680 g
Filter Size: 82 mm
Focus Hold Buttons: 1
Aperture Ring: No
Iris Lock Switch: No
Aperture De-Click Switch: No
Impact on Portability and Balance
This reduction in size and weight directly translates into practical benefits for photographers. The GM II is easier to pack for travel and less tiring to carry and use during long shooting sessions. Its lighter weight improves the overall balance, especially when mounted on Sony's increasingly compact Alpha camera bodies. Furthermore, while both lenses physically extend when zoomed towards the wider end (the GM II extends by approximately 9mm towards 16mm, being shortest at 35mm), the GM II is designed to maintain a more consistent centre of gravity throughout the zoom range. This enhanced stability is a significant advantage for videographers using gimbals or other stabilising equipment, minimising the need for rebalancing after changing focal length. The original GM I also extends during zooming, potentially leading to more noticeable balance shifts.
Enhanced On-Barrel Controls
The GM II incorporates several handling upgrades that align it with Sony's latest lens design philosophy, offering more direct, tactile control:
Aperture Ring: A key addition is the physical aperture ring, allowing direct manual control of the aperture in 1/3-stop increments. This feature, absent on the GM I, is now standard across the GM II trinity. For videographers, a crucial inclusion is the de-click switch, enabling smooth and silent aperture adjustments during recording. The ring also features an 'A' (Automatic) position, allowing aperture control to revert to the camera body if preferred.
Iris Lock: Complementing the aperture ring is an Iris Lock switch. This practical feature prevents the aperture ring from being accidentally moved out of the 'A' position or away from a manually selected aperture, addressing a common handling concern with aperture rings, especially during lens changes or in fast-paced shooting situations.
Focus Hold Buttons: The GM II features two customisable focus hold buttons, typically assigned to AF-lock but configurable via the camera menu. One is placed conventionally on the side, while the second is located on the top of the barrel, providing easier access when shooting in vertical (portrait) orientation. This is an upgrade from the single focus hold button found on the GM I.
Zoom Smoothness Switch: Some specifications also mention a zoom smoothness switch, allowing adjustment of the zoom ring's torque, although this feature receives less attention in reviews.
The convergence of these handling features across the GM II lens series (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm) creates a significant ergonomic advantage. For professionals who frequently switch between these focal lengths, the consistent placement and functionality of controls like the aperture ring and focus hold buttons allow for a more intuitive and efficient workflow, relying on muscle memory rather than adapting to different layouts. This operational parity makes the GM II wide-angle feel like a natural extension of the updated system, a tangible benefit over mixing first and second-generation lenses.
Build Quality and Weather Sealing
As expected from a G Master lens, the GM II maintains a high standard of construction. It utilises a hybrid construction incorporating both metal and plastic components to achieve a balance between durability and the targeted low weight. Comprehensive dust and moisture resistance is implemented through seals and gaskets at seams and around the lens mount, providing confidence for use in challenging weather conditions. It is important to note, however, that Sony does not guarantee 100% protection. The front element features a fluorine coating, which helps repel water, oil, and fingerprints, making the lens easier to keep clean. Additionally, the included petal-shaped lens hood has been redesigned to be smaller and sleeker, complementing the lens's reduced dimensions.
3. Optical Performance: Sharper, Closer, Clearer?
While physical refinements enhance usability, the core value of a G Master lens lies in its optical capabilities. The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II employs a revised optical design intended to surpass the already high standards set by its predecessor.
Optical Design Overview
The GM II features a slightly less complex optical formula than the GM I, comprising 15 elements arranged in 12 groups, compared to the GM I's 16 elements in 13 groups. Despite fewer elements, the GM II incorporates a sophisticated array of specialised glass, including three XA (extreme aspherical) elements, one standard aspherical element, one Super ED (Extra-low Dispersion) element, two ED elements, and one ED glass aspherical element. The original GM I utilised two XA elements, three standard aspherical elements, and two ED elements. Sony explicitly states that the GM II is designed to rival the performance of prime lenses, indicating ambitious optical goals.
Here's a comparison of the key optical performance metrics:
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2):
Optical Formula: 15 Elements / 12 Groups
XA Elements: 3
ED / Super ED Elements: 1 Super ED, 2 ED, 1 ED Aspherical
Aspherical Elements: 1 (plus XA and ED Aspherical)
Minimum Focus Distance: 0.22 m (8.7")
Maximum Magnification: 0.32x
Aperture Blades: 11, Rounded
Coating Type: Nano AR Coating II
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM):
Optical Formula: 16 Elements / 13 Groups
XA Elements: 2
ED / Super ED Elements: 2 ED
Aspherical Elements: 3 (plus XA)
Minimum Focus Distance: 0.28 m (11.0")
Maximum Magnification: 0.19x
Aperture Blades: 11, Rounded
Coating Type: Nano AR Coating
Sharpness Analysis
Professional reviews and lab tests generally indicate that the GM II delivers exceptional sharpness across the frame, often exceeding the performance of the GM I, particularly wide open at F2.8 and towards the corners. Centre sharpness is frequently described as outstanding even at the maximum aperture. Some analyses suggest the improvement is most noticeable at the 35mm end of the zoom range compared to the original. The GM I, however, was already considered a very sharp lens, especially when stopped down slightly, setting a high benchmark for its successor.
However, a degree of caution is warranted. While controlled tests paint a picture of clear superiority for the GM II, real-world user reports present a more mixed view. Some users, particularly on forums like Fred Miranda, have reported experiencing disappointing corner sharpness with their retail copies of the GM II, sometimes finding their previous GM I performed better in this regard. Concerns about decentring or sample variation, issues occasionally associated with Sony lenses even at the G Master level, have been raised. This discrepancy between lab results and some user experiences suggests that while the GM II's optical design is likely superior, achieving that potential consistently across all manufactured units might be challenging, possibly due to the tighter tolerances required by the more compact design. This implies that the sharpness advantage over a known, well-performing GM I copy may not be guaranteed for every GM II unit purchased.
Bokeh Quality
Both the GM I and GM II feature an 11-bladed circular aperture designed to produce smooth, aesthetically pleasing bokeh (the quality of out-of-focus areas). Sony claims improved bokeh for the GM II, and its optical design specifically targets the reduction of 'onion ring' patterns within bokeh highlights. While wide-angle lenses inherently produce less background separation than longer focal lengths, reviews suggest the GM II renders out-of-focus areas smoothly and attractively, perhaps offering a marginal improvement over the GM I. However, some direct comparisons found the practical difference in bokeh quality to be minimal.
Aberration, Distortion, and Flare Control
Chromatic Aberration: Thanks to the inclusion of ED and Super ED glass elements, the GM II demonstrates excellent control over both longitudinal (LoCA) and lateral (LaCA) chromatic aberrations, resulting in minimal colour fringing even in high-contrast areas. The GM I also employed ED elements effectively for CA suppression.
Distortion: Like most wide-angle zooms, the GM II exhibits noticeable barrel distortion at its widest 16mm setting. Some reviews describe it as complex distortion that benefits significantly from lens correction profiles applied in-camera or in post-processing. Distortion becomes fairly neutral around 24mm and transitions to minor, easily correctable pincushion distortion at 35mm. While the GM I also had wide-angle distortion, some comparisons suggest the GM II shows an improvement, particularly at 16mm.
Vignetting: Significant light fall-off towards the corners (vignetting) is present when shooting wide open at F2.8, especially at 16mm (measured at over one stop in some tests). This is typical for fast wide-angle zooms and is effectively handled by correction profiles. The GM I also exhibited vignetting. Interestingly, one direct comparison found the GM II actually showed less vignetting than the GM I at 16mm F2.8 under identical conditions.
Flare Resistance: The GM II utilises Sony's more advanced Nano AR Coating II, designed to provide superior suppression of internal reflections, ghosting, and flare compared to the original Nano AR Coating found on the GM I. Reviews generally praise the GM II's excellent performance in challenging backlit situations, maintaining high contrast and clarity. However, at least one direct comparison reported finding little practical difference in flare handling between the two generations in their specific tests.
Major Upgrade: Close-Focus Performance
Perhaps the most significant and universally praised optical improvement in the GM II is its dramatically enhanced close-focusing capability. The Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) has been reduced from 0.28 m (11.0 inches) on the GM I to just 0.22 m (8.7 inches) on the GM II, consistent across the entire zoom range. This closer focus ability translates into a much higher maximum magnification ratio: 0.32x for the GM II compared to only 0.19x for the GM I.
This substantial increase in magnification (approaching the 1:3 reproduction ratio) significantly expands the lens's versatility. It allows photographers to get much closer to their subjects, capturing intricate details and creating dynamic, exaggerated perspectives characteristic of wide-angle close-ups. This capability was not a particular strength of the original GM I. The 0.32x magnification brings the GM II's close-up performance in line with other modern zooms like the FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II, enabling greater subject isolation against blurred backgrounds even at wide focal lengths. For photographers interested in environmental portraits, product details, food photography, or simply adding more compositional flexibility to their wide-angle work, this improved close-focus performance represents a tangible creative advantage and a compelling reason to consider the upgrade beyond incremental sharpness gains.
4. Autofocus Leaps Forward: Speed, Precision, and Video Focus
The autofocus system represents another area of substantial advancement in the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II, leveraging Sony's latest motor technology for marked improvements in speed, accuracy, and suitability for video applications.
Motor Technology Upgrade
The GM II replaces the original's capable but older dual Direct Drive SSM (DDSSM) autofocus system with a significantly more advanced setup. It employs four of Sony's high-thrust XD (Extreme Dynamic) Linear Motors. These motors drive a floating focus mechanism, where internal lens groups move independently to maintain optimal image quality across all focus distances and focal lengths. While the GM I also featured a floating focus design, the combination with the quad XD Linear Motors in the GM II yields superior performance.
Performance Gains
The implementation of XD Linear Motors brings several key autofocus benefits:
Speed: Sony claims the GM II's AF can be up to twice as fast as its predecessor. Independent reviews corroborate this, describing the autofocus as "lightning fast" and "near instant," enabling rapid focus acquisition and transitions between near and far subjects with minimal delay.
Precision and Tracking: The XD motors offer enhanced precision and responsiveness. This translates to improved subject tracking performance, reliably maintaining focus on moving subjects even while zooming. The system is capable of supporting the high continuous shooting rates (up to 30 fps) of advanced Sony bodies like the Alpha 1. Excellent eye-tracking performance has also been noted.
Low Light: While the GM I's AF was competent, some comparisons suggest the XD motors in the GM II provide slightly better autofocus reliability in challenging low-light conditions.
Video-Centric AF Improvements
The autofocus enhancements in the GM II extend significantly to video performance, addressing key requirements for modern videography:
Focus Breathing: Focus breathing (the slight change in focal length that can occur when shifting focus) is significantly suppressed optically in the GM II compared to the GM I. Furthermore, the lens supports the in-camera Breathing Compensation feature available on newer Sony Alpha and Cinema Line cameras, allowing for near-elimination of this distracting effect.
Quiet Operation: The XD Linear Motors operate virtually silently, ensuring that autofocus adjustments are not picked up by microphones during video recording.
Smoothness: Focus transitions are smooth and confident, without noticeable stepping, hunting, or pulsing, resulting in professional-looking focus pulls.
Parfocal-like Behaviour: Some reviewers have observed that the lens behaves in a parfocal-like manner, meaning focus is largely maintained even when the focal length is changed during a shot. While not strictly parfocal, this behaviour is a significant benefit for videographers who often zoom during recording.
The comprehensive overhaul of the autofocus system stands as one of the most compelling technical arguments for upgrading from the GM I to the GM II. The older DDSSM system was effective for its time, but the quad XD Linear Motors represent Sony's current pinnacle of AF technology, offering demonstrable advantages in speed, tracking, and quietness. These improvements are particularly relevant for photographers capturing fast action, events, or wildlife, where the lens's wide perspective might be employed. Crucially, the enhancements tailored for video – especially the minimised focus breathing and silent operation – directly cater to the needs of hybrid shooters and dedicated videographers, a user base whose requirements have become increasingly central to lens design. The GM II's AF performance is better matched to the capabilities of Sony's latest high-speed camera bodies, promising a higher keeper rate and smoother, more professional footage.
However, it is worth noting the perspective of diminishing returns. While objectively superior, the practical value of the GM II's enhanced AF depends on the user's specific needs. Some photographers, particularly those primarily shooting static subjects like landscapes or architecture, may find the autofocus performance of the original GM I entirely sufficient. For these users, the faster motors of the GM II might represent less of a critical upgrade compared to those shooting dynamic scenes or demanding video sequences.
5. Perspectives from Professionals and Peers: Reviews and Forum Insights
Evaluating the real-world value of the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II necessitates considering both formal technical reviews and the experiences shared by photographers using the lens in practice.
Synthesis of Professional Reviews
Across major photography publications and testing sites, the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II has received overwhelmingly positive assessments. Reviewers consistently praise the significant reduction in size and weight, making the lens more manageable and portable. The enhanced handling, particularly the addition of the aperture ring with its de-click option and lock, is frequently highlighted as a major improvement. The dramatically improved close-focus capability (0.32x magnification) is lauded for its added versatility. Autofocus performance is consistently described as exceptionally fast, quiet, and accurate, with particular commendation for its suitability for video due to minimal focus breathing and smooth operation. Optically, the lens is generally rated as excellent, delivering high levels of sharpness across the frame, well-controlled chromatic aberration, and impressive flare resistance. Minor criticisms typically revolve around the noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm (though correctable) and the premium price point, which places it firmly in the professional market segment.
User Forum Sentiment (Reddit, Fred Miranda)
Discussions among photographers on platforms like Reddit and Fred Miranda provide valuable real-world context and reveal nuances often missed in formal reviews.
Agreement on Positives: Users generally concur with reviewers regarding the benefits of the GM II's lighter weight, the utility of the aperture ring, and the significantly improved close-focusing distance. The faster autofocus is also acknowledged as an improvement.
The Value Debate: A dominant theme in user discussions is the cost-benefit analysis of upgrading. The substantial price difference between a new GM II (around $2,300 USD) and the readily available used market for the GM I (often found between $1,000-$1,300 USD) is a major consideration.
Many users argue that the original GM I offers superior value for money, especially if its performance is deemed sufficient for their needs and the handling/weight advantages of the GM II are not critical priorities. The sentiment often expressed is that the GM II offers primarily "quality of life" improvements rather than a revolutionary leap in core functionality for many users.
Image Quality Debate and Copy Variation: This area reveals the most significant divergence between professional reviews and user experiences. While some users report excellent image quality from their GM II copies, matching or exceeding expectations, a notable number have expressed disappointment. Specific concerns frequently mentioned include subpar corner sharpness, particularly at wider apertures or when stopped down for landscape foregrounds, sometimes perceived as worse than their previous GM I copy. Issues with decentring (where one side or corner of the frame is softer than others) have also been reported. This raises concerns about manufacturing consistency, particularly in early production runs, suggesting that the theoretical optical superiority of the GM II might not be realised in every unit. This potential inconsistency makes the upgrade feel riskier for those with a known, high-performing GM I.
Alternative Considerations: Users often weigh the 16-35mm GM II against other options. The Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G is mentioned as a lighter, cheaper alternative with a power zoom feature, albeit with a slower F4 aperture. Third-party lenses like the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN Art are considered for their wider perspective and excellent optics, though they are heavier and lack front filter threads. Some users also contemplate replacing the zoom with high-quality wide-angle primes like the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G or FE 35mm F1.4 GM, which offer wider apertures for better low-light performance and shallower depth of field, albeit sacrificing zoom flexibility.
The high regard in which the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is held creates a significant challenge for the GM II's upgrade proposition. Many photographers find the performance of the GM I to be not just adequate, but excellent for their requirements. While the GM II offers improvements across multiple parameters, these are often perceived as incremental rather than transformative, especially concerning core image quality for typical applications. Consequently, the decision shifts from simply asking if the GM II is better (which, technically, it largely is) to whether it is sufficiently better to warrant the substantial cost over a lens already considered "good enough" or even "great" by its owner.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the consistently glowing reports on sharpness in professional reviews and the user forum discussions highlighting copy variation and corner sharpness issues is noteworthy. This suggests a potential gap between the performance achievable under controlled testing conditions (often with carefully selected samples) and the experience of purchasing and using a retail unit. Factors like the GM II's complex optics packed into a smaller, lighter body could potentially increase sensitivity to manufacturing tolerances. This highlights the value of user forums as a counterpoint to formal reviews and underscores the importance for potential buyers, particularly those upgrading, to be aware of this potential variability and ideally test specific copies or purchase from retailers with reliable return policies. Relying solely on published MTF charts or review conclusions might not fully capture the potential range of real-world performance.
6. The Verdict: Justifying the Upgrade from GM I to GM II
The Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II undoubtedly represents a technically superior lens compared to its predecessor, embodying Sony's latest advancements in optical design, autofocus technology, and handling ergonomics. It successfully delivers on the G Master II philosophy of creating lighter, smaller, yet higher-performing professional tools.
GM II Advantages Summarised:
The key strengths favouring the GM II are clear:
Physical: Significantly lighter (by 133g) and more compact (10mm shorter), improving portability and balance.
Handling: Superior ergonomics with the addition of a de-clickable aperture ring, iris lock, and a second customisable focus hold button.
Autofocus: Markedly faster, quieter, and more precise AF performance powered by four XD Linear Motors, offering better tracking and significantly reduced focus breathing for video.
Close Focus: Dramatically improved close-up capability with a 0.22m MFD and 0.32x maximum magnification, unlocking new creative possibilities.
Optics: Refined optical formula potentially offering improved corner-to-corner sharpness (copy variation notwithstanding), better flare control via Nano AR II coating, and excellent chromatic aberration suppression.
GM I Strengths and Cost Factor Acknowledged:
Despite the GM II's advancements, the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM should not be dismissed. It remains a highly capable lens delivering excellent image quality that satisfies many professionals and enthusiasts. Its primary advantage now lies in its significantly lower cost, particularly on the used market where it can often be acquired for less than half the price of a new GM II.
Nuanced Recommendations - Who Should Upgrade?
The decision to upgrade is highly dependent on individual needs, shooting style, and budget.
A Compelling Case for Upgrading Exists For:
Hybrid Shooters and Videographers: This group stands to gain the most. The vastly improved autofocus (speed, silence, tracking, minimal breathing), the de-clickable aperture ring for smooth iris pulls, and the improved balance for gimbal work collectively offer substantial operational benefits for video production.
Action, Event, and Sports Photographers: Users needing the utmost autofocus speed and tracking reliability to capture fast-moving subjects, even with a wide-angle perspective, will appreciate the responsiveness of the XD Linear Motors.
Photographers Prioritising Portability and Handling: Those who found the original GM I heavy or cumbersome, or who value the enhanced tactile controls (aperture ring, extra button) for a more efficient workflow, will find the GM II a significant ergonomic improvement.
Users Requiring Close-Focus Versatility: Photographers frequently shooting close-up wide-angle perspectives (e.g., environmental portraits with foreground interest, product details, food) will find the 0.32x magnification a distinct and valuable creative advantage over the GM I.
A Less Compelling Case for Upgrading Exists For:
Primarily Landscape and Architecture Photographers: If shooting predominantly stopped-down on a tripod, the AF speed advantage is less critical. If an existing GM I copy delivers excellent corner sharpness when stopped down, the potential (and reportedly variable) sharpness gains of the GM II might be marginal relative to the cost.
Budget-Conscious Photographers: If the original GM I already meets performance requirements, the considerable cost of the GM II makes it a luxury upgrade. Investing the difference in other equipment or travel might yield greater photographic returns.
Owners Satisfied with Excellent GM I Copies: Photographers who possess a well-performing copy of the original GM I and are content with its handling and autofocus may find the benefits of the GM II insufficient to justify the expense and the potential risk (highlighted in user forums) of encountering a less-than-perfect GM II copy.
Final Thoughts
The Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II is, by objective measures, a more advanced and refined lens than its predecessor. It successfully integrates Sony's latest technologies into a smaller, lighter package with significantly enhanced autofocus and close-focusing capabilities. However, the excellence of the original GM I, combined with the substantial cost of the upgrade and user reports of sample variation, means the decision is not automatic.
The upgrade is most justifiable for those whose work directly benefits from the specific improvements offered: videographers needing better AF and handling, action shooters requiring maximum speed, photographers demanding greater close-focus versatility, or those simply placing a high premium on reduced weight and improved ergonomics. For others, particularly those satisfied with the optical quality and AF of their current GM I for less demanding applications, the original lens remains a formidable and far more economical choice. Given the discussions around sample variation, prospective buyers are advised to purchase from reputable dealers with robust return policies and, if possible, test the specific lens copy before finalising their decision.
I USE LUMINAR NEO
AS WELL AS LIGHTROOM CLASSIC
Luminar Neo: A Contender in the Photo Editing Software Landscape
1. Introduction: The Evolving Landscape of Photo Editing Software
The digital photo editing software market is dynamic and highly competitive. Adobe Lightroom has long been the dominant force, becoming synonymous with post-processing for many photographers, offering a comprehensive suite of tools for managing, developing, and refining digital images.
However, Skylum's Luminar has emerged as a significant contender in recent years. It has carved a niche with its innovative approach to image manipulation, particularly through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI). Luminar has gained attention for its user-friendly interface and powerful AI-driven features, presenting a potential alternative for photographers of all levels.
A recent update to Luminar Neo, the latest version of the software, introduced "Auto Adjust," a new feature that automatically analyses and enhances images with a single click. This addition has prompted a renewed assessment of Luminar's capabilities and its standing in relation to the established industry leader, Lightroom.
This report will explore the history of Luminar, examine the functionality and initial reception of the "Auto Adjust" feature, and analyse professional product reviews and online discussions. The aim is to determine the validity of claims suggesting that Luminar is now as good as, if not better than, Lightroom.
2. The Historical Journey of Luminar: From Macphun Innovation to Skylum's AI Focus
2.1. The Macphun Era (2009-2017)
The story of Luminar began with the founding of Macphun Software in 2009 by Paul Muzok and Dmitry Sytnik. Initially, the company's focus was broader than just photo editing, developing various types of applications. Over time, however, Macphun Software gradually specialised in photography. This strategic refocus was driven by the co-founders' passion for the subject and their desire to develop innovative solutions for creative photographic expression.
This specialisation allowed the company to channel its resources and technical expertise towards creating dedicated tools for image manipulation. A significant milestone was the release of the first version of Luminar, "Luminar Neptune," in November 2016. This initial version marked a notable departure from Macphun's earlier, more diverse application portfolio, signalling a firm commitment to the photo editing market. However, at its launch, Luminar Neptune was exclusively available to macOS users.
The following year, 2017, saw the release of the first major update to Luminar, also named Luminar Neptune. Despite these advancements, the software remained within the Apple ecosystem, accessible only to photographers working on macOS. This initial platform exclusivity suggests a starting strategy focused on a specific segment of the photography market, likely those already invested in Apple's ecosystem.
2.2. The Skylum Transformation (2017-Present)
A pivotal moment in Luminar's history arrived in late 2017 with the launch of Luminar 2018. This release marked a significant expansion for the software as it became available on both macOS and Windows for PC, broadening its reach to a much wider audience. Coinciding with this major step, Macphun Software underwent a rebranding, changing its name to Skylum in 2017. This name change symbolised a strategic shift and a commitment to serving a larger community of photographers across both major operating systems, indicating an ambition to compete more directly with established players like Adobe.
Luminar 2018 also introduced several key enhancements, including a RAW develop module, a redesigned user interface, and the addition of new filters. This marked a significant step towards becoming a more comprehensive photo editing solution. Following this, Skylum continued to evolve Luminar with subsequent releases, each building upon the previous versions. Luminar 3 introduced a new library and cataloguing module, addressing a crucial aspect of photo workflow.
The end of 2019 saw the release of Luminar 4, which was highly anticipated as it was the first version to fully embrace artificial intelligence as its core technology, featuring innovative tools like AI Sky Replacement. Skylum further emphasised AI in photo editing with the launch of Luminar AI at the end of 2020, which focused on automating many editing tasks through intelligent analysis of images.
In February 2022, Skylum introduced Luminar Neo, the latest generation of its RAW file processing software. Luminar Neo features a modular engine designed to evenly distribute the processing load, leading to faster performance even when applying numerous AI-powered edits. This new version also marked the discontinuation of Luminar 4 and Luminar AI, with Luminar Neo becoming the sole available version.
To further enhance its functionality and cater to diverse user needs, Luminar Neo introduced the concept of extensions, allowing for add-ons with specific tools from Skylum and third-party developers. Throughout its evolution, Skylum has emphasised listening to user feedback, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement across its various versions. This dedication has not gone unnoticed, with Luminar Neo receiving multiple industry awards, including the Red Dot Brands & Communication Design award and the TIPA World Awards for Best Imaging Software in 2022 and 2023. These accolades suggest a growing recognition within the industry for Luminar's design and capabilities.
3. Introducing "Auto Adjust": Functionality and Initial Reactions
3.1. Functionality of "Auto Adjust"
The latest update to Luminar Neo introduces a significant new feature called "Auto Adjust," seamlessly integrated into both the Develop and Develop RAW tools. This functionality is designed to provide users with a quick and easy way to enhance their images. With a single click, "Auto Adjust" analyses the image content. Following this analysis, the feature automatically adjusts several key settings, including exposure, highlights, shadows, and black and white levels. The AI powering "Auto Adjust" may also make adjustments to the tone curve if it deems it necessary to achieve a balanced result.
The primary aim of this feature is to provide photographers with a solid foundation upon which they can build their further edits. By taking care of these fundamental tonal adjustments, "Auto Adjust" intends to speed up the overall editing workflow, allowing photographers to focus more on the creative aspects of image manipulation while still retaining ultimate control over the final look. It is important to note that access to the "Auto Adjust" feature is currently exclusive to Luminar Neo subscribers and owners of the Upgrade Pass. This suggests a strategic decision by Skylum to offer this new functionality as a premium benefit for its paying users.
3.2. Initial Professional Reviews and User Feedback
Initial reactions to the "Auto Adjust" feature have been generally positive, although some nuances exist. One professional reviewer, while acknowledging the potential of "Auto Adjust" as a time-saving tool, noted that they had not yet had the opportunity to personally test its effectiveness. Another reviewer who did test the feature found that it successfully brought the image to a better starting point but still felt the need to make further manual adjustments to achieve the desired outcome. This indicates that while the AI provides a helpful initial enhancement, it may not always perfectly align with the photographer's artistic vision.
A user comment highlighted in one article expressed being "quite impressed" with the "Auto Adjust" feature, stating that it achieved a result that was "closed enough" in just one click approximately four out of five times. This suggests that for many users, the feature can indeed provide a significant time saving and a good basis for further refinement. The "Auto Adjust" feature is also seen as particularly beneficial for beginners or users who may not be entirely comfortable with the intricacies of basic image development adjustments.
Furthermore, it offers a greater degree of control compared to Luminar's existing "Enhance AI" feature, as users can still go in and fine-tune individual sliders like contrast, brightness, highlights, and shadows after applying the automatic adjustments. It has been recommended to use "Auto Adjust" as the very first step in the editing process, as this allows users to clearly see what adjustments the AI has made and learn from those changes. However, some users have reported issues with automatic enhancement settings being applied unexpectedly upon opening images, which may be related to the way Luminar handles camera profiles. This suggests a potential area for improvement in ensuring a consistent and predictable user experience.
4. Professional Perspectives: Luminar Neo in Review
4.1. Overall Capabilities and User Interface
Professional reviews consistently highlight Luminar Neo as a capable editing application with a comprehensive set of features, often exceeding the sheer number of editing options available in Lightroom. A key aspect frequently praised is its user-friendly interface, which is particularly appealing to beginners due to its intuitive drag-and-drop functionality and AI-powered suggestions. The design is often described as sleek, modern, and aesthetically pleasing, contributing to a positive user experience. Many reviewers note that Luminar Neo's interface feels less cluttered and overwhelming compared to Lightroom and other professional-grade photo editing software.
The software is typically structured around three main modes: Catalog for image viewing and organisation, Presets for quick stylistic applications, and Edit for detailed adjustments. However, some professional perspectives suggest that this emphasis on simplicity might come at the cost of advanced customisation options or the depth of certain tools, potentially limiting its appeal to highly experienced users who require more granular control.
4.2. Performance and Stability
Luminar Neo's architecture incorporates a modular engine, specifically designed to facilitate faster image processing and minimise performance degradation when multiple edits are applied. This is particularly important given the software's reliance on AI-powered tools, which can be computationally intensive. Despite this design, some users and reviewers have reported that Luminar Neo can experience performance issues, sometimes described as "chugging" or lagging, especially when dealing with numerous effects or large, high-resolution images. Stability has also been a point of concern for some users, with reports of crashes occurring, particularly in earlier versions of the software.
Skylum has acknowledged these issues and has implemented AI acceleration within Luminar Neo to optimise performance, aiming for smoother rendering times and a more efficient editing experience. The effectiveness of these optimisations and the overall stability of the software continue to be areas of ongoing development and user feedback.
4.3. AI-Powered Features
A defining characteristic of Luminar Neo is the central role of artificial intelligence in its photo processing workflow. The software boasts an extensive array of AI-powered features that are often lauded for their ability to achieve complex edits with remarkable speed and ease. Notable examples include Sky AI, which facilitates seamless sky replacement and automatic relighting of the image to match the new sky; Relight AI, allowing for independent adjustments to the exposure of the subject and the background, particularly useful for correcting backlit portraits; and various AI tools dedicated to portrait enhancement, such as Face AI, Skin AI, Body AI, and Portrait Bokeh AI. Other AI-driven tools like Atmosphere AI, SuperSharp AI, Upscale AI, and Noiseless AI further contribute to Luminar Neo's capabilities.
Some reviewers have even suggested that Luminar's sky replacement feature, particularly its ability to handle reflections in water, is superior to that offered by Adobe Photoshop. However, not all AI-powered features have received universal praise. Tools like AI noise reduction and AI crop composition have been criticised for producing results that are sometimes poor or unpredictable. Additionally, the generative AI tools, such as GenSwap and GenExpand, while innovative, have been noted as potentially unreliable and requiring further refinement. A recurring theme in professional reviews and user feedback is that the ease with which AI tools can be applied in Luminar Neo can also lead to over-processed or unrealistic-looking images if not used with careful consideration and skill.
4.4. Photo Management and Organisation
One area where Luminar Neo consistently receives lower marks compared to Lightroom is in its photo management and organisation capabilities. Luminar Neo lacks several key features that are considered standard in Lightroom, such as robust keyword tagging, extensive metadata editing options, and advanced search functionalities. While Luminar Neo does offer a Library feature that allows users to group photos into albums, this system is generally regarded as less powerful than Lightroom's, lacking hierarchical organisation and sophisticated sorting options.
Some photographers who primarily edit in Luminar Neo still prefer to use Lightroom for managing their image libraries due to its superior organisational tools. Luminar Neo does provide a basic catalog view with options for rating images and creating albums. It also includes a "Smart Search" feature that uses object recognition to find images, but this is generally considered less comprehensive than the search capabilities in Lightroom. This significant difference in photo management remains a notable weakness for Luminar Neo, especially for professional photographers who handle large volumes of images and require efficient tools for cataloging and retrieval.
4.5. Pricing Model and Value
Luminar Neo offers a flexible pricing model that includes both a one-time purchase option (often referred to as a lifetime license) and various subscription plans. For users who prefer to avoid recurring payments, the lifetime license can be a more cost-effective solution in the long run compared to Lightroom's subscription-based model. The subscription plans for Luminar Neo often come with additional benefits, such as access to creative add-ons and video courses. However, it's important to note that for those who opt for the lifetime license, extensions that add significant functionality often require an additional purchase.
In contrast, Adobe Lightroom is primarily available through a subscription model, which often includes not only Lightroom but also Photoshop and a certain amount of cloud storage. The overall value proposition of each software depends heavily on individual needs and priorities. Luminar Neo's one-time purchase option and emphasis on AI-powered creative editing might appeal more to casual users or those on a budget, while Lightroom's robust organisation features, consistent performance, and inclusion of cloud storage within the subscription might be more attractive to enthusiasts or professionals.
5. The Voice of the User: Online Discussions and Community Sentiment
5.1. Comparisons and Preferences
Online discussions and community sentiment reveal a wide range of opinions regarding Luminar Neo and its comparison to Lightroom. Some users express a preference for Luminar, finding it easier to use and more intuitive, particularly for achieving quick and creative edits. Others, especially those with more experience or a preference for a traditional workflow, tend to favour Lightroom's more manual and precise approach. There is no universal consensus on whether Luminar Neo is a true alternative to Lightroom, with some users considering it a more gimmicky or compromised solution, especially in terms of professional workflows. A common theme in online discussions is the use of both software packages, with photographers leveraging the strengths of each for different aspects of their workflow.
Concerns have been raised by users regarding Skylum's rapid release cycle of new Luminar versions and the subsequent discontinuation of older ones, which can lead to frustration and a feeling of constantly needing to upgrade. Additionally, some users have reported negative experiences with Skylum's customer support.
5.2. Specific Feature Feedback
Feedback on specific features within Luminar Neo is also varied. The AI sky replacement tool is frequently praised for its ease of use and the often impressive results it produces. The portrait editing tools within Luminar Neo are also generally considered strong and user-friendly, allowing for quick enhancements to skin, eyes, and facial features. However, Luminar's noise reduction capabilities have received mixed reviews, with some users finding them to be inferior to the results achieved with Lightroom's noise reduction tools. A recurring point of discussion is the ease with which Luminar's AI tools can lead to over-edited images if not applied judiciously. Conversely, Lightroom's image organisation and cataloging features are consistently highlighted as being superior to those offered by Luminar Neo. It's also worth noting that Lightroom's masking tools have seen significant improvements in recent years, with some users suggesting that they now rival or even surpass Luminar's masking accuracy in certain situations.
6. Luminar Neo vs. Lightroom: A Comprehensive Comparison
Here's a comparison of Luminar Neo and Adobe Lightroom across different feature categories:
6.1. Editing Capabilities
Luminar Neo offers a broader spectrum of AI-powered tools and effects compared to Lightroom, providing users with the ability to achieve complex edits quickly and often with minimal manual input. The inclusion of layer-based editing in Luminar Neo also provides a level of flexibility that is not natively available in Lightroom without resorting to Photoshop. The emphasis is often on achieving impressive results with user-friendly tools. In contrast, Lightroom adopts a more traditional approach to editing, focusing on manual adjustments that offer precise control over colour and tone. Lightroom's editing is non-destructive, allowing users to revert to original states or previous adjustments at any point.
6.2. Photo Management and Organisation
Lightroom stands out for its superior digital asset management capabilities. Its robust cataloging system, coupled with features like keyword tagging, extensive metadata editing, smart collections, and advanced search functionalities, makes it an ideal choice for photographers managing large image libraries. Luminar Neo, while offering basic cataloging features with albums, lacks the depth and sophistication found in Lightroom. The limited metadata support and less sophisticated search capabilities in Luminar Neo can be a drawback for users with extensive collections.
6.3. User Interface and Ease of Use
Luminar Neo is generally considered more intuitive and easier to learn, particularly for users who are new to photo editing. Its cleaner and less cluttered interface, along with its focus on AI-powered tools that simplify complex tasks, contributes to a more accessible user experience. Lightroom's interface, while powerful and highly customisable, has a steeper learning curve and can feel overwhelming to beginners due to the sheer number of panels, modules, and options. However, for experienced users, Lightroom's interface provides detailed control and a highly efficient workflow once mastered.
6.4. Performance and Stability
While Luminar Neo has made strides in performance with its modular engine and AI acceleration, it can still experience lag, especially when working with multiple layers or applying numerous AI effects. Reports of occasional instability and crashes have also surfaced, particularly in earlier versions. Lightroom is generally considered more stable and responsive, although it too can experience performance slowdowns with very heavy edits or when processing large batches of images.
6.5. Pricing Models
A key differentiator between the two software packages is their pricing models. Luminar Neo offers the flexibility of both a one-time purchase option and subscription plans. This appeals to users who prefer to own their software outright. Lightroom, on the other hand, is primarily available through a subscription model, often bundled with Photoshop and cloud storage, which can be a more significant recurring expense but provides ongoing updates and access to a wider suite of tools.
6.6. File Format and Hardware Support
Both Luminar Neo and Lightroom offer support for a wide range of major file types, including RAW formats from various camera manufacturers. Luminar Neo specifically claims support for RAW files from over 1,000 camera models. Lightroom has a strong track record of quickly adding support for new camera models and often automatically handles lens profiles, which is a significant advantage for users who want automatic correction for lens distortions.
6.7. Key Strengths
Luminar Neo: AI-powered creative edits, ease of use, one-time purchase option.
Adobe Lightroom: Robust organisation, stability, deep editing tools, cloud integration.
7. The Impact of the Latest Update and the "Auto Adjust" Feature on the Comparison
The introduction of the "Auto Adjust" feature in the latest Luminar Neo update aims to streamline the initial editing process, potentially making the software even more accessible for photographers who are less experienced or who want to achieve a good starting point quickly. Initial feedback suggests that the feature is indeed helpful in providing a solid base for further editing, although manual adjustments may still be necessary to achieve the desired artistic vision. Other improvements included in the Spring Update, such as the Catalog Cache Cleaning option and the redesigned Export Menu with DNG support, address some user concerns related to performance and workflow efficiency. These updates demonstrate Skylum's ongoing commitment to improving Luminar Neo and responding to feedback from its user base.
However, it is important to note that the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of Luminar Neo in comparison to Lightroom, particularly in areas like photo management and the depth of traditional editing tools, remain largely unaffected by this update. While the "Auto Adjust" feature enhances Luminar Neo's appeal for users seeking quick, AI-powered enhancements, it does not fundamentally alter the core value proposition of each software package.
8. Conclusion: Is Luminar Now a True Contender?
Luminar has undergone a significant evolution since its inception as a macOS-exclusive application under Macphun Software to its current iteration as Luminar Neo, a cross-platform photo editor with a strong emphasis on artificial intelligence. The introduction of the "Auto Adjust" feature in the latest update further underscores Skylum's commitment to simplifying the editing process and leveraging AI to provide users with quick and effective image enhancements. Professional reviews and user discussions reveal that Luminar Neo offers a user-friendly interface and a powerful suite of AI-driven tools that can achieve impressive creative results, often with greater ease than traditional methods in Lightroom. The availability of a one-time purchase option also presents a compelling alternative to Adobe's subscription-only model for many photographers.
However, while Luminar Neo has made considerable strides and offers distinct advantages, particularly in AI-powered creative editing and its pricing flexibility, it is not yet a definitive "better" alternative to Adobe Lightroom for all photographers. For users who prioritise ease of use, rapid results, and innovative AI features, Luminar Neo stands as a strong contender and may indeed be their preferred choice. Its intuitive interface and growing range of AI tools make complex edits accessible to a wider audience.
Nevertheless, for professionals and enthusiasts who require robust photo management and organisation capabilities, consistent performance, and the depth of traditional editing tools, Lightroom remains the industry standard. Its superior cataloging system, extensive metadata support, and more refined control over manual adjustments continue to be critical for many workflows.
In conclusion, the choice between Luminar Neo and Lightroom ultimately hinges on individual needs, priorities, and workflow preferences. The latest update to Luminar Neo, with its "Auto Adjust" feature and other improvements, further solidifies its position as a creatively focused and user-friendly alternative, particularly for those drawn to AI-powered editing. However, it does not fundamentally displace Lightroom's established dominance, especially for users whose workflows heavily rely on advanced organisational features and a deep set of traditional editing tools. Both software packages offer compelling features and cater to different segments of the photo editing market.
WHY USE LIGHTROOM
THERE ARE MANY OTHER OPTIONS
WHY SHOULD ONE CONTINUE TO USE LIGHTROOM RATHER THAN THE MANY OTHER OPTIONS
This discussion was triggered by a comment/query that I received a few weeks ago via my website.
A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Costs: Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop and Alternative Photo Editing Software
1. Executive Summary:
The landscape of photo editing software offers photographers a range of choices, from subscription-based models to perpetual licenses. A common narrative suggests that opting for alternatives to Adobe's subscription-based Lightroom and Photoshop can lead to significant cost savings over time.
However, this analysis, conducted from the perspective of a software cost and feature comparison analyst, reveals a more nuanced picture. While the initial purchase price of some alternative photo editing software might appear lower, a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term cost of ownership, particularly when considering the necessity of upgrades to maintain current features and compatibility, often demonstrates that the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan can be a more financially prudent option for many users.
This is especially pertinent for photographers who require the advanced image manipulation capabilities of Photoshop, which is included within the Adobe subscription. Certain perpetual license options might present potential savings for users who upgrade infrequently or have highly specific editing requirements. Nevertheless, these scenarios often involve compromises in feature breadth, integration with other tools, or increased effort in managing updates. Ultimately, the optimal choice of photo editing software is a subjective one, contingent upon the photographer's individual workflow, budgetary constraints, technical expertise, and specific feature needs. This report aims to provide a detailed investigation to empower the user to make an informed decision tailored to their unique circumstances.
2. Introduction:
This discussion addresses a user query regarding the long-term cost-effectiveness of Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop's subscription model in comparison to purchasing perpetual licenses or subscriptions for alternative photo editing software such as Luminar, ON1 Photo RAW, Capture One, and DXO PhotoLab.
The user, a long-time Adobe Lightroom user within the Apple ecosystem, has encountered claims of significant cost savings by switching to these alternatives but suspects that the reality of keeping them updated might prove more expensive than the Adobe subscription.
This observation aligns with the broader debate within the photography community concerning the financial implications of choosing between software subscription models and the traditional perpetual license model. While a prevailing sentiment often favours perpetual licenses for their perceived long-term cost benefits, this analysis seeks to conduct a thorough and objective investigation into the actual long-term cost of ownership for both Adobe's offering and the mentioned alternatives.
The key factors under consideration will include the initial purchase price (where applicable), recurring subscription fees, the cost and frequency of software upgrades (both major and minor), any supplementary expenses for plugins or extensions, and the overall value proposition presented by each software in terms of its features, performance, and user experience. By examining these elements, this report aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial landscape of photo editing software and assist the user in making an informed decision that aligns with their needs and budget.
3. The Adobe Ecosystem: Cost and Considerations:
3.1 Current Pricing of the Adobe Photography Plan:
The Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan in the United States is currently priced at US$19.99 per month with an annual commitment, billed monthly, which totals approximately US$239.88 per year.
An alternative option is an annual prepaid plan, also priced at US$239.88 per year. This plan provides access to a comprehensive suite of photo editing tools, including Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Lightroom Classic, Adobe Photoshop (for both desktop and iPad), and a substantial 1 terabyte (TB) of cloud storage dedicated to photographs.
It is worth noting that Adobe previously offered a Creative Cloud Photography plan with 20GB of storage, which recently saw a price increase to US$14.99 per month (annual, billed monthly) before it was discontinued for new subscribers on January 15, 2025.
This evolution in Adobe's plan offerings underscores the importance of considering the specific plan and its features when making cost comparisons. A significant aspect of the Adobe Photography Plan is the inclusion of Photoshop. This powerful image manipulation tool extends far beyond the basic RAW processing capabilities of Lightroom and provides users with advanced features for retouching, compositing, and graphic design. Many of the alternative software options discussed in this report might necessitate separate purchases or subscriptions to achieve similar levels of advanced functionality, making the bundled offering of Lightroom and Photoshop a crucial factor in any cost comparison.
3.2 Historical Pricing Trends:
Examining the historical pricing of Adobe's offerings provides valuable context for understanding potential long-term cost implications. Records indicate that the "Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan + 20GB storage" was available on Amazon for as low as $88.99 in November 2016 , suggesting that promotional pricing and discounts have played a role in the past. Similarly, the broader "Adobe Creative Cloud" suite was priced at a historical low of $39.99 in November 2016. More recently, Adobe implemented price increases in November 2023 and April 2024 for various Creative Cloud plans, including individual single app plans and the All Apps plan. For instance, the monthly cost (annual billing) for single apps increased from $20.99 to $22.99, and the All Apps plan saw a rise from $54.99 to $59.99 per month (annual billing). However, it is important to note that the pricing for the core Photography Plan with 1TB of storage has remained relatively stable in recent years, as evidenced by the consistent current pricing detailed in multiple sources. This relative stability in the Photography Plan's pricing over the recent period offers a degree of predictability for users considering its long-term cost. Nevertheless, as with any subscription service, users should remain mindful of the potential for future price adjustments.
3.3 Value Proposition and Lock-in:
For a user with extensive experience in the Adobe ecosystem, particularly with Lightroom, the Adobe Photography Plan offers several inherent advantages. The seamless integration between Lightroom and Photoshop streamlines workflows and allows for a smooth transition between RAW processing and more advanced image manipulation. Furthermore, the inclusion of Lightroom mobile and Photoshop on iPad extends the user's editing capabilities across different devices within the Apple ecosystem, providing flexibility and convenience. Adobe also provides a vast library of tutorials, comprehensive documentation, and a large and active user community, offering ample resources for learning, troubleshooting, and inspiration.
This established ecosystem can be a significant benefit for users already familiar with Adobe's interface and workflows. However, a key consideration with subscription models is the potential for "lock-in". Continued access to the software and the 1TB of cloud storage is contingent upon maintaining the subscription. If the user decides to discontinue their subscription, they will lose access to the software, although they will likely retain their original image files. This dependency on an ongoing subscription is a fundamental difference compared to purchasing a perpetual license, where the software can typically be used indefinitely after the initial purchase. For a long-time Apple user, the cross-platform integration offered by Adobe's mobile applications within the Photography Plan provides a significant advantage, enabling a consistent editing experience across their various devices. This level of integration and workflow continuity is a valuable aspect to consider when comparing against alternative software that might have limited or no support for mobile platforms.
4. Exploring the Alternatives: Pricing and Upgrade Policies:
4.1 Luminar:
4.1.1 Pricing Models:
Skylum's Luminar Neo offers photographers two primary ways to access its photo editing capabilities: through a subscription plan and via a lifetime perpetual license. The subscription plan is typically billed annually, with promotional pricing often available.
For example, it can be found for around £55 per year (approximately $69 USD), a discount from the standard £79 annual fee (approximately $99 USD). The lifetime perpetual license is presented as a one-time purchase, with a typical price of £95 (approximately $119 USD), although this is also frequently offered at a discount from a higher listed price, such as £159 (approximately $199 USD) or even £302 (approximately $377 USD).
It is important to note the consistent presence of discounts and special offers for both subscription and perpetual licenses across various sources. This suggests that the full listed prices might not accurately reflect the typical cost at which users acquire the software. The initial appeal of Luminar's perpetual license, particularly with these frequent discounts, lies in the prospect of a one-time payment, which can be attractive to users seeking to avoid the recurring costs associated with subscription models. However, a thorough understanding of the upgrade policies and their associated costs is essential to accurately assess the true long-term financial implications of choosing this option.
4.1.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:
For users who opt for the Luminar Neo subscription plan, Skylum provides access to all software upgrades as part of their subscription. This ensures that subscribers always have the most current version of the software, including all new features and improvements, without incurring any additional charges beyond their annual subscription fee. In contrast, the upgrade policy for the lifetime perpetual license is more nuanced.
While lifetime license holders do receive updates that include bug fixes, general improvements, and some new features, Skylum explicitly states that major upgrades, which introduce significant new functionalities to the software, may require separate, additional payments. This has manifested in the form of "Upgrade Passes," which Skylum has introduced for lifetime license owners. These passes, available for an additional cost (e.g., £47 on sale, with a regular price of £79 - approximately $59 and $99 USD respectively), provide access to major feature updates released over a specific period, such as the Fall 2024 and Spring 2025 updates.
User feedback and online discussions reveal concerns and frustrations regarding the frequency and cost of these upgrade passes. Some users feel that the term "lifetime" license is misleading, as it does not guarantee access to all new features without further expenditure, effectively turning it into a series of purchases over time for those who wish to remain current with the software's evolving capabilities.
Additionally, access to Luminar Neo's Generative AI tools is limited to one year from the purchase date for lifetime license holders. This upgrade policy suggests that while the initial cost of the perpetual license might be lower, the long-term cost for users who desire to stay up-to-date with major feature additions could potentially become comparable to or even exceed the cost of a subscription over several years.
4.1.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:
Luminar Neo distinguishes itself with its strong emphasis on innovative AI-powered tools designed to streamline and enhance photo editing workflows. Notable AI features include Sky AI for seamless sky replacement, AI Portrait Tools for quick and effective portrait enhancements, and generative AI functionalities like GenErase for content removal and GenExpand for extending image boundaries. Many users praise Luminar Neo for its generally user-friendly and intuitive interface, which makes it accessible to both beginners and more experienced photographers. The interface is often described as modern and less overwhelming compared to some other professional editing software.
However, some user reports and reviews indicate that Luminar Neo can experience slower performance, particularly when dealing with large batches of images or when utilising its more computationally intensive AI features.
Additionally, Luminar Neo's photo library management capabilities are generally considered to be less robust and feature-rich when compared to the sophisticated catalog system offered by Adobe Lightroom. While Luminar Neo does offer basic cataloging functionalities, it may lack the advanced organizational tools and metadata management options that long-time Lightroom users have come to rely on. Overall, Luminar Neo presents itself as a creatively focused editing platform with a strong suite of AI tools and an approachable user interface. However, potential users, especially those with extensive Lightroom experience, should carefully consider its limitations in catalog management and the long-term cost implications associated with its upgrade policy for perpetual licenses.
4.2 ON1 Photo RAW:
4.2.1 Pricing Models:
ON1 Photo RAW offers photographers a choice between purchasing a perpetual license with a one-time payment and opting for a subscription plan with recurring fees.
The standard perpetual license for the latest version, ON1 Photo RAW 2025, is typically priced around £80 (approximately $99.99 USD) for new customers, with discounted upgrade pricing available for users who own previous versions (often around £64 - approximately $79.99 USD). ON1 also offers various subscription plans, such as their "Everything" subscriptions, which include the core Photo RAW software alongside other ON1 creative applications and cloud storage.
These subscription plans typically start at around £6.40 per month or £40 per year (approximately $7.99 and $49.99 USD respectively), with potential first-year discounts for new subscribers. For users who require plugin compatibility with other editing software like Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom, ON1 offers a "MAX" version of Photo RAW. This version is available under both perpetual license and subscription models, generally at a higher price point than the standard version. Similar to Luminar, ON1 frequently provides discounts and promotional pricing on its software, making it worthwhile for potential buyers to check for ongoing deals. The availability of both perpetual and subscription options provides users with flexibility in choosing a payment model that best suits their preferences and budget.
4.2.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:
For users who choose to subscribe to one of ON1's "Everything" plans, all future major upgrades to ON1 Photo RAW and the other applications included in their subscription are provided at no additional cost. This ensures that subscribers always have access to the latest features and improvements as long as their subscription remains active. In contrast, users who purchase a perpetual license for ON1 Photo RAW typically receive free minor updates within their purchased version. However, major software updates, which introduce significant new features and functionalities, are usually released on an annual cycle and require a paid upgrade for perpetual license holders to obtain them.
ON1 generally offers upgrade pricing for existing users at a reduced cost compared to the full purchase price for new users. For example, the upgrade to the standard version of ON1 Photo RAW is often priced around £64 (approximately $79.99 USD). Users who hold a perpetual license have the option to purchase these upgrades annually to stay current with the software's capabilities, or they can choose to skip upgrades and continue using their existing version indefinitely. This model provides a degree of flexibility, allowing users to decide when and if they want to invest in the latest features. However, for users who desire to always have the newest tools and functionalities, the annual upgrade cost for the perpetual license effectively functions similarly to a yearly subscription fee.
4.2.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:
ON1 Photo RAW is marketed as a feature-rich alternative to Adobe Lightroom, aiming to provide an all-in-one solution for photographers by combining photo organisation, RAW processing, layered editing, and a wide range of creative effects within a single application. This integrated approach seeks to eliminate the need for users to switch between multiple programs for different tasks, potentially streamlining their workflow. ON1 Photo RAW boasts advanced layer functionality, which extends beyond the masking tools available in Lightroom, offering greater flexibility for complex image manipulation and compositing.
The software also incorporates a suite of AI-powered tools designed to enhance various aspects of the editing process, including AI Masking for automated selections, AI Sky Swap for replacing skies, and AI NoNoise for noise reduction. While ON1 Photo RAW does offer photo management capabilities, its reliance on a browser-based approach for organising images might feel less advanced or intuitive to some users who are accustomed to Lightroom's more robust cataloging system. Additionally, some user reviews suggest that ON1 Photo RAW can experience slower performance, particularly when loading and processing large batches of high-resolution images. However, ON1 does offer a free trial of its software, allowing potential users to test its features and performance before committing to a purchase. Overall, ON1 Photo RAW presents itself as a comprehensive editing platform with a strong emphasis on integrating features found in both Lightroom and Photoshop into a single application, offering users the choice of both perpetual licenses and subscription plans.
4.3 Capture One:
4.3.1 Pricing Models:
Capture One is generally positioned as a professional-grade photo editing software and is typically priced at the higher end of the spectrum compared to other alternatives, including Adobe Lightroom.
Capture One offers both perpetual licenses and subscription options. A perpetual license for Capture One Pro, which provides access to the current version of the software, typically costs around £238 or £254 (approximately $299 or $317 USD).
Subscription plans are available at various tiers, including "Pro" (which is primarily for desktop use), "All in One" (which includes mobile app access), and "Studio" (designed for collaborative, multi-user workflows). Annual subscriptions for Capture One Pro generally start at around £143 (approximately $179 USD), while monthly subscription options are also available but usually at a higher per-month cost. The "All in One" and "Studio" subscription plans, which offer a broader range of features and capabilities, are priced even higher. The premium pricing of Capture One reflects its focus on providing high-quality RAW processing and advanced features that cater to the needs of professional photographers, particularly those working in studio and commercial settings.
4.3.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:
Users who opt for a Capture One subscription, regardless of the tier (Pro, All in One, or Studio), benefit from having all software updates and upgrades included as part of their subscription. This ensures that subscribers consistently have access to the latest features and improvements without any additional costs beyond their regular subscription fees. However, the upgrade policy for Capture One's perpetual licenses is more restrictive.
Typically, a perpetual license grants the user the right to use the specific major version of the software that they purchased. Upgrading to a new major version, which Capture One typically releases on an annual basis, requires purchasing either a new perpetual license or an upgrade license. The cost of these upgrades can be significant; for example, upgrading an existing license to Capture One Pro 23 was priced around £159 (approximately $199 USD).
Many users have expressed dissatisfaction with the high cost of these upgrades for perpetual licenses, particularly when considering the annual release cycle. Some perceive that the "perpetual" license has a limited lifespan in terms of accessing new features and that the cost of staying current through upgrades can quickly become very expensive, potentially surpassing the annual cost of an Adobe Photography Plan, which includes both Lightroom and Photoshop. Recent price increases, especially for multi-user plans aimed at professional studios, have further amplified concerns about the overall cost of ownership for Capture One.
4.3.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:
Capture One has established a strong reputation among professional photographers for its exceptional image quality, particularly in its handling of RAW files, colour rendering, and the availability of highly accurate camera-specific profiles. Its advanced editing tools, including a sophisticated layer-based editing system and industry-leading tethered shooting capabilities, make it a preferred choice for studio and commercial photographers who demand precision and control over their workflow.
While Capture One offers a powerful and customisable interface, it is often noted that it can have a steeper learning curve compared to Adobe Lightroom, and its interface might feel more complex to users who are new to professional-level photo editing software. The software's focus on catering to professional workflows and its premium pricing suggest that it is best suited for users who have specific needs for high-end image quality and advanced features, such as those found in studio and commercial photography. For users who also require the broader functionalities of Adobe Photoshop, the higher cost of Capture One, coupled with its upgrade frequency for perpetual licenses, might not be justifiable when compared to the more comprehensive and often more cost-effective Adobe Photography Plan.
4.4 DXO PhotoLab:
4.4.1 Pricing Models:
DXO PhotoLab is primarily offered as a perpetual license software, with two distinct editions available for purchase: the Essential edition and the more feature-rich Elite edition. The initial purchase cost for the Elite edition of DXO PhotoLab 8, which includes the full suite of features, is typically around £183 (approximately $229 USD).
The Essential edition, which offers a more limited set of tools, is priced lower at approximately £111 (approximately $139 USD). In addition to PhotoLab, DXO also offers other software applications, such as DXO FilmPack (for film simulation effects) and DXO ViewPoint (for perspective and geometry corrections).
These applications often integrate seamlessly with PhotoLab and extend its capabilities but typically require separate purchases, adding to the overall cost if a user desires these functionalities. DXO's primary focus on a perpetual license model can be appealing to photographers who prefer a one-time purchase over an ongoing subscription. However, the potential need to purchase additional software for a complete set of features needs to be considered when evaluating the overall cost.
4.4.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:
While DXO PhotoLab is sold with a perpetual license, DXO typically releases new major versions of the software on an annual basis. Users who wish to upgrade to these new versions and benefit from the latest features and improvements are required to purchase a paid upgrade. The cost of these upgrades usually falls in the range of £60 to £87 (approximately $75 to $109 USD), depending on the specific edition (Essential or Elite) and the version of PhotoLab that the user is upgrading from. DXO has, over time, adjusted its upgrade pricing policy, often providing more favourable upgrade prices to customers who upgrade to the latest version more regularly. Users who choose to skip several major versions before upgrading might find that they are no longer eligible for discounted upgrade pricing and may have to pay the full price for the latest version. This annual cycle of major releases and the associated upgrade costs mean that while the initial purchase of DXO PhotoLab is perpetual, users who want to stay current with the software's capabilities will likely incur ongoing expenses that are similar to those of a subscription model. This is particularly true if the user also invests in DXO FilmPack and ViewPoint to gain access to a more comprehensive set of editing tools.
4.4.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:
DXO PhotoLab has garnered a strong reputation for its exceptional image quality, particularly in its advanced lens correction capabilities and its powerful noise reduction technology, known as DeepPRIME. Many users praise its ability to significantly improve the quality of RAW files, especially those shot at higher ISOs or with older lenses. PhotoLab utilises a folder-based system for organizing photographs, which some users may find more straightforward and preferable to the catalog-based systems used by Lightroom and Capture One. While DXO PhotoLab offers a robust set of editing tools, it is often noted that some advanced features, such as extensive layer editing and highly refined masking capabilities, might not be as prominent or comprehensive as in Adobe Photoshop or some other alternatives, especially without the additional purchase of DXO FilmPack. Some user reviews also suggest that DXO PhotoLab can have a steeper learning curve for new users compared to the more familiar interface of Adobe Lightroom. Additionally, DXO PhotoLab does not offer built-in cloud storage or mobile editing capabilities, which might be a consideration for users who value these features. Overall, DXO PhotoLab excels in delivering high image quality through its sophisticated processing algorithms, making it a compelling option for photographers who prioritise this aspect. However, potential users should carefully consider the cost of upgrades and the potential need for additional software to achieve a feature set comparable to that of the Adobe Photography Plan.
5. Long-Term Cost Comparison:
Here's an estimated comparison of the long-term costs (in British Pounds, GBP) of the Adobe Photography Plan and the alternative software options discussed in this report over a period of 3 and 5 years. These estimates are based on approximate conversions from US Dollar prices using an exchange rate of £1 = $1.25 and assume typical upgrade patterns for perpetual licenses (upgrading every 1-2 years to stay reasonably current). Please note that currency exchange rates are subject to fluctuation, and actual costs may vary.
Adobe Photography Plan (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £192 for Year 1, £576 for Year 3, and £960 for Year 5. This includes Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, and 1TB cloud storage. These estimates assume no significant price increases.
Luminar Neo (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £55 for Year 1, £165 for Year 3, and £275 for Year 5. This assumes a consistent yearly subscription cost (after potential initial discounts).
Luminar Neo (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £95 for Year 1, £285 for Year 3, and £475 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade pass cost every 2 years. Actual costs can vary significantly based on upgrade frequency and available discounts. Note that access to Generative AI tools is limited to 1 year from the purchase date.
ON1 Photo RAW (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £72 for Year 1, £216 for Year 3, and £360 for Year 5. This assumes a consistent yearly subscription cost (after potential initial discounts).
ON1 Photo RAW (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £80 for Year 1, £240 for Year 3, and £400 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade cost every 2 years. Actual costs can vary based on upgrade frequency and discounts.
Capture One Pro (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £143 for Year 1, £429 for Year 3, and £715 for Year 5. This assumes a yearly subscription for the Pro version. The "All in One" subscription will be more expensive.
Capture One Pro (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £254 for Year 1, £652 for Year 3, and £1050 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade cost every 2 years. Costs can be high due to the expensive initial license and upgrade fees.
DXO PhotoLab 8 Elite (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £183 for Year 1, £366 for Year 3, and £549 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade every 2 years. It assumes an upgrade to the Elite version. Additional costs for FilmPack and ViewPoint are not included but can significantly increase the price.
This breakdown illustrates that while the initial cost of some perpetual licenses might be lower than an annual subscription to the Adobe Photography Plan, the cumulative cost over a 3 to 5-year period, especially when factoring in the need for upgrades to stay reasonably current with software features and compatibility, often brings the total expenditure close to or even above the cost of the Adobe subscription. It is particularly important to remember that the Adobe Photography Plan includes both Lightroom and Photoshop. Users who opt for perpetual license alternatives and require the advanced image manipulation capabilities of Photoshop would likely need to incur additional costs for separate software or plugins, further impacting the overall long-term cost comparison. This analysis underscores that the perceived cost savings of perpetual licenses can be significantly reduced or even eliminated by the necessity of regular upgrades.
6. Feature and User Experience Highlights:
A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of each software option, relevant to a long-time Adobe Lightroom user accustomed to the Apple ecosystem, is provided below:
Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop: Strengths include seamless integration within the Adobe ecosystem and with Apple products, a comprehensive feature set covering both RAW processing and advanced image manipulation, a vast library of learning resources and community support, and mobile app accessibility. The primary weakness is the subscription-only model, which requires ongoing payments for continued access.
Luminar Neo: Strengths include innovative and user-friendly AI-powered creative tools for tasks like sky replacement and portrait enhancement. Weaknesses include less robust catalog management compared to Lightroom, potential performance issues with large image libraries or intensive AI tasks, and a potentially expensive and somewhat unclear upgrade policy for perpetual license holders, where significant new features often require additional payments.
ON1 Photo RAW: Strengths lie in its ambition to be an all-in-one solution, integrating features found in both Lightroom and Photoshop, strong masking and layering capabilities, and the availability of both subscription and perpetual license options. Weaknesses include a browser-based photo management system that some users might find less advanced, potential performance issues, and a user interface that can feel less refined than Lightroom's to some users.
Capture One Pro: Strengths are its superior RAW processing quality, highly accurate colour rendering, advanced and customisable editing features, and excellent tethered shooting capabilities, making it a favourite among professional studio and commercial photographers. Weaknesses include a significantly higher cost compared to the Adobe Photography Plan, expensive upgrades for perpetual licenses, and a steeper learning curve that might not be suitable for all users.
DXO PhotoLab: Strengths include exceptional image quality, particularly in noise reduction and lens corrections, and a folder-based organisation system that some users prefer. Weaknesses include a less comprehensive feature set in the base application, with functionalities like film simulation and perspective correction often requiring additional paid software (FilmPack and ViewPoint), paid annual upgrades for perpetual licenses, and a learning curve that some users find challenging.
The "best" software choice is highly dependent on the individual photographer's priorities and workflow. For a user who frequently relies on the advanced editing capabilities of Photoshop, the Adobe Photography Plan offers a compelling and potentially cost-effective solution by bundling both Lightroom and Photoshop. Users who prioritise specific aspects, such as ultimate image quality (Capture One or DXO) or the desire for a one-time purchase (Luminar or ON1), might find these alternatives appealing but should carefully consider the trade-offs in other areas and the potential for similar or higher long-term costs due to upgrade requirements.
7. Conclusion and Recommendations:
Based on the detailed analysis of pricing models, upgrade policies, and the inclusion of Photoshop in the Adobe Photography Plan, the user's initial suspicion that the alternatives might be more expensive to keep up to date than the Adobe subscription appears to be valid for many users, particularly those who require the functionality of both Lightroom and Photoshop and desire regular software updates.
The analysis indicates that while perpetual licenses might offer a lower initial cost, the necessity of purchasing upgrades to access new features and maintain compatibility over the long term can significantly reduce or even eliminate these initial savings. In some cases, the total cost of ownership for alternatives, especially when factoring in the cost of upgrades, can become comparable to or even higher than that of the Adobe subscription over a period of several years. The complexity and cost associated with the upgrade paths for certain perpetual license options, such as those offered by Luminar and Capture One, are particularly noteworthy.
Considering the user's long-standing experience with Adobe Lightroom and their preference for the Apple ecosystem, the following recommendations are provided:
Evaluate Photoshop Usage: If the user frequently utilises Adobe Photoshop or anticipates needing its advanced image manipulation features in their workflow, the Adobe Photography Plan likely remains the most cost-effective and seamlessly integrated solution. It provides both Lightroom and Photoshop for a consistent subscription fee, along with valuable cloud storage.
Consider Upgrade Habits: If the user primarily uses Lightroom for RAW processing and basic editing and tends to upgrade software infrequently, exploring perpetual license options such as ON1 Photo RAW or DXO PhotoLab might offer potential long-term savings. However, the user must be comfortable with potentially missing out on the latest features if they choose to skip upgrades and should be fully aware of the cost of upgrading when they eventually decide to do so.
Trial Alternatives: It is strongly recommended that the user take advantage of the free trial periods offered by each of the alternative software options that pique their interest. Hands-on experience will allow the user to thoroughly evaluate the software's interface, workflow, performance on their specific Apple system, and feature set to determine which best aligns with their individual needs and preferences before making a financial commitment.
Long-Term Perspective: When considering the long-term cost, it is crucial to look beyond the initial purchase price of perpetual licenses and factor in the recurring expenses associated with upgrades that are often necessary to maintain current functionality and compatibility with new operating systems and camera models.
In conclusion, while the appeal of a one-time perpetual license purchase is understandable, especially for users who are hesitant about subscription models, this analysis suggests that the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan often provides a compelling combination of value, comprehensive features (including both Lightroom and Photoshop), and a relatively predictable long-term cost for users who require a full suite of editing tools and regular software updates. The user's initial suspicion regarding the potential for higher long-term costs with alternatives appears to be a valid concern that warrants careful consideration and a thorough evaluation of individual needs and usage patterns.
-END-
Soft Toys
THE BINMEN WHO LIKE SOFT TOYS [EXPLORING WASTE COLLECTION IN IRELAND IN 2024]
You might not expect to see a garbage truck covered in soft toys, but that's exactly what inspired me to take a closer look at waste collection in Ireland.
Discarded Items Given New Life:
A Touch of Joy: Stuffed animals are often associated with childhood and happy memories. By adorning their truck with these items, the workers might be salvaging not just the physical toy but also the sense of warmth it represents.
Second Chances: Similar to how waste is sorted for recycling, the toys are 'rescued' from the trash and given a new purpose. This could symbolise hope and the potential for transformation, even within a job focused on discarding things.
Playfulness in Hard Work: Waste collection can be a dirty, physically demanding job. The toys might inject a sense of lightness and playfulness, reminding the workers that even within the practicalities of life, there's room for fun.
Comfort for Sanitation Workers
Personalised Workspace: Garbage trucks can feel utilitarian. The toys may be a way for workers to personalise their space and make it feel slightly more welcoming on long routes.
Reminding Themselves of Why They Work: Sanitation work is essential to public health and safety. The toys, with their associations with innocence and childhood, could be a subconscious reminder of the positive impact their job has on the community, especially with the protection of vulnerable groups.
Humanising Connection: The toys can humanise sanitation workers in the eyes of the public. It creates a touchpoint and can potentially break down stereotypes of gruff or impersonal workers.
Additional Symbolism
The Journey of Objects: As toys ride along on a garbage truck, they could symbolise the journey our discarded items take. It's a visual reminder of consumption and waste patterns.
Environmental Warning: Depending on the condition of the toys (tattered, dirty), it could serve as a subtle commentary on wastefulness and the environmental impact of our discarded items.
Ireland's waste collection system is primarily handled by private companies. This means there can be slight variations in collection schedules and practices depending on your location. Households generally choose a private company to collect waste using a system of colour-coded wheelie bins. Ireland is committed to recycling and waste reduction initiatives, with separate bins for organic waste, recyclables, and general waste.
Households must choose a private company for the collection and disposal of their rubbish bins. Waste is collected every week or two, depending on the type of waste. Some companies collect different types of rubbish on different days. If you live in a rural area with a low population, you may not have a collection service. In this case, you must bring your domestic waste to an approved waste facility in your area.
As already mentioned waste collection companies use colour-coded bins for separating household waste, for example: brown bins for organic waste, green bins for recyclable waste, and black bins are for general waste. Some companies may also offer a glass recycling collection.
As for the future plans, Ireland is moving towards a circular economy model where resources are reused or recycled as much as possible and the generation of waste is minimised. The transition to a circular economy requires a collaborative national response across all sectors of the economy through the lifecycle of products and materials.
The Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy is Ireland’s new roadmap for waste planning and management. This Plan shifts focus away from waste disposal and looks instead to how we can preserve resources by creating a circular economy. The Plan outlines the contribution of the sector to the achievement of a number of other national plans and policies including the Climate Action Plan.
The key targets under the Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy are: households and businesses recycling targets for waste collectors, standardised bin colours across the State: green for recycling, brown for organic waste and black for residual. Environmental levies for waste recovery and single-use coffee cups to encourage recycling and reuse. A nationwide deposit and return scheme for plastic bottles and aluminium cans. An education and awareness campaign to improve waste segregation. The halving of food waste by 2030. Waste segregation infrastructure for apartment dwellers.
What About The Waste Collection Trucks?
While regular garbage or refuse trucks are used in Ireland, there aren't any special types unique or specific to the country.
Types of Waste Trucks:
Rear-loader trucks: These are the most common type of garbage truck globally, and Ireland is no exception. They have a rear mechanism that lifts and empties waste bins into a hopper.
Side-loader trucks: These are also used in Ireland. They have a mechanical arm on the side that grabs and empties bins. They're often seen in residential areas.
Front-loader trucks: Less common in Ireland than the previous two, these are used for large commercial dumpsters.
Truck Features:
Compaction: Modern waste trucks compact trash to maximise space.
Split Hoppers: Some trucks might have separate compartments to collect different types of waste during a single route.
You might not expect to see a garbage truck covered in soft toys, but that's exactly what inspired me to take a closer look at waste collection in Ireland.
Discarded Items Given New Life:
A Touch of Joy: Stuffed animals are often associated with childhood and happy memories. By adorning their truck with these items, the workers might be salvaging not just the physical toy but also the sense of warmth it represents.
Second Chances: Similar to how waste is sorted for recycling, the toys are 'rescued' from the trash and given a new purpose. This could symbolise hope and the potential for transformation, even within a job focused on discarding things.
Playfulness in Hard Work: Waste collection can be a dirty, physically demanding job. The toys might inject a sense of lightness and playfulness, reminding the workers that even within the practicalities of life, there's room for fun.
Comfort for Sanitation Workers
Personalised Workspace: Garbage trucks can feel utilitarian. The toys may be a way for workers to personalise their space and make it feel slightly more welcoming on long routes.
Reminding Themselves of Why They Work: Sanitation work is essential to public health and safety. The toys, with their associations with innocence and childhood, could be a subconscious reminder of the positive impact their job has on the community, especially with the protection of vulnerable groups.
Humanising Connection: The toys can humanise sanitation workers in the eyes of the public. It creates a touchpoint and can potentially break down stereotypes of gruff or impersonal workers.
Additional Symbolism
The Journey of Objects: As toys ride along on a garbage truck, they could symbolise the journey our discarded items take. It's a visual reminder of consumption and waste patterns.
Environmental Warning: Depending on the condition of the toys (tattered, dirty), it could serve as a subtle commentary on wastefulness and the environmental impact of our discarded items.
Ireland's waste collection system is primarily handled by private companies. This means there can be slight variations in collection schedules and practices depending on your location. Households generally choose a private company to collect waste using a system of colour-coded wheelie bins. Ireland is committed to recycling and waste reduction initiatives, with separate bins for organic waste, recyclables, and general waste.
Households must choose a private company for the collection and disposal of their rubbish bins. Waste is collected every week or two, depending on the type of waste. Some companies collect different types of rubbish on different days. If you live in a rural area with a low population, you may not have a collection service. In this case, you must bring your domestic waste to an approved waste facility in your area.
As already mentioned waste collection companies use colour-coded bins for separating household waste, for example: brown bins for organic waste, green bins for recyclable waste, and black bins are for general waste. Some companies may also offer a glass recycling collection.
As for the future plans, Ireland is moving towards a circular economy model where resources are reused or recycled as much as possible and the generation of waste is minimised. The transition to a circular economy requires a collaborative national response across all sectors of the economy through the lifecycle of products and materials.
The Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy is Ireland’s new roadmap for waste planning and management. This Plan shifts focus away from waste disposal and looks instead to how we can preserve resources by creating a circular economy. The Plan outlines the contribution of the sector to the achievement of a number of other national plans and policies including the Climate Action Plan.
The key targets under the Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy are: households and businesses recycling targets for waste collectors, standardised bin colours across the State: green for recycling, brown for organic waste and black for residual. Environmental levies for waste recovery and single-use coffee cups to encourage recycling and reuse. A nationwide deposit and return scheme for plastic bottles and aluminium cans. An education and awareness campaign to improve waste segregation. The halving of food waste by 2030. Waste segregation infrastructure for apartment dwellers.
What About The Waste Collection Trucks?
While regular garbage or refuse trucks are used in Ireland, there aren't any special types unique or specific to the country.
Types of Waste Trucks:
Rear-loader trucks: These are the most common type of garbage truck globally, and Ireland is no exception. They have a rear mechanism that lifts and empties waste bins into a hopper.
Side-loader trucks: These are also used in Ireland. They have a mechanical arm on the side that grabs and empties bins. They're often seen in residential areas.
Front-loader trucks: Less common in Ireland than the previous two, these are used for large commercial dumpsters.
Truck Features:
Compaction: Modern waste trucks compact trash to maximise space.
Split Hoppers: Some trucks might have separate compartments to collect different types of waste during a single route.
A PERSONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT ELECTRONIC VIEWFINDERS AND REAR SCREENS [THIS IS NOT A REVIEW]
I started out with the Sony NEX-5 and had no real problem with the fact that there was no EVF. Later I purchased a Sony A7R and loved using the EVF and never used the screen for photography. Eventually I decided that I would never get a camera that did not have a top class EVF. As soon as it became available I purchased a Sony FX30 and until it arrived I did not realise that it did not have an EVF. After using it for more than a year I have formed the view that Using an EVF and depending only on a back screen/back-panel encourages two different styles, equally valid, of photography.
The choice between using an electronic viewfinder (EVF) versus relying solely on the rear screen for photography is a fascinating topic. Let’s explore the nuances of these two approaches and how they impact your photographic experience.
Electronic Viewfinder (EVF): The Eye-Level Connection
What Is an EVF?
An EVF is a small display located at the top of the camera body, where you would typically find an optical viewfinder in traditional film cameras.
It provides a real-time preview of the scene, showing exactly what the camera sensor captures.
EVFs simulate exposure, white balance, and other settings, allowing you to compose and adjust your shot without taking your eye off the viewfinder.
Advantages of Using an EVF:
Precision: An EVF offers precise framing and composition. You see exactly what the sensor sees, including exposure adjustments.
Stability: Holding the camera to your eye provides stability, reducing camera shake.
Brightness and Clarity: EVFs are bright, even in low light, and offer high resolution.
Focus Aids: Features like focus peaking and magnification assist with manual focus.
Drawbacks of EVFs:
Battery Drain: EVFs consume power, affecting battery life.
Lag: Some EVFs have a slight lag, especially in low-light conditions.
Disconnect from the Scene: When using an EVF, you’re less aware of your surroundings. It’s like looking through a tunnel.
Rear Screen (LCD): The Versatile Canvas
What Is the Rear Screen?
The rear LCD screen is the large display on the back of the camera.
It serves as both a viewfinder and a playback screen for reviewing images.
Advantages of Relying on the Rear Screen:
Versatility: The screen is flexible—you can tilt it, swivel it, or even use it for selfies.
Connection to the Environment: By using the rear screen, you remain aware of your surroundings. It’s like having an open window to the world.
Touch Controls: Many screens are touch-sensitive, allowing quick adjustments and menu navigation.
Drawbacks of the Rear Screen:
Visibility in Bright Light: Sunlight can make the screen hard to see.
Stability: Holding the camera away from your body can lead to more camera shake.
Composition Challenges: Framing can be less precise, especially when shooting at odd angles.
Two Valid Styles of Photography
EVF-Driven Style:
Focused Precision: EVF users tend to be meticulous about composition, exposure, and focus.
Immersive Experience: The EVF isolates you from distractions, allowing deep concentration.
Ideal for Critical Work: Portrait, macro, and studio photographers often prefer EVFs.
Rear Screen-Driven Style:
Fluid and Reactive: Rear screen users adapt quickly to changing scenes.
Documentary and Street Photography: Capturing candid moments, street scenes, and dynamic events.
Embracing Imperfection: The rear screen encourages spontaneity and experimentation.
Conclusion
Both styles are valid—it’s a matter of personal preference and the context of your photography. Some photographers switch between them based on the situation. Ultimately, the best camera is the one that complements your creative vision, whether you’re peering through an EVF or framing shots on the rear screen
I started out with the Sony NEX-5 and had no real problem with the fact that there was no EVF. Later I purchased a Sony A7R and loved using the EVF and never used the screen for photography. Eventually I decided that I would never get a camera that did not have a top class EVF. As soon as it became available I purchased a Sony FX30 and until it arrived I did not realise that it did not have an EVF. After using it for more than a year I have formed the view that Using an EVF and depending only on a back screen/back-panel encourages two different styles, equally valid, of photography.
The choice between using an electronic viewfinder (EVF) versus relying solely on the rear screen for photography is a fascinating topic. Let’s explore the nuances of these two approaches and how they impact your photographic experience.
Electronic Viewfinder (EVF): The Eye-Level Connection
What Is an EVF?
An EVF is a small display located at the top of the camera body, where you would typically find an optical viewfinder in traditional film cameras.
It provides a real-time preview of the scene, showing exactly what the camera sensor captures.
EVFs simulate exposure, white balance, and other settings, allowing you to compose and adjust your shot without taking your eye off the viewfinder.
Advantages of Using an EVF:
Precision: An EVF offers precise framing and composition. You see exactly what the sensor sees, including exposure adjustments.
Stability: Holding the camera to your eye provides stability, reducing camera shake.
Brightness and Clarity: EVFs are bright, even in low light, and offer high resolution.
Focus Aids: Features like focus peaking and magnification assist with manual focus.
Drawbacks of EVFs:
Battery Drain: EVFs consume power, affecting battery life.
Lag: Some EVFs have a slight lag, especially in low-light conditions.
Disconnect from the Scene: When using an EVF, you’re less aware of your surroundings. It’s like looking through a tunnel.
Rear Screen (LCD): The Versatile Canvas
What Is the Rear Screen?
The rear LCD screen is the large display on the back of the camera.
It serves as both a viewfinder and a playback screen for reviewing images.
Advantages of Relying on the Rear Screen:
Versatility: The screen is flexible—you can tilt it, swivel it, or even use it for selfies.
Connection to the Environment: By using the rear screen, you remain aware of your surroundings. It’s like having an open window to the world.
Touch Controls: Many screens are touch-sensitive, allowing quick adjustments and menu navigation.
Drawbacks of the Rear Screen:
Visibility in Bright Light: Sunlight can make the screen hard to see.
Stability: Holding the camera away from your body can lead to more camera shake.
Composition Challenges: Framing can be less precise, especially when shooting at odd angles.
Two Valid Styles of Photography
EVF-Driven Style:
Focused Precision: EVF users tend to be meticulous about composition, exposure, and focus.
Immersive Experience: The EVF isolates you from distractions, allowing deep concentration.
Ideal for Critical Work: Portrait, macro, and studio photographers often prefer EVFs.
Rear Screen-Driven Style:
Fluid and Reactive: Rear screen users adapt quickly to changing scenes.
Documentary and Street Photography: Capturing candid moments, street scenes, and dynamic events.
Embracing Imperfection: The rear screen encourages spontaneity and experimentation.
Conclusion
Both styles are valid—it’s a matter of personal preference and the context of your photography. Some photographers switch between them based on the situation. Ultimately, the best camera is the one that complements your creative vision, whether you’re peering through an EVF or framing shots on the rear screen
THE CONTROVERSIAL DUN LAOGHAIRE LIVING STREETS SCHEME
Here's a detailed account of the controversial Living Streets scheme planned for Dún Laoghaire, including the key points of contention:
What is the Living Streets Scheme?
The Dún Laoghaire Living Streets scheme is a major proposal by the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council aimed at transforming the town centre. Its primary objectives are:
Traffic Reduction: Discouraging through-traffic in the town centre by using "modal filters" at Tivoli Road, Cross Avenue, and Clarinda Park West. These filters generally allow for pedestrian, bicycle, and local access but deter regular car traffic.
Pedestrianisation: Pedestrianising sections of George's Street Lower, Sussex Street, and Convent Road to create more welcoming public spaces.
Greening and Public Realm Improvements: Introducing new paving, greenery, and dedicated seating areas, particularly in the pedestrianised zones.
Why is it Controversial?
The Living Streets scheme has ignited significant debate and opposition within the Dún Laoghaire community. Key points of contention include:
Traffic Disruption and Accessibility: Many fear that the modal filters will create significant traffic congestion on surrounding roads, notably on the already-busy Glenageary Road Upper. There are concerns about restricted accessibility for residents, emergency services, and those with limited mobility who may rely on car access.
Business Impact: Local businesses have expressed worries that decreased car access will impact footfall, negatively affecting their trade.
Consultation Process: Some residents feel the public consultation was inadequate or not truly reflective of public sentiment. There's a perception that the council has predetermined the outcome regardless of the feedback.
Loss of Parking: The plan will inevitably involve the removal of some car parking spaces, adding to parking pressures faced by shoppers and residents alike.
Supporters' Arguments
Those in favour of the Living Streets scheme argue that it will:
Improve Safety: Reduce traffic volume and speed, creating safer environments for pedestrians and cyclists.
Enhance Quality of Life: Provide more attractive public spaces for residents and visitors, promoting social interaction and outdoor enjoyment.
Support Local Businesses: The argument goes that a pedestrianised area will be more enticing for shoppers and diners, ultimately boosting local businesses.
Reduce Pollution: Contribute to a healthier environment by decreasing car usage and harmful emissions.
The Current Situation
The Dún Laoghaire Living Streets scheme has been met with significant public demonstrations, both supporting and opposing the changes. The decision now rests with the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councillors, who will vote to either implement the plan or reject it. The timing of this crucial vote is currently uncertain.
Here's a detailed account of the controversial Living Streets scheme planned for Dún Laoghaire, including the key points of contention:
What is the Living Streets Scheme?
The Dún Laoghaire Living Streets scheme is a major proposal by the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council aimed at transforming the town centre. Its primary objectives are:
Traffic Reduction: Discouraging through-traffic in the town centre by using "modal filters" at Tivoli Road, Cross Avenue, and Clarinda Park West. These filters generally allow for pedestrian, bicycle, and local access but deter regular car traffic.
Pedestrianisation: Pedestrianising sections of George's Street Lower, Sussex Street, and Convent Road to create more welcoming public spaces.
Greening and Public Realm Improvements: Introducing new paving, greenery, and dedicated seating areas, particularly in the pedestrianised zones.
Why is it Controversial?
The Living Streets scheme has ignited significant debate and opposition within the Dún Laoghaire community. Key points of contention include:
Traffic Disruption and Accessibility: Many fear that the modal filters will create significant traffic congestion on surrounding roads, notably on the already-busy Glenageary Road Upper. There are concerns about restricted accessibility for residents, emergency services, and those with limited mobility who may rely on car access.
Business Impact: Local businesses have expressed worries that decreased car access will impact footfall, negatively affecting their trade.
Consultation Process: Some residents feel the public consultation was inadequate or not truly reflective of public sentiment. There's a perception that the council has predetermined the outcome regardless of the feedback.
Loss of Parking: The plan will inevitably involve the removal of some car parking spaces, adding to parking pressures faced by shoppers and residents alike.
Supporters' Arguments
Those in favour of the Living Streets scheme argue that it will:
Improve Safety: Reduce traffic volume and speed, creating safer environments for pedestrians and cyclists.
Enhance Quality of Life: Provide more attractive public spaces for residents and visitors, promoting social interaction and outdoor enjoyment.
Support Local Businesses: The argument goes that a pedestrianised area will be more enticing for shoppers and diners, ultimately boosting local businesses.
Reduce Pollution: Contribute to a healthier environment by decreasing car usage and harmful emissions.
The Current Situation
The Dún Laoghaire Living Streets scheme has been met with significant public demonstrations, both supporting and opposing the changes. The decision now rests with the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councillors, who will vote to either implement the plan or reject it. The timing of this crucial vote is currently uncertain.
Francis Street
A QUICK VISIT TO FRANCIS STREET [WOULD YOU RECOMMENDED IT TO AN AMERICAN VISITOR WITH FOUR YOUNG CHILDREN]
Someone asked the following question online
[Question] I am an American and I plan to attend the Patrick's Day Parade in Dublin I am bringing four young children, and my husband. Some friends recommended that I stay at a hotel on Francis Street but others told me that it is not safe at night. What is your recommendation []
Here is the response: While Francis Street in Dublin has a rich history and is known for its antique shops, there are some valid concerns about staying in the area with young children, especially for St. Patrick's Day. [Note: I am not sure about Temple Bar being a suitable alternative]
A Family-Friendly Perspective on Francis Street in Dublin
If you’re considering a quick visit to Francis Street in Dublin, there are some important factors to weigh, especially when traveling with young children. While Francis Street boasts a rich historical background and is renowned for its antique shops, it’s essential to address certain concerns before making your decision.
Here’s what you should know:
Reputation: Parts of Francis Street and the surrounding Liberties area have a historical reputation for social issues such as drug use and petty crime.
Although efforts have been made to improve safety, it’s crucial to be aware that these elements may still exist.
Nighttime Activity: Francis Street can become lively at night, particularly during events like St. Patrick’s Day.
For families with young children, the bustling nighttime atmosphere might not be the most suitable environment.
Limited Amenities:Depending on the specific hotel you choose, you may find fewer child-friendly amenities and attractions in the immediate vicinity.
Why Consider Alternatives for St. Patrick’s Day:
Crowds and Noise: The parade route passes through Dublin’s city center, and the areas around it will be extremely crowded and noisy.
Managing young children in such an environment can be challenging.
Safety Concerns: While the direct risk may be low, large crowds and celebrations increase the chance of minor issues, such as getting separated from your children.
Alternative Areas to Explore: If you decide to explore other options, here are some family-friendly areas in Dublin that are still conveniently close to the St. Patrick’s Day festivities:
Temple Bar: Temple Bar offers a lively atmosphere but also features numerous family-friendly hotels and restaurants. Plus, it’s a bit closer to the parade route.
Remember to prioritize safety and comfort when choosing your accommodation, especially when traveling with young ones. Enjoy your visit to Dublin and the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations!
Someone asked the following question online
[Question] I am an American and I plan to attend the Patrick's Day Parade in Dublin I am bringing four young children, and my husband. Some friends recommended that I stay at a hotel on Francis Street but others told me that it is not safe at night. What is your recommendation []
Here is the response: While Francis Street in Dublin has a rich history and is known for its antique shops, there are some valid concerns about staying in the area with young children, especially for St. Patrick's Day. [Note: I am not sure about Temple Bar being a suitable alternative]
A Family-Friendly Perspective on Francis Street in Dublin
If you’re considering a quick visit to Francis Street in Dublin, there are some important factors to weigh, especially when traveling with young children. While Francis Street boasts a rich historical background and is renowned for its antique shops, it’s essential to address certain concerns before making your decision.
Here’s what you should know:
Reputation: Parts of Francis Street and the surrounding Liberties area have a historical reputation for social issues such as drug use and petty crime.
Although efforts have been made to improve safety, it’s crucial to be aware that these elements may still exist.
Nighttime Activity: Francis Street can become lively at night, particularly during events like St. Patrick’s Day.
For families with young children, the bustling nighttime atmosphere might not be the most suitable environment.
Limited Amenities:Depending on the specific hotel you choose, you may find fewer child-friendly amenities and attractions in the immediate vicinity.
Why Consider Alternatives for St. Patrick’s Day:
Crowds and Noise: The parade route passes through Dublin’s city center, and the areas around it will be extremely crowded and noisy.
Managing young children in such an environment can be challenging.
Safety Concerns: While the direct risk may be low, large crowds and celebrations increase the chance of minor issues, such as getting separated from your children.
Alternative Areas to Explore: If you decide to explore other options, here are some family-friendly areas in Dublin that are still conveniently close to the St. Patrick’s Day festivities:
Temple Bar: Temple Bar offers a lively atmosphere but also features numerous family-friendly hotels and restaurants. Plus, it’s a bit closer to the parade route.
Remember to prioritize safety and comfort when choosing your accommodation, especially when traveling with young ones. Enjoy your visit to Dublin and the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations!
WHAT IS THE REAL WEIGHT OF A SMALL STEAK [HALF-A-POUND OR SEVEN OUNCES?]
An American visitor planning a trip to Dublin for St. Patrick's Festival wondered why Irish restaurants seem to serve smaller 7-ounce steaks compared to the larger cuts common in the US. While it's true that portions can vary, here's some insight on steak sizes in Ireland:
Understanding Trimmed Weight
Pre- and Post-Trimming: Butchers often advertise steaks by their untrimmed weight. An 8-ounce (half-pound) steak might weigh closer to 7 ounces after removing excess fat and sinew, making 7 ounces an accurate depiction of the final cooked portion.
Reasons for Smaller Steaks in Ireland
Dining Habits: Irish cuisine traditionally favours balanced meals with multiple components, rather than centring on a single, large cut of meat.
Quality Emphasis: Irish restaurants often prioritise locally-sourced, premium quality meats. Smaller steaks help maintain this focus while keeping meals affordable.
Health Awareness: There's increasing awareness of portion control and red meat intake. Modest steak sizes align with this trend.
It's Not One-Size-Fits-All
Variety Exists: While not the absolute standard, 7-ounce steaks can be found, especially in fine dining settings. Steakhouse chains and restaurants catering to American tastes will likely offer those larger "giant" steaks.
I also received the following from a second source:
A 7-ounce steak wouldn't be considered the standard serving size in Ireland, but it's also not uncommon. Here's why:
Portion Sizes Vary: Steak portion sizes in Ireland depend on the type of establishment, the cut of meat, and the overall menu design.
Typical Range: You're more likely to find steaks in the 8-12 ounce range in most restaurants.
Smaller Portions Possible: Some fine dining places may offer smaller steaks as part of tasting menus or multi-course dining experiences. 7 ounces could certainly be found in this context.
Larger Options, Too: Steakhouses specialising in large cuts of meat will definitely cater to those seeking the 'giant steak' experience.
Overall: It's better to think of steak serving sizes in Ireland as existing on a spectrum rather than having a single, rigid standard.
An American visitor planning a trip to Dublin for St. Patrick's Festival wondered why Irish restaurants seem to serve smaller 7-ounce steaks compared to the larger cuts common in the US. While it's true that portions can vary, here's some insight on steak sizes in Ireland:
Understanding Trimmed Weight
Pre- and Post-Trimming: Butchers often advertise steaks by their untrimmed weight. An 8-ounce (half-pound) steak might weigh closer to 7 ounces after removing excess fat and sinew, making 7 ounces an accurate depiction of the final cooked portion.
Reasons for Smaller Steaks in Ireland
Dining Habits: Irish cuisine traditionally favours balanced meals with multiple components, rather than centring on a single, large cut of meat.
Quality Emphasis: Irish restaurants often prioritise locally-sourced, premium quality meats. Smaller steaks help maintain this focus while keeping meals affordable.
Health Awareness: There's increasing awareness of portion control and red meat intake. Modest steak sizes align with this trend.
It's Not One-Size-Fits-All
Variety Exists: While not the absolute standard, 7-ounce steaks can be found, especially in fine dining settings. Steakhouse chains and restaurants catering to American tastes will likely offer those larger "giant" steaks.
I also received the following from a second source:
A 7-ounce steak wouldn't be considered the standard serving size in Ireland, but it's also not uncommon. Here's why:
Portion Sizes Vary: Steak portion sizes in Ireland depend on the type of establishment, the cut of meat, and the overall menu design.
Typical Range: You're more likely to find steaks in the 8-12 ounce range in most restaurants.
Smaller Portions Possible: Some fine dining places may offer smaller steaks as part of tasting menus or multi-course dining experiences. 7 ounces could certainly be found in this context.
Larger Options, Too: Steakhouses specialising in large cuts of meat will definitely cater to those seeking the 'giant steak' experience.
Overall: It's better to think of steak serving sizes in Ireland as existing on a spectrum rather than having a single, rigid standard.
DUBLIN AIRPORT HAS FIVE TIMES MORE LANDINGS AND TAKE-OFFS AT NIGHT THAN HEATHROW - CAN THIS CLAIM BE TRUE?
Yes, this claim can be largely true, but here's why it needs some context:
Numbers Can Be Misleading: The raw number of nighttime flights between Dublin and Heathrow can appear stark. However, the size and scale of the airports are massively different. Heathrow is one of the world's busiest airports, making a direct flight count comparison somewhat unfair.
Noise Restrictions: Heathrow has stricter noise restrictions for night flights due to its location in a densely populated area. Dublin Airport faces less stringent noise controls.
Planning Permission: The number of permitted nighttime flights might favour Dublin Airport. This means that Dublin has a higher legal limit compared to Heathrow.
Flight Types: The types of aircraft flying at night matter. Larger, noisier planes are more likely to be restricted at Heathrow.
Important Considerations:
Relative Impact: While Dublin may have more nighttime flights, the impact of those flights on surrounding communities could be significantly less than the impact fewer flights at Heathrow have due to the airports' locations and aircraft types.
Current Situation: It's essential to check the source date of the information. Regulations and situations at airports can change over time.
Where to Find Reliable Information:
Dublin Airport Authority: Check their website for information on flight schedules, noise regulations, and any statements regarding night-time operations (https://www.dublinairport.com/)
Heathrow Airport: Visit their website to find noise-related information and their commitment to managing nighttime flights (https://www.heathrow.com/)
News Articles: Search for recent news reports that might offer a more updated and nuanced picture of the nighttime flight situation at both airports.
Yes, this claim can be largely true, but here's why it needs some context:
Numbers Can Be Misleading: The raw number of nighttime flights between Dublin and Heathrow can appear stark. However, the size and scale of the airports are massively different. Heathrow is one of the world's busiest airports, making a direct flight count comparison somewhat unfair.
Noise Restrictions: Heathrow has stricter noise restrictions for night flights due to its location in a densely populated area. Dublin Airport faces less stringent noise controls.
Planning Permission: The number of permitted nighttime flights might favour Dublin Airport. This means that Dublin has a higher legal limit compared to Heathrow.
Flight Types: The types of aircraft flying at night matter. Larger, noisier planes are more likely to be restricted at Heathrow.
Important Considerations:
Relative Impact: While Dublin may have more nighttime flights, the impact of those flights on surrounding communities could be significantly less than the impact fewer flights at Heathrow have due to the airports' locations and aircraft types.
Current Situation: It's essential to check the source date of the information. Regulations and situations at airports can change over time.
Where to Find Reliable Information:
Dublin Airport Authority: Check their website for information on flight schedules, noise regulations, and any statements regarding night-time operations (https://www.dublinairport.com/)
Heathrow Airport: Visit their website to find noise-related information and their commitment to managing nighttime flights (https://www.heathrow.com/)
News Articles: Search for recent news reports that might offer a more updated and nuanced picture of the nighttime flight situation at both airports.
MetroLink's homeowner compensation scheme, focusing on the key points:
Background:
MetroLink is a major rail project in Dublin facing some opposition from homeowners concerned about potential property damage.
The Property Owners Protection Scheme (POPS) was established to compensate those whose homes are damaged during MetroLink construction.
Initial criticism focused on the €45,000 compensation cap being too low.
Changes Announced:
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), responsible for MetroLink, has listened to homeowner concerns and significantly increased the POPS compensation cap to €75,000.
The new amount will be adjusted for inflation from the time the railway project is officially approved.
If Damage Exceeds the Cap:
Homeowners with MetroLink-related damages over €75,000 can seek further compensation through the project's insurance.
TII will assist in expediting repairs by providing access to its contractors.
TII believes most claims will fall below the €75,000 threshold.
Overall: This change represents a substantial increase in potential compensation for homeowners, potentially addressing concerns and easing tensions around the MetroLink project.
potential compensation for homeowners, Metrolink, Public Transport, Dublin, Ireland,
The MetroLink Project:
What it is: The MetroLink is a proposed 19-kilometer-long metro line that will connect Dublin's north and south sides, linking Dublin Airport, major suburbs, and the city center.
Aim: The project will provide a much-needed high-capacity, high-frequency rail link, easing traffic congestion and improving Dublin's public transportation network.
Route: The majority of the line will be underground, with some elevated sections. It will serve 16 stations, with interchange links to the existing rail and Luas (tram) networks.
Current Status and Future Plans:
Planning Stage: The project is currently in the planning phase, undergoing the An Bord Pleanála (Ireland's Planning Board) oral hearings process. Public feedback and environmental concerns are being considered.
Construction Timeline: If approved, construction could begin in 2025, with service potentially starting in the early 2030s.
Reasons for Delays:
Complex Project: MetroLink is a large-scale infrastructure project with significant engineering and logistical challenges. Underground tunnelling in a built-up city adds complexity and time.
Funding: Securing funding for such a massive project is often a time-consuming process.
Planning Approval: Rigorous planning processes in Ireland involve detailed environmental impact assessments and public consultation periods. These are crucial but can contribute to delays.
Unique Aspects:
Driverless Operation: MetroLink is designed to be fully automated, with driverless trains, enhancing efficiency and reliability.
Supplier: While the supplier hasn't been finalised, the tendering process is underway, with leading international manufacturers in the running.
Integration: MetroLink will be integrated with Dublin's existing transport network (DART, Luas, buses), creating a more seamless travel experience.
In Conclusion:
The MetroLink project has faced a long road to implementation due to its complexity, scale, and necessary planning processes. However, it promises to be a transformative addition to Dublin's transportation system. Its unique driverless technology and integration with existing networks highlight the project's ambition and potential benefits to the city.
Background:
MetroLink is a major rail project in Dublin facing some opposition from homeowners concerned about potential property damage.
The Property Owners Protection Scheme (POPS) was established to compensate those whose homes are damaged during MetroLink construction.
Initial criticism focused on the €45,000 compensation cap being too low.
Changes Announced:
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), responsible for MetroLink, has listened to homeowner concerns and significantly increased the POPS compensation cap to €75,000.
The new amount will be adjusted for inflation from the time the railway project is officially approved.
If Damage Exceeds the Cap:
Homeowners with MetroLink-related damages over €75,000 can seek further compensation through the project's insurance.
TII will assist in expediting repairs by providing access to its contractors.
TII believes most claims will fall below the €75,000 threshold.
Overall: This change represents a substantial increase in potential compensation for homeowners, potentially addressing concerns and easing tensions around the MetroLink project.
potential compensation for homeowners, Metrolink, Public Transport, Dublin, Ireland,
The MetroLink Project:
What it is: The MetroLink is a proposed 19-kilometer-long metro line that will connect Dublin's north and south sides, linking Dublin Airport, major suburbs, and the city center.
Aim: The project will provide a much-needed high-capacity, high-frequency rail link, easing traffic congestion and improving Dublin's public transportation network.
Route: The majority of the line will be underground, with some elevated sections. It will serve 16 stations, with interchange links to the existing rail and Luas (tram) networks.
Current Status and Future Plans:
Planning Stage: The project is currently in the planning phase, undergoing the An Bord Pleanála (Ireland's Planning Board) oral hearings process. Public feedback and environmental concerns are being considered.
Construction Timeline: If approved, construction could begin in 2025, with service potentially starting in the early 2030s.
Reasons for Delays:
Complex Project: MetroLink is a large-scale infrastructure project with significant engineering and logistical challenges. Underground tunnelling in a built-up city adds complexity and time.
Funding: Securing funding for such a massive project is often a time-consuming process.
Planning Approval: Rigorous planning processes in Ireland involve detailed environmental impact assessments and public consultation periods. These are crucial but can contribute to delays.
Unique Aspects:
Driverless Operation: MetroLink is designed to be fully automated, with driverless trains, enhancing efficiency and reliability.
Supplier: While the supplier hasn't been finalised, the tendering process is underway, with leading international manufacturers in the running.
Integration: MetroLink will be integrated with Dublin's existing transport network (DART, Luas, buses), creating a more seamless travel experience.
In Conclusion:
The MetroLink project has faced a long road to implementation due to its complexity, scale, and necessary planning processes. However, it promises to be a transformative addition to Dublin's transportation system. Its unique driverless technology and integration with existing networks highlight the project's ambition and potential benefits to the city.
MetroLink's homeowner compensation scheme, focusing on the key points:
Background:
MetroLink is a major rail project in Dublin facing some opposition from homeowners concerned about potential property damage.
The Property Owners Protection Scheme (POPS) was established to compensate those whose homes are damaged during MetroLink construction.
Initial criticism focused on the €45,000 compensation cap being too low.
Changes Announced:
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), responsible for MetroLink, has listened to homeowner concerns and significantly increased the POPS compensation cap to €75,000.
The new amount will be adjusted for inflation from the time the railway project is officially approved.
If Damage Exceeds the Cap:
Homeowners with MetroLink-related damages over €75,000 can seek further compensation through the project's insurance.
TII will assist in expediting repairs by providing access to its contractors.
TII believes most claims will fall below the €75,000 threshold.
Overall: This change represents a substantial increase in potential compensation for homeowners, potentially addressing concerns and easing tensions around the MetroLink project.
potential compensation for homeowners, Metrolink, Public Transport, Dublin, Ireland,
The MetroLink Project:
What it is: The MetroLink is a proposed 19-kilometer-long metro line that will connect Dublin's north and south sides, linking Dublin Airport, major suburbs, and the city center.
Aim: The project will provide a much-needed high-capacity, high-frequency rail link, easing traffic congestion and improving Dublin's public transportation network.
Route: The majority of the line will be underground, with some elevated sections. It will serve 16 stations, with interchange links to the existing rail and Luas (tram) networks.
Current Status and Future Plans:
Planning Stage: The project is currently in the planning phase, undergoing the An Bord Pleanála (Ireland's Planning Board) oral hearings process. Public feedback and environmental concerns are being considered.
Construction Timeline: If approved, construction could begin in 2025, with service potentially starting in the early 2030s.
Reasons for Delays:
Complex Project: MetroLink is a large-scale infrastructure project with significant engineering and logistical challenges. Underground tunnelling in a built-up city adds complexity and time.
Funding: Securing funding for such a massive project is often a time-consuming process.
Planning Approval: Rigorous planning processes in Ireland involve detailed environmental impact assessments and public consultation periods. These are crucial but can contribute to delays.
Unique Aspects:
Driverless Operation: MetroLink is designed to be fully automated, with driverless trains, enhancing efficiency and reliability.
Supplier: While the supplier hasn't been finalised, the tendering process is underway, with leading international manufacturers in the running.
Integration: MetroLink will be integrated with Dublin's existing transport network (DART, Luas, buses), creating a more seamless travel experience.
In Conclusion:
The MetroLink project has faced a long road to implementation due to its complexity, scale, and necessary planning processes. However, it promises to be a transformative addition to Dublin's transportation system. Its unique driverless technology and integration with existing networks highlight the project's ambition and potential benefits to the city.
Background:
MetroLink is a major rail project in Dublin facing some opposition from homeowners concerned about potential property damage.
The Property Owners Protection Scheme (POPS) was established to compensate those whose homes are damaged during MetroLink construction.
Initial criticism focused on the €45,000 compensation cap being too low.
Changes Announced:
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), responsible for MetroLink, has listened to homeowner concerns and significantly increased the POPS compensation cap to €75,000.
The new amount will be adjusted for inflation from the time the railway project is officially approved.
If Damage Exceeds the Cap:
Homeowners with MetroLink-related damages over €75,000 can seek further compensation through the project's insurance.
TII will assist in expediting repairs by providing access to its contractors.
TII believes most claims will fall below the €75,000 threshold.
Overall: This change represents a substantial increase in potential compensation for homeowners, potentially addressing concerns and easing tensions around the MetroLink project.
potential compensation for homeowners, Metrolink, Public Transport, Dublin, Ireland,
The MetroLink Project:
What it is: The MetroLink is a proposed 19-kilometer-long metro line that will connect Dublin's north and south sides, linking Dublin Airport, major suburbs, and the city center.
Aim: The project will provide a much-needed high-capacity, high-frequency rail link, easing traffic congestion and improving Dublin's public transportation network.
Route: The majority of the line will be underground, with some elevated sections. It will serve 16 stations, with interchange links to the existing rail and Luas (tram) networks.
Current Status and Future Plans:
Planning Stage: The project is currently in the planning phase, undergoing the An Bord Pleanála (Ireland's Planning Board) oral hearings process. Public feedback and environmental concerns are being considered.
Construction Timeline: If approved, construction could begin in 2025, with service potentially starting in the early 2030s.
Reasons for Delays:
Complex Project: MetroLink is a large-scale infrastructure project with significant engineering and logistical challenges. Underground tunnelling in a built-up city adds complexity and time.
Funding: Securing funding for such a massive project is often a time-consuming process.
Planning Approval: Rigorous planning processes in Ireland involve detailed environmental impact assessments and public consultation periods. These are crucial but can contribute to delays.
Unique Aspects:
Driverless Operation: MetroLink is designed to be fully automated, with driverless trains, enhancing efficiency and reliability.
Supplier: While the supplier hasn't been finalised, the tendering process is underway, with leading international manufacturers in the running.
Integration: MetroLink will be integrated with Dublin's existing transport network (DART, Luas, buses), creating a more seamless travel experience.
In Conclusion:
The MetroLink project has faced a long road to implementation due to its complexity, scale, and necessary planning processes. However, it promises to be a transformative addition to Dublin's transportation system. Its unique driverless technology and integration with existing networks highlight the project's ambition and potential benefits to the city.
BusConnects: Modernising Dublin's Bus Network
Dublin, like many growing cities, has faced increasing traffic congestion and the need for a more sustainable and efficient public transport system. BusConnects, a major programme by the National Transport Authority (NTA), aims to address these challenges by completely redesigning the city's bus network.
Inspiration and Similar Schemes
BusConnects draws inspiration from successful bus network redesigns in cities worldwide. London's extensive bus network, renowned for its frequency and reliability, is a clear influence. Other cities like Barcelona and Paris have also implemented innovative bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, featuring bus priority measures that provide a more metro-like experience.
History of BusConnects
The BusConnects programme traces its roots back to the early 2000s when the need for a transformed bus network in Dublin became apparent. After years of planning and public consultations, the first phase of the new BusConnects network launched in June 2021. This initial phase focused on routes connecting Dublin's north-east to the city centre.
Public Reaction
The public reaction to BusConnects has been mixed. While many welcome the promise of greater frequency, reliability, and more direct routes, concerns persist. Some changes have resulted in longer journey times for certain commuters, and there have been criticisms about the consultation processes. However, there's general acknowledgement that the old bus system was in need of a significant overhaul.
Progress and Future Plans
BusConnects continues to roll out in phases. As of March 2024, five phases have been launched. Here's the vision for its future progression:
Immediate Future: Continued rollout of new orbital, radial, and local routes. Prioritisation of the Core Bus Corridor Schemes, creating dedicated bus lanes and improving traffic flow.
Medium Term: Expansion of the network to reach more areas of Dublin, providing improved connections and services. Integration with other transport modes, like cycling and rail.
Long Term: BusConnects aims to establish Dublin as a leader in sustainable transport. Potential future phases include further development of bus rapid transit systems and exploring the potential of electric and autonomous buses.
Keywords
In Conclusion
The BusConnects programme is a bold and ambitious undertaking to reshape Dublin's public transport. While it has had its share of challenges, the potential to modernize the bus system and encourage a shift away from private cars is significant. The ongoing rollout and future phases will be crucial in determining the programme's ultimate success and its impact in creating a more efficient, sustainable, and people-friendly Dublin.
Dublin, like many growing cities, has faced increasing traffic congestion and the need for a more sustainable and efficient public transport system. BusConnects, a major programme by the National Transport Authority (NTA), aims to address these challenges by completely redesigning the city's bus network.
Inspiration and Similar Schemes
BusConnects draws inspiration from successful bus network redesigns in cities worldwide. London's extensive bus network, renowned for its frequency and reliability, is a clear influence. Other cities like Barcelona and Paris have also implemented innovative bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, featuring bus priority measures that provide a more metro-like experience.
History of BusConnects
The BusConnects programme traces its roots back to the early 2000s when the need for a transformed bus network in Dublin became apparent. After years of planning and public consultations, the first phase of the new BusConnects network launched in June 2021. This initial phase focused on routes connecting Dublin's north-east to the city centre.
Public Reaction
The public reaction to BusConnects has been mixed. While many welcome the promise of greater frequency, reliability, and more direct routes, concerns persist. Some changes have resulted in longer journey times for certain commuters, and there have been criticisms about the consultation processes. However, there's general acknowledgement that the old bus system was in need of a significant overhaul.
Progress and Future Plans
BusConnects continues to roll out in phases. As of March 2024, five phases have been launched. Here's the vision for its future progression:
Immediate Future: Continued rollout of new orbital, radial, and local routes. Prioritisation of the Core Bus Corridor Schemes, creating dedicated bus lanes and improving traffic flow.
Medium Term: Expansion of the network to reach more areas of Dublin, providing improved connections and services. Integration with other transport modes, like cycling and rail.
Long Term: BusConnects aims to establish Dublin as a leader in sustainable transport. Potential future phases include further development of bus rapid transit systems and exploring the potential of electric and autonomous buses.
Keywords
In Conclusion
The BusConnects programme is a bold and ambitious undertaking to reshape Dublin's public transport. While it has had its share of challenges, the potential to modernize the bus system and encourage a shift away from private cars is significant. The ongoing rollout and future phases will be crucial in determining the programme's ultimate success and its impact in creating a more efficient, sustainable, and people-friendly Dublin.
Here's a discussion of Dublin City Council's (DCC) plans for the North Quays to manage traffic flow, prioritising those with the city centre as their destination:
Key Goals:
Reducing Through-Traffic: DCC aims to decrease the volume of vehicles simply using the North Quays as a route to other areas, instead of having the city centre as their final stop.
Sustainable Transport Focus: The plans promote a shift towards walking, cycling, and public transport as the preferred modes of accessing the city centre.
Improved Public Realm: By reducing unnecessary car traffic, DCC envisions creating a more liveable, people-friendly environment with expanded pedestrian space, new public squares, and a greener cityscape.
Specific Measures Under Consideration:
Traffic Restrictions: This could involve limiting certain intersections to buses, taxis, and cyclists, or creating bus gates that restrict car access at specific times of day.
Re-routing Traffic: DCC is exploring ways to divert through-traffic away from the North Quays onto less congested routes and towards the Dublin Port Tunnel.
Congestion Charging: While not the primary focus, the possibility of charging vehicles for entering the city center zone is being discussed as a way to further reduce car usage.
Enhanced Public Transport: Improving bus networks, expanding Luas (tram) lines, and creating better cycling infrastructure are all part of making non-car options more attractive.
Ongoing Process:
Consultation and Refinement: DCC has been engaging with the public and key stakeholders to gather feedback and refine their plans.
Phased Implementation: Changes are likely to be implemented in phases, starting with pilot projects and adjustments based on their impact.
Challenges and Considerations:
Business Concerns: Some city centre businesses fear limited car access could negatively impact them. Striking a balance between accessibility and sustainability is crucial.
Pushback from Motorists: Any restrictions on car usage are often met with resistance. DCC needs clear communication and alternative solutions to gain wider support.
Project Coordination: The North Quays plans must align with other transport initiatives like BusConnects and overall city development.
Where to Find Updates:
Dublin City Council Website: Check their website for specific plans, consultations, and timelines related to the North Quays project.
Local News Outlets: Stay updated on the latest developments and community reactions through Dublin-based newspapers and media.
The North Quays project underscores a broader trend in many cities to reclaim urban spaces from cars and prioritise more sustainable and people-centred environments.
Key Goals:
Reducing Through-Traffic: DCC aims to decrease the volume of vehicles simply using the North Quays as a route to other areas, instead of having the city centre as their final stop.
Sustainable Transport Focus: The plans promote a shift towards walking, cycling, and public transport as the preferred modes of accessing the city centre.
Improved Public Realm: By reducing unnecessary car traffic, DCC envisions creating a more liveable, people-friendly environment with expanded pedestrian space, new public squares, and a greener cityscape.
Specific Measures Under Consideration:
Traffic Restrictions: This could involve limiting certain intersections to buses, taxis, and cyclists, or creating bus gates that restrict car access at specific times of day.
Re-routing Traffic: DCC is exploring ways to divert through-traffic away from the North Quays onto less congested routes and towards the Dublin Port Tunnel.
Congestion Charging: While not the primary focus, the possibility of charging vehicles for entering the city center zone is being discussed as a way to further reduce car usage.
Enhanced Public Transport: Improving bus networks, expanding Luas (tram) lines, and creating better cycling infrastructure are all part of making non-car options more attractive.
Ongoing Process:
Consultation and Refinement: DCC has been engaging with the public and key stakeholders to gather feedback and refine their plans.
Phased Implementation: Changes are likely to be implemented in phases, starting with pilot projects and adjustments based on their impact.
Challenges and Considerations:
Business Concerns: Some city centre businesses fear limited car access could negatively impact them. Striking a balance between accessibility and sustainability is crucial.
Pushback from Motorists: Any restrictions on car usage are often met with resistance. DCC needs clear communication and alternative solutions to gain wider support.
Project Coordination: The North Quays plans must align with other transport initiatives like BusConnects and overall city development.
Where to Find Updates:
Dublin City Council Website: Check their website for specific plans, consultations, and timelines related to the North Quays project.
Local News Outlets: Stay updated on the latest developments and community reactions through Dublin-based newspapers and media.
The North Quays project underscores a broader trend in many cities to reclaim urban spaces from cars and prioritise more sustainable and people-centred environments.
Commercial Disclosure
You will find links to buy products from Amazon, Google and other partners. If you click on these links, you’ll find that the URL includes a small extra piece of text which identifies that the click came from my websites. This text is an affiliate code, and it means that I get a small percentage of the money you spend if you choose to buy that product, or, in some cases, other products from the site soon after. These affiliate links help pay the costs of producing my websites and ensure that the content is free to you.