FX30 HAS NO EVF
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.
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.