Enhancing photos: How much is too much?

I'm a person who likes the truth.  What I photograph is what was there.  I don't add things to enhance the image.  I don't go for tricks, though I probably did that when i started.

While the Nikon D7200 has 14-bit raw files, I'm not sure whether the image quality and dynamic range actually have a huge advantage over micro Four-Thirds bodies in real life.

So, with all that in mind, the following photo has been enhanced by Macphun's Intensify application for Macs.

I'm not sure how I feel about the over the top enhancement, but it conveys what I was feeling, even though it is too much.

Tried this again, via Styles in Phase One to give an older, film look to the photo.  It's not bad, but I'm not sure how I feel about the manipulation.

Update 2017.01.01: I'm still messing with Macphun products, including their new raw development environment Luminar.

Original photo

Using Blue Sky filter

I have to experiment a lot but some of these filters, techniques provide useful results, allowing the viewer to see what is often hidden.

Is a mirror-less body's viewfinder placement that important?

I've seen a huge number of comments about rangefinder-like placement versus SLR-like placement of the viewfinder.  Many turn to heated arguments, for reasons unknown to me.  I suspect that it has to do with a person's original comfort (warm and fuzzy?) zone.

I've used a bit of everything but I eventually used SLRs more than anything else.  The only time I was truly uncomfortable was using a point-and-shoot camera where you look through a blank viewfinder and hope that what you want will be in focus.

To this day, I don't care for working with the rear display of a modern digital camera, when a proper viewfinder and focusing mechanism is available.

I use the following camera bodies:

• Olympus E-1
• Olympus E-5
• Olympus E-M1
• Panasonic GH4
• Nikon D7200
• Panasonic GX8

I had the Panasonic GH3 as my first micro Four-Thirds camera body and later, traded it for the E-M1 to ensure the trade-in value didn't drop when the GH4 was available.

For the most part, the only difference working with the bodies is whether I use an optical viewfinder or an EVF (electronic viewfinder).  In good light, I appreciate the optical viewfinder but in the dark, any EVF is more helpful, even when the refresh rate drops.

I agreed when someone mentioned the nose up against the rear of the camera being inconvenient.  It seems as though I have changed settings on the E-M1 because there is no cover over the rear display.  Beyond that, I don't see an advantage to one position over the other.

I use the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 almost daily.  Sometimes, I use two of them together.  As far as I'm concerned, they're just camera bodies--tools, weapons, as people say.  I suppose I'm very different than most.

On the GX8, I find the tilt more important than the placement, which is a strong reason as to why I bought it.  There are times when I must tilt the rear display and with the bright sun, I can't see much of anything.  The tilting EVF works very, very well.  I find it interesting that the people who like the tilting EVF hate the articulated rear display.  I appreciate being able to set the display to all sorts of angles to take architectural photos or skate park video.

I suppose my only warm-and-fuzzy preference is to have a viewfinder that actually helps me focus.

Installed OS X 10.11.3 on Mid-2012 MacBook Pro

Given that I had almost 14 GB in my monthly internet allotment remaining, I decided to try to download the latest operating system and install it on a laptop computer that I've had since around the first of 2013.

In November 2014, I had Apple install 10.9.5 on my machine because I didn't have enough data available to download the operating system.  I also remember all the pain of downloading 10.8 and the fixes and having to jump through hoops to get it to work, and then, I changed to an SSD and I couldn't just copy the operating system as in the old days.  Gnashing of teeth was part of the installation process.

The time for the download was not horrible, although my Verizon mobile hotspot has some very variable service lately.  Once downloaded, there were a couple of items to confirm and then, it restarted to actually perform the installation.

At some point, it asked me about iCloud--and took a very long time to complete.  It also did this for a secondary user on the machine, but didn't seem to take nearly as long.

That was the big deal.

Performance is much better, although the interface is so flat (with sharp edges) that I suspect that the next major version will have concave features.  It feels a bit as though children were tasked with the re-design.

Maybe, it's just that 10.9.5 was really awful--10.7.x was, and 10.8.x was also.  In fact, the last time I really felt good about performance was 10.4.10 on the PowerBook G4.  However, 10.11.3 seems a strong improvement.

I haven't seen a problem, other than having to update all of my iWork applications.  Why they are so close to the operating system, I don't know but it feels like when Microsoft was using hidden APIs to "enhance" Microsoft Office since the compiler couldn't fix the code execution to be faster.  Oh, and my 14 GB remainder is suddenly about 3GB.

Update 2016.04.05: There is a huge drawback that most people won't likely see.  When I try to transfer over 500 photo files from SD cards using my USB 3.0 enabled reader, the Finder seems confused.

It seems to create ghostly icons of the files in the folder but never seems to actually copy the files.  It doesn't report any progress.  I end up having to re-launch Finder, delete the files' icons--or whatever it takes, depending on my level of frustration.

There is also a problem while transferring around 400 photo files, but this has been lessened by 10.11.4.  Progress stalled quite a lot with 10.11.3 and shaking the Copy dialog box seemed to help.  It's smoother now but once it's stuck, nothing helps.  I could try using the inbuilt SD Card slot but it didn't seem to work in previous releases, so that's not a good idea.

Why is Apple having USB problems after all this time?  I've thinking that the all-in-one iMac from the 1990s had severe USB problems but that was so long ago.  Then again, every major release (including iOS) seems to have WiFi problems.

Why isn't Windows 10 such a problem?  I'm surprised that things work so smoothly.  I suppose Apple's problems could be related to their lack of procedures.

Update 2016.07.20: Up to 10.11.6 now.  Finder has not been updated but seems somewhat more reliable, perhaps because of background processes.  I've lost faith in Apple, but then, my faith in them has been diminishing since 10.4.10.  10.5.x for PowerPC was terribly broken and several applications stopped working.  10.6.x for Intel was acceptable finally, with the white 2.13 GHz MacBook.  My Mid-2012 MacBook Pro is the only one I still have that can be updated.  It was awful on 10.7.x and 10.8.x but 10.9.x was reliable.

The good thing with 10.11.x is that the App Store works reliably.

There may yet be hope for FujiFilm's cameras: X-Pro2

January 15, 2016, FujiFilm announced the X70, X-E2s, and X-Pro2.

The X-Pro2 got quite a few enhancements, but especially the new processor, new sensor, and weather-sealed body.

I avoided the X-T1 because of its laggy nature.  If you think I'm wrong, you haven't used Olympus and Panasonic mirror-less bodies, which are extremely responsive--or you've been using a Sony camera body, which is less responsive than the FujiFilm bodies.

My first SLR was a Fujica ST-605 and I've been interested in having a new, digital camera body from FujiFilm.  The X-T1 fit nicely, but it just wasn't good for me.

With the X-Pro2, we may see improved low light capabilities, especially if the new processor is better at careful noise removal, and of course, if the new sensor is using much better technology to offset the increased pixel density.

It may be a while before we see any note about a change to the typically waxy skin tones that FujiFilm bodies have been providing.

One thing I noticed that was not overtly mentioned was whether raw files can be used past the normal ISO sensitivity range.  In the past, they indicated that files outside the normal range would be JPEG files.  Considering that high ISO sensitivities could use more adjustment for files, it was frustrating that FujiFilm bodies would only provide JPEG files.  If that has changed, it's a major step forward.

I hope that the new, higher resolution sensor doesn't cause more problems.  Naturally, raw development software has to embrace the new files.  Hopefully, they're great at decoding the files after a few years.  FujiFilm labeled the new sensor X-Trans III but hopefully, decoding works the same.  Phase One Capture One has been very good at processing the files, but hopefully, Adobe will become much better one day, since so many rely on their software.

Considering my Nikon D7200 has 24MP and a native ISO sensitivity range up to 25,600, I wonder how usable FujiFilm's files will be in lower light situations.  Someone mentioned that the sensitivity numbers don't match between FujiFilm and Nikon.  We obviously need a certified test to make certain we can move from brand to brand and body to body and get the same response within a small percentage of error.

All this makes me hopeful for the X-T1 replacement.

If the X-T1 replacement is responsive, flexible in usage, and a bit more powerful without being a problem for itself, I'd like one.

Update 2016.01.17: I was just looking at a comparison between the Nikon D500 and the X-Pro2, which made it look as though the X-Pro2 won.  For me, the X-Pro2 is a good camera body for casual photography, such as travel photography, but getting work done is something that the D500 will do well.  Considering the price, they're not that far apart but I see the X-Pro2 as an expensive competitor for the D7200, Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GX8, and possibly the Sony A7 Mk II, another casual camera body.

It's a most serious threat to Leica, since it does most everything that Leica bodies do well, and it saves you enough money that you can also buy lenses but it still has that emotional connection than a rangefinder would have, especially with the hybrid viewfinder.

Update 2016.07.11: The X-T2 was announced the other day.  It looks really good.  The dual card slots, battery grip that holds two batteries and that has a boost mode seems like they're ready to take on Nikon D7200.  I wonder if I would have chosen to go there.

A couple of years ago, I looked seriously at the X-T1 and didn't want it because it was too slow, too weak.  I'm not sure of the responsiveness of the X-T2, but if that has improved to dSLR or micro Four-Thirds levels, the X-T2 is an easy choice.

The difference with the X-T2 and the D7200 is all about inexpensive zoom lenses for me.  The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for $359.99 is amazing.  The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 isn't inexpensive but it also isn't expensive for what you get.  On the other hand, the FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 is an amazing lens for the system--and you don't have to worry about third party incompatibilities.

Update 2017.01.01: It looks as though the X-T2 and X-Pro2 are very, very good, but the auto focus is still not quite right.  They've both won a lot of praise, but some criticism for not being everything that they should be.  It's odd to me that they can't get the AF nearer to 100%.  That said, Panasonic really needs to fix theirs on the GH4 and GX8.  It's still better at finding large objects like walls instead of people.  Olympus does better since face detection is added to whatever AF configuration you're already using.

FujiFilm has a good handle on things but they really need to step it up if they're going to have more than a cult following.

Nikon D500--no D400 coming

Nikon has just announced the successor to the D300s--the D500.

It has 3 times the auto focus points--153 and uses an Expeed 5-class processor to speed up things, up to ISO 51,200 sensitivity in the normal range, with a Hi5 setting equivalent to 1,640,000.

"Approx. 10 fps continuous shooting (up to 200 shots in 14-bit lossless compress RAW)" using XQD cards.

It has a sliding, touch-enabled rear display of 3.2 inches.

While it does Super35-compatible 4K video at 30p, it doesn't seem better than the Panasonic GH4 at this point, for video.  (Apparently, the D5 does fewer than 4 minutes of 4K video?)

It seems like a great stills camera body, though.  I wish they'd announced this in 2015, instead of the D7200.  At US$1999.95, it's $300 more than I would have expected but the new AF module and better processor are likely worth it.

As I have the D7200, I would like to think that my choice would have been more difficult between the D500 and D7200, especially if the D500 would have been available in April 2015, and at US$1699.95.

I have not found the D7200 enough of a breakthrough model for me, nor the move (for me) to APS-C to be more than marginally better than micro Four-Thirds, unfortunately.  I am pleased with the D7200 for wide work, but it is sufficient, not exceptional.  Perhaps, hopefully, the D500 is exceptional.

Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no D400, it would have arrived at the same time as the D4, but they supposedly couldn't give it enough of a difference to create such a flagship DX model.

Update 2016.06.27: You've probably seen plenty about the D500 by now.  It's quite tempting.  It should be since it securely replaces a model from 2007.  Although opinions differ, for me, it is the pinnacle of APS-C equipment, not the FujiFilm X-Pro 2.

I was quite amused that DxOMark used the Olympus E-30 as a model for comparison.  Was there someone at the company who held tight to the E-30?  Seeing the E-30 at 55 and the Panasonic GH4 at 74 shows how far micro Four-Thirds has come.  I'm not sure I believe a score of 83 for the D500 and 87 for the D7200 because the D7200 doesn't seem quite so wonderful and the newer Expeed 5 class processor along with a slightly lower resolution should give better, not worse results.  Then again, I don't really believe DxOMark numbers, except as a very general guide.

Update 2016.10.05: The more I think about the D500, I appreciate what it does, but wouldn't the Pentax K-1 do a better job, except for the speed?

Lens adapters and converters

There are clip-on and screw-on converters to make the image wider, longer, add distortion, and more.  Most are incredibly cheap and lately, there are focal reducers, which adapt lenses and make them work as though they're made for lower light than they can do natively.

I've never really been comfortable with optical tricks.  I want high quality lenses that work well from the start, not those that require firmware in the camera to adjust the image.

I resisted micro Four-Thirds for quite a while because of all the fixes that the camera does instead of making really good lenses.  Panasonic bodies fix Panasonic problems and Olympus bodies fix Olympus problems but it doesn't always work is when you mix companies.  I have bodies and lenses from both companies.

Now, you'd think that I was new to adapters and converters at this point, but that isn't quite so.

Back around 1999, my Olympus OM-1N died and I replaced it with an Olympus IS-20DLX.  The IS-series was a set of SLR (single lens reflex) cameras with a fixed zoom lens.  It was a bold gamble that Olympus took, to create the ZLR (zoom lens reflex).  The IS-20DLX has approximately a 3x zoom lens, as I recall it was roughly 35-105mm--no conversion is necessary since it uses 135 Format film.  In order to reach further there was a 1.9x teleconverter that screwed onto the front of the lens in the filter threads.  It was meant to be used at the longest focal length possible; otherwise, it would not work correctly, showing more in the frame than image you were trying to capture.  Sounds a bit like those fisheye photos you've seen, yes?

The next year, I bought an Olympus C-2500L, another ZLR, but this time a digital model--the first with a TruePIC processor.  There was also a 1.4x teleconverter for it, since the lens was fixed to the body.

Both teleconverters worked well, as long as I photographed by the warnings.  They were rather expensive, which isn't surprising, although neither were labeled Zuiko, but only Olympus.

A couple of months ago, I bought a fisheye converter for a buddy who got a Pentax K-50 I bought for him.  Naturally, for US$35, you can't expect too much.  Being that it fit the 52mm filter threads of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom, it was enough for what he wanted, and being able to zoom was an additional positive point.  It was easy to find a point where you couldn't see just the frame, but a surrounding field of black.  It was good enough.

At skate parks, there are many of these adapters because "everyone" wants a fisheye lens.  They first thing people ask me is "Is that a fisheye?" and I want to reply "No, it's a camera lens."  I'm usually the only one who actually has one, although I've seen one person with a Rokinon/Samyang fisheye lens.  At US$299, they're a popular manual lens but US$35 is much more affordable to someone who is more concerned with buying equipment to ride.

 This last week, I was looking at some suggestions provided by Amazon.com and there was a converter.  I clicked on the link and started thinking.

I ended up buying a 2.2x teleconverter for 58mm threads for two lenses and a 0.42x wide angle/macro converter that separates and apparently has internal threads to work with several different sizes of filter adapters.  The combined converter requires 46mm threads, which works with two (Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 and Panasonic 25mm f/1.7) lenses I have and you can use the the macro part by itself.

While I was playing with the bits and pieces, I got the Olympus teleconverter for comparison.  It uses 52mm threads and I have a Four-Thirds macro lens that it fits.  The sad thing is that I've had the Olympus teleconverter since about 2000 and the 50mm macro lens since 2005.  I could have used the combination for a while.  However the 50mm f/2.0 macro lens is my least-used lens ever.  Even after I bought the extension tube for it, I didn't use it much.  The auto focus for it is miserable (not surprising for a macro lens) and the extension tube makes it even more difficult to gain a focus lock.  It seems to work better through the adapter to be used on micro Four-Thirds Panasonic bodies.  Using the teleconverter on the lens will give it a 95mm focal length.

Olympus 1.9x teleconverter, Neewer 0.42x wide/macro, Altura 2.2x teleconverter

The 2.2x teleconverter is Altura brand, if that matters.  I would imagine that it's a generic product that is sold under a number of brand names.  It generally seems a magnifying glass with some blue fringing.  There is a definite rattle, as though the lens elements are loose.  It has a similar look to Canon products.  You can use 72mm filters.  For US$30, it's not bad.  It should be interesting to see how it works on two of my expensive micro Four-Thirds lenses, the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8.  It will also work on the K-50's kit lens, probably on any APS-C dSLR's kit lens.  The 12-35mm will be equivalent to 26.4-77mm and the 35-100mm lens will be 77-220mm.

The 0.42x wide angle/macro adapter is Neewer brand.  It seems well made, especially for US$20.  There are no loose lens elements, thankfully.  Looking through it, there doesn't seem to be any color fringing.  There is a fisheye effect, and the macro bit by itself works at a very, very close distance, similar to the Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0 with the 25mm extension tube.  It works well with the 25mm f/1.7 lens, but doesn't fill the frame with the 15mm f/1.7, similar to the fisheye adapters I see so often.  The 15mm should be equivalent to 6.3mm and the 25mm should be equivalent to 10.5mm.  (Phase One Capture One Pro is reporting the focal length as 15mm, which would make the adapter 0.6x, wouldn't it?)  Since the 25mm lens works well with the adapter, it should be interesting to see if it can provide good enough image quality to be an substitute ultra wide lens.  It would only be slightly less wide than the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens that I already have.

Normal lens with 0.42x wide converter

Normal, Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens

Panorama from GX8 with 25mm, wide converter

Update 2015.12.27: The company behind the Altura brand teleconverter sent me an e-mail late Christmas Day, hoping for good feedback.  I sent a reply within two hours, only to get an automated reply stating that they weren't open.  Today, I got a reply that they are preparing a replacement.  I replied to ask them to shake the thing to see if it would rattle.  Surely, they would take precautions to not waste money.

Update 2015.12.31: Three days ago, I went to San Francisco.  I tried being the tourist and went to as many less than typical locations as possible.  I attached the wide/macro converter to the Panasonic normal lens and only removed it once, just to get a comparison photo.

It did okay, and considering that it was US$20, it was amazing.  There is a little fisheye distortion, but the colors are definitely distorted where straight lines become curved lines.  I could have pulled out the fisheye lens, if I wanted good color and real fisheye distortion, but that isn't the point.  We know what expensive lenses will get us.

I will continue to update as I try the other converters, and hopefully, as it becomes warmer.

Update 2016.01.01: Got the replacement teleconverter.  I'm confused as to when there was mail delivery on New Year's Eve or New Year's Day.

The replacement makes less of a rattle, thankfully, but it isn't gone completely.  Given the price point, I can't really complain, but the wide/macro adapter is quite tight.  As we're having some extra cold days, I'm not out much.  Sunny California isn't always having summer weather.  I'd trade 37 degrees F for 37 degrees C any day.  I miss living in Central Florida where 50 degrees F was the minimum for a typical winter day.

Update 2016.01.18: Tried the 2.2x teleconverter with two of Panasonic's finest lenses for micro Four-Thirds: 35-100mm f/2.8 and 12-35mm f/2.8, even though I knew the latter wouldn't be suitable.

35mm without 2.2x converter

35mm with 2.2x converter

100mm without 2.2x converter

100mm with 2.2x converter

12mm with 2.2x converter

In a pinch, I could live with the results versus not getting the detail at all when I didn't have the appropriate lens with me.  Obviously, there are serious problems but the teleconverter works, as did the wide/macro converter.  I see plenty of equipment like this at skate parks and people have to decide what their goal is and how much they can spend.

Getting a 220mm lens for micro Four-Thirds isn't easy.  I have my Four-Thirds Olympus ZD 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, which is an excellent lens, but it is now a lot to carry and my bag has to be reconfigured to hold it, unless I want to carry a bag of dSLR equipment also.  I'm not exactly sure whether I should trust the MMF-3 adapter with much weight.  It doesn't seem that strong.

I don't plan to buy the Panasonic/Leica 100-400mm f/4.0-5.6 lens that has been announced as I don't shoot much in telephoto range these days.

Update 2016.05.15: The other day I tried the Olympus 1.9x teleconverter for the IS-series, along with the ZD 50mm f/2.0 lens.  It seemed to do an excellent job with zero drawbacks.

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0 + 1.9x teleconverter

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0 + 1.9x teleconverter

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0 + 1.9x teleconverter

Olympus ZD 50mm f/2.0

I'm really beginning to hate Apple and their Mac App Store

I've been an Apple Macintosh user since 1993.  I'd been using various Atari computers and played with a IBM L40SX laptop computer for about two years when the PS/2 mouse port died.  At that point, the US$6000 laptop computer that I bought for roughly $1500 was too expensive to repair and the contract required a solution.  They gave me $1000 and asked me to give them the computer.  I agreed.  Windows 3.1 had been a royal pain and DOS, more of a pain.

I eagerly went to OfficeMax and bought a Mac Performa something or other.  In any case, it's been a long time and several machines.

Before the PowerPC years, they were stuck because Motorola couldn't deliver a more powerful processor than the 68040.  The System 7 operating system because Mac OS 8 after they couldn't figure out what they were doing and scrapped the real Mac OS 8.  Mac OS 8.5 was a substantial difference, as were 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2.  Unfortunately, the MultiFinder architecture for cooperative multi-tasking was ancient.  Steve Jobs' return with NeXTStep made a difference.  Thanks go to Ellen Hancock.

It has been a horribly bumpy road and as Mac OS X hit 10.3.4, it became good enough to forget dual-booting into Mac OS 9.2.2 forever.  Unfortunately, 10.4.10 was probably the last full quality release.  Sadly, Windows of the time wasn't good and Linux was only usable by people who enjoyed frustration.

As of Mac OS X 10.7, Apple started to bring the frustration and Windows 7 started to bring ease-of-use.  The whole Mac App Store and downloading the operating system was messed up and still is.  It's amazing how I can download system software smoothly but the applications from the Mac App Store are usually problematic in downloads.  Apple doesn't test for real life, apparently.  When I had contacted the Mac App Store support, it was a problem with two or three applications, with other applications working fine in the downloads between the problematic ones.  I was told that whatever problems I was having was my problem, not theirs.

My latest mid-2012 MacBook Pro is working on 10.9.5, even though it started on 10.7.  It wasn't easy to get there.  I was going to drop off my machine at the Apple Store to be updated to 10.10.5 but I waited a bit too long and they removed the option.

Unfortunately, all this mess with the Mac App Store has left me in a mess that I found today.  I can't open my spreadsheet files that the current version of Numbers has been updating.  Somehow, the files were somehow upgraded to a newer version than what I have, in a failed download from the Mac App Store just after I updated to 10.9.5.

I was trying to update my spreadsheet with serial numbers.  Now, I only have a .pdf version of it.  As well, my Pages files complained but they worked.

Now, I have a machine I don't trust much.  I'm wondering if anything else has gone wrong.  Thankfully (and hopefully), I'm limited to Apple's applications and their ridiculous application store.

Given that I recently picked up a Windows 10 machine, I'm thinking that Apple could lose my business.  I'm betting that Corel wants my money for office software, as well as, creative software.  Phase One already has Windows versions and besides, the newest version for Mac doesn't run on anything but the latest 10.11.x operating system.  I think my Apple Care plan has been finished, so I don't have any easy way to upgrade the operating system.

I'm not saying that the US$750 machine could replace my US$2300 machine for speed but functionality probably isn't a problem.

I never thought that I would say that any version of Windows was smoother than Mac OS X but it's pretty much the truth.  Windows 7 proved that Microsoft could make Windows get out of the way when you just wanted to work.  It wasn't foolproof but it was much better than all of the previous versions.

Windows 10 seems to greatly improve on that.  The Windows App Store works brilliantly well.  Being able to use touch-enabled displays is interesting and it works but it doesn't seem great yet.  Folding the laptop computer into different shapes works well enough, but it doesn't automatically switch enough automagically.  They'll probably get there.  They want the desktop back.  I might be willing after all these years.

Update 2015.12.30: I was trying to download Evernote several times--at least, 6, from the Purchases pages, since it wouldn't work from the Update page and I noticed a problem with Numbers--from last year after my computer was updated to 10.9.5.  It never completed while inside of the Apple Store on their network.

Having been at the car dealership for service today, I used their network, which isn't any faster than my mobile hotspot to update everything but it worked.  I know that I shouldn't trust open networks, but it worked, rather than my safe mobile hotspot.  I can access my spreadsheets again.  Apple needs to test in real-life situations, not just the best, easiest situations.

There are several versions of the iWork applications since then, and they show up in Incompatible Updates, along with the latest version (4.0.0) of Twitter.  How is it that they could be incompatible when they shouldn't be tied so closely to the operating system?  I'm remembering how Microsoft Office was using hidden APIs to make it faster than the competition and yet, the DoJ under George W Bush ignored this kind of thing and wanted to watch their accounting practices instead.

Apple seems to be just as back-handed some days.  Why should Safari updates require a restart when Chrome and Firefox updates don't.

In any case, the road is smoother but it will become bumpy again, I'm sure.

Update 2016.01.27: Since upgrading to 10.11.3, the Mac App Store seems somewhat better.  I'll wait to see how it handles non-Apple applications before saying that it's running smoothly, but I have hopes.