I have come up with a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, Adobe thinks they are so clever that sometimes they don't understand a single word of what they were thinking.
I'm sad to see that the old Adobe, the innovator and provider of choices, is now dead. But in sad times like these, something new and better is always born and we must recognise it, and befriend it. Long live the new innovators!
don_van_vliet: This is making me look at ditching Lightroom for Aperture, well done Adobe.They might never change Lightroom to subscription only for all I know, but it's a chance I don't really want to take. I would rather make the switch now, as opposed to racking up thousands more LR processed photos before being forced to move.
Apple is not Adobe. They have more brains. Even in extreme case when not interested in developing Aperture any more, Apple can release it to public, as an open source, and there it would thrive! And Apple would be a hero. They did the same with Safari; developed their browser on an open source platform, and gave it back again.
Zvonimir Tosic: Years ago world had The Britannica, based on subscriptions and outright purchase, and now we also have Wiki, the free encyclopaedia, supported by donations. We had expensive system software, servers, web servers, CMSes, paid by license, subscriptions, number of seats, terminals, whatnot, but society also developed more than an adequate number of free and opensource substitutes for it. Then MS Office, once uber-expensive, now with several free substitutes for it. Etc. Perhaps it is time for us in the age of digital cameras to have a robust imaging solution, which we'll own, vote for, and support voluntarily with donations. Like that, I bet that new cameras would be supported within days since the announcement, and not after months and months, waiting for some manager's approval.
There are projects running already which could be transformed, or together joined into much faster and robust solutions if supported more vigorously. The answer is in communication and in desire to create life with real, viable choices, not with the lack of them.
Years ago world had The Britannica, based on subscriptions and outright purchase, and now we also have Wiki, the free encyclopaedia, supported by donations. We had expensive system software, servers, web servers, CMSes, paid by license, subscriptions, number of seats, terminals, whatnot, but society also developed more than an adequate number of free and opensource substitutes for it. Then MS Office, once uber-expensive, now with several free substitutes for it. Etc. Perhaps it is time for us in the age of digital cameras to have a robust imaging solution, which we'll own, vote for, and support voluntarily with donations. Like that, I bet that new cameras would be supported within days since the announcement, and not after months and months, waiting for some manager's approval.
echelon2004: I think it makes perfect sense not to buy software that will be outdated in a few months or a year tops. It should also help combating piracy. There are not many places in the world where you can't get Internet for a few seconds when needed.Either way, adobe must do as they feel serves them best. Undoubtedly they feel pretty confident.
Quark was arrogantly saying that same 20 years ago, "We must do that what serves us best". And that is where business goes down the drain.
jberk: Sure, we all like our software to be current. But you are forgetting that over time if you are renting the software and you can no longer afford it you will be left with nothing (not even outdated software)
You can always export files in more friendly open formats. And it seems many will start thinking about that too.
photosen: That was unavoidable, there are way too many people willing to pay a couple of thousand dollars for a shiny Mac but zero for their illegal Photoshop. If it's too expensive don't buy it.
May Mac from the 2003 is still working, and Apple is not grabbing monthly fees on it just because of that fact.
In early 1990s, Adobe made a brilliant InDesign to fight QuarkXPress monopoly in the publishing and Quark's insane pricing schemes. And how they have fought? WIth great new features, ease of use, invention and *very affordable pricing*. Today, Adobe became another Quark. I wonder if anyone from the old Adobe is still working in that company, or it is now populated with uncle Scrooge's clones and with the Sith Lord commanding from the throne?
They were a monopoly offering a choice, and now, a monopoly that gives no choice. How do you call that? Do they in fact believe that giving no choice is even an option today? If they wanted to poke competitors to start working and thinking even harder to give us more choices, they have done a great job.
marike6: 29.99 a month? Have they completely lost their minds, or are they just being greedy? Aside from the totally lame downgrade of being a completely cloud based service, is Adobe even living in the real world where we a currently experiencing a prolonged global economic crisis?
Will the average small businesses, or working photographer find this cloud based version attractive or even an option? I can't imagine they will.
This is what happens when a company has a monopoly: they can gauge loyal customers because they are keenly aware there is NO alternative.
Just say no to the corporate oligarchy and yes to Open Source solutions. And pray these OS solutions work with your camera. :-)
It's not that ACR is necessary for image creation. Photoshop is a versatile tool used by designers for all sorts of things, not only photography workflow.
You see, that $600 can extend over many years of use. Many are still happy with Photoshop CS3, which came out ages ago. And if the computer lasts and is taken care of, it may mean anywhere from 5-10 years of solid use of a program. Adobe knows that, and that is why they want subscription based monopoly.
Only issue here that prevents some people from switching is press and pre-press work. What software apart from Photoshop handles CMYK and LAB colourspaces well, or, at all? :-(
All right Apple, is this what you've been waiting for to release Aperture X with Photoshop-like editing tools?
BorisAkunin: It may be a fine compact camera but surely it's a stupid idea to call it MX.The original MX had one of the best SLR viewfinders ever made and while I'm quite happy with the recent trend of "retro" designs this one does not deserve its name. If Pentax has no better use for such an illustrious piece of their legacy, they should let it rest in peace...
Olympus is making much better use of their iconic names.
(I am a Pentax user by the way)
I was in the same boat. But that 3" LCD is about 20 times bigger than MX viewfinder image, and LCD promises great shot each time you press the button, with no need to develop the film first. MX-1 well deserves its name; it's helluva more camera than the original MX.
sonnief: naw I'm confused to choose this or the LX7
Interestingly, Pentax has filled in a patent for 21-84mm equivalent lens for this same type of camera sensor. 21mm is seriously wide for a compact indeed. (LX7 starts at 24mm). If Pentax makes it, maybe we'll se a truly wide-angle compact coming onto the market soon. Maybe an MX-1 successor or an all new sister camera..
fmian: In regards to this cameras handling, I think it feels like a dog made out of bricks.The camera is weighted horribly towards the opposite side to the grip, seemingly beyond the placement of the lens. While having no protruding grip, there is also an annoying strap lug placed where the fingers would sit, along with a mash of tiny buttons and nothing for my thumb to grip except the back dial.On top of all that, the outer section of the lens is deceptively designed to make you think that it can be rotated to change settings. But it can't.The only saving grace seems to be the lens, and the way the camera looks from certain angles. I was also quite unimpressed by the fact that the top flash plate, where it says 'BRASS' actually seems to be made of plastic.Too little, too late. Pentax, please see Canon & Olympus for how to design a compact camera.
It is brass plated. Scratch it, and you will see. Re stability, each to their own. MX-1 and X2 simply cling to hands, they are very balanced, weight distributed well. Strap lugs being placed forward is an act of genius, in fact, because camera won't flip forward like all others (if it had side lugs) when the lens is extended, or when the camera is hanging in the air, of next to your body. It stays vertical, balanced, firm. No bumps, no flips. And, a compact camera means much more than a thing being able to fit it in the pocket; between the vain desire to fit something in the pocket, and actual comfortable use in hands, there is a world of difference in which almost all pocket cameras fail in feeling comfortable to use. But few don't.
We all tend to judge cameras by its peers. If the newcomer is somewhat different, we tend to nag about it. However, my experience with the MX-1 was revealing insofar. MX-1 has something cameras in its class have missed for a long time (maybe never had): a great shooting balance. Which I think is due to its retro inspired design, materials and — proportions. Having it tried side by side with Leica X2 and RX100, I felt both X2 and MX-1 simply cling to your hands. You're not tired of them. RX100 is slippery, like a soap, can't really use with one hand. MX-1 you can operate with one hand, and won't lose balance. It stands firm. It's not heavy as they describe it, but the feeling is that of stability, quality and comfort. Not lens heavy like many P&S cameras, even with the lens fully extended. Anyway, I suggest anyone to go and try, and never ever judge a camera based on paper specs alone; you'll be sacrificing something specs cannot tell.
YogiGX20: How can Nikon advertise a "Top Model" that is out-performed by cameras 2 1/2 years older with regards to RAW buffer? I'm shooting with a K5 and can rattle away 25+ RAW pictures at 6 fps. Drove me nuts on my K20D when the buffer filled up. Great autofocus specs but shame the camera can't keep up with it. Other Nikons can, so to me that indicates that if you want better performance, Nikon wants you to go full frame!? Fingers crossed there will be a software upgrade like on the K5 which increased the RAW buffer from 10 or something to 25+. Was thinking of moving to Nikon for greater lens selection (+ flash) but that is an instant show stopper for me, as I take all my pictures in RAW format. Shame really ... I feel like Nikon has deliberately held back a bit too much iot leave a distinct gap to the next model. Not very convincing. I think they are trying too hard to pull level (or ahead) of the Sony a77 in terms of specs ...
Churning 24MP files vs churning 16MP files is not the same. If Pentax comes out with a 24MP camera, they will face same problem, so a new imaging engine / buffer are due too. But not being Nikon has one advantage though — Pentax does not need to cripple one model to allow other 7 models to have their place based on slightly different specs. Thus with Nikon, you do get a choice, apparently, but when you look at all things you need, you end up buying a more expensive model than Pentax asks for their own — which has it all, because of the no-nonsense lineup.
DrugaRunda: There is actually a lot difference from those particular samples
Ricoh - nice and even, excellent cornersNikon corners = mushSigma - head and sholuders above the other two in center while about par with Ricoh in corners, and no moire.
If IQ at low iso is a priority Sigma looks like a clear choice.
High ISO, GR has a bit more chroma noise than Coolpix, but also more acutance, it seems that Nikon may be using some NR in Raw, but in principle very similar performance.
Marcus, I'm not sure which picture you have looked at, but those chechered corners, at f2.8, Nikon looks depressingly awful. I'm not sure what it means to you, but in the real world it means GR has a better lens (if nothing else). In other specs, both cameras are almost like twin brothers.
Reflect this unfortunate tragedy to organised protests of photographers, who reacted on (what they believe were) severe restrictions of their rights to take photographs in public and other places.
In this case, without so many photographs taken by so many spectators, and police being unable to get them and analyse, it is very likely the suspects would never be found, and would be encouraged to commit even more crime.
By allowing people to take photographs more freely, and with expanding social media, we also have a very effective crime preventive. Governments may demand more budget money to tighten national security and limit photographers' rights, or, they can be more relaxed and allow citizens and people of good will to be an active part of it.