Zvonimir Tosic

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!

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.

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.

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.

You can always export files in more friendly open formats. And it seems many will start thinking about that too.

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.

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.