ianm2k4: Yes the negativity is just people expressing that they dont like change. The problem for them is that Adobe who they have come to rely on has changed its business model - something that is completely within their prerogative - whether it costs more or less to the end user. It not good moaning about this if you dont like it go elsewhere. If everyone goes elsewhere then I am am sure Adobe will change the model again but until then vote with your wallet.
Look at it this way.. If you have PS CS6 which cost around $600 and you pay the $50 a month.. then you get all the products for one year for the price of one . If you upgrade every year then you are quids in. If you upgrade every other year then dont pay the $50 a month, pay the $30 a month and you are close to even.
I really dont think people are doing the maths to see that they are neither up or down with the money in reality. And who cares if its a subscription model. Get used to it.. Its the way that its going or go somewhere else.
There are a couple of flaws in your argument. Adobe doesn't upgrade P-shop annually, more like every 18 months. Additionally, you don't have to buy a full version for $600 when you do upgrade, only the upgrade, which has been costing in the neighborhood of $200. So, this is a whopping price increase, since, if I upgrade twice in three years, now I spend about $400 with this system, I will spend $720 for the same three years. (It's $20 a month for just P-shop.) What's to assure us that Adobe won't arbitrarily force us to take product we don't need to maximize what they can charge us in the future, or just go up on the price? As far as going elsewhere, just where do you suggest? With plugins like NIK, Imageonimic and others specifically designed for P-shop, one's options are limited to pretty much Lightroom.
I absolutely, unreservedly hate this idea. I guess it's time to look for alternatives, or stick with CS6 for the foreseeable future. I wonder how many customers Adobe will actually lose, though.
I hate the new system, it will probably keep me off of these forums. Which, in itself, is not a bad thing, I can use the time I used to be here and shouldn't have been to better ends, like growing my business.One can't tell, easily, which entries have been read, which ones have new posts, the layout is slightly counter intuitive. I can't see anything to recommend the change.
Edmond Leung: This move....If we ignore the terms and conditions of the agreement made between these two parties... then, it isgood for Sony, but not really good for Hasselblad!Sony can strengthen its brand in digital camera by cooperating with Hasselblad. But what does Hasselblad gain from this cooperation? Technology? Financial support? or others?Professional is professional. I don't see there is any chance for ARRI to cooperate with Canon to develop a camcoder. I don't see there is any chance for Mark Levinson to cooperate with Sanyo to develop an amplifier.
See, that's my biggest concern on this, too. Sony supplies the sensors, but Hassy has to identify and cater to a heretofore unknown customer base. Will Leica users buy Hassys, too? They can't be counted on to desert Leica, that's for sure. There might be room at the extreme top for DSLRs, but I'm not so sure in the realm of mirrorless. Maybe this is how Sony gets to approach the full on pro market, the $6000-$8000 market.
vFunct: FINALLY. Now give us an Android interface for our Pro DSLRs, so that we can build our own apps to process/upload photos to our media centers.
Not sure I want to fully process my images on my camera, but it's a killer app for anything less than images for clients...and if I can process one or two images during a wedding and surprise them by uploading and tagging them on Facebook, so much the better...
Very elegant image, evocative of a '60s Vogue spread...
Tape5: An entire history of photography is behind us with rarely any photographs using ISOs over 400. Where did all these pros come from who are suddenly craving ISOs over 25,000,000? If you have nothing to scratch, you have to buy the itch first I guess. I wonder exactly how many photojournalists do we have in this world? Two per capita?
And wedding photographers who have to, occasionally, shoot in dimly lit churches w/o flash...
I make pictures: What I don't get about canon is that they make a "pro" camera and it has silly amateur modes and it is impossible to set the back focus button.Seriously canon !!! What's next ? A twitter button or a my face button ?Get a real chip size and make the damn thing manual friendly for most the pros please.Canon !!!! Listen who cares about wedding guys or printing on the job !We that actually have to use these cameras do not care about that !This is a disappointment to be honest with you ! The 5d has a bigger chip and it costs less than a half of this piece.Who cares about the techy geeks, is this is a pro camera or not ?
"Who cares about the wedding guys?" Wow, what do you shoot that you consider wedding photogs to be not worth considering? Can't be sports, probably not fashion, and not commercial either, so, what is it that makes you superior to wedding professionals?
migus: 18Mp = good (stop the Mpix race)3 'brains' = what's the power and heat delta they add (thermal noise)?14bit = TBD noise and DR.speed and AF: needed for its targetimproved video: needed for its target ...innovation: low... linear development of a useful tool.Market size: nicheGlamour: low... useful tool.
Can Canon's photo division future depend on 1Dx ? Unlikely.
By definition, a professionally oriented DSLR is a niche product. Canon can't depend on it, and they won't. They don't need to, they have a plethora of other cameras to bring in cash flow.I like the idea of the lower pixel count, although is surprises me, given Sony's and Nikon's seemingly inexorable march ever upwards in megapixels...
I disagree that this path will work to Nikon's advantage. Many consumers are getting wise to the sensor size issue, and most people work on the "bigger is better" principle, anyway.
Beautiful image! Funny coincidence, we once knew a Dalmatian named Delilah, too. She was a beautiful dog, just like yours...