Terry Breedlove: Loving CC because my software is always up todate for a small monthly fee that is easy to budget in.
Which market forces? They are monopolist with market share like 95% or more.
Prognathous: The only thing you need to know: the $10 photography bundle is a trap.
Quote from Adobe's membership contract:
"The price of your one-year commitment (as reflected in the monthly installment amounts) may change for your next annual renewal, and we’ll provide you notice of a change by email"
In short, nothing but a teaser price. Get ready to pay through the nose as soon as you've created enough project files and can't properly open them by anything else. Good luck being Adobe's hostage.
Sorry, but those who think $10 price will stay forever are idiots. In Germany this advertisement (10 Euro) ends on 31 August this year. Then it is 25 Euro/month.Do you calculations once again, you Adobe's trolls.
desaint: Everybody complaining,i think 10 dollar a month is a bargain for such a great software tool.
@-thorn,your cell phone IS working if you change the company. You just change the SIM-card (in Eurasia at least). In many countries you even preserve your tel. number.You preserve all your telephone contacts, messages and all info you had on it.
Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?
How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?
Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?
The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.
@NetMage "The price is subject to change, but we will always notify you beforehand."
So probably €12.29 is the next year after €9.99. But it will grow. Otherwise there would not be any sense in €25 regular price. Also compare stand alone price of other products with their monthly fee. Acrobat cost around €600 for stand alone version, now it is the same €25. I doubt, that PS with ~€1000 price will cost less.They are just waiting when the shitstorm will calm down.
Uaru: Before, Adobe charged in Europe 1000 EUR for full, not upgrade, version of PS (while in USA it was 600 USD).
Now it is something like 12 EUR/month (vs 10 USD). It is still not fair, but barely acceptable.
~10 Euro/Dollar a month is just an advertisement price till the end of this August. The real price is 25 Euro/month (300 Euro/year). Doesn't look that cheap anymore, ha?
mgatov: My concern, like many here, is the fact that a subscription service gives way too much control to Adobe. They can change their pricing structure on a whim. Introduce as low of a price as you need to so your competition can't weather the storm, and then ladle on the gravy with price increases when you are the last man standing. Isn't that what monopolies do?
I remember in the earlier days when Adobe charged $450 for a set of fonts. They are the definition of unbridled greed and I have no trust in them. I will stay with my purchased copy of Lightroom, thank you very much.
eeeehh ... yes I did?
@ String.How is CC now cheaper for you? The regular price is 25 Euro/month = 300 Euro/year. I don't remember the stand alone PS price, but it was around 1000 Euro. (I don't know the update price) New PS version came every two years. So at best, you will pay now as much as you would pay if you were buying EVERY single PS update. Or more.The price 10$/Euro per month is solely an advertisement, which is by the way runs till the end of this August.
So it's like marriage. No. Actually worse. If you wanna go from marriage you loose ONLY a half. In case of Adobe Corporation you loose everything you had.
The fact is that it will basically marry you on Adobe Corporation. You wanna go? Do it, and you will loose everything you had (you photos).
The thing is that PS is effectively stopping to develop.I mean, there will be updates for Adobe Camera Raw of course, some tweaks etc., but 99% of what photographers need is already done. With each next update there will be 99.9% and 99.99% etc. AFAIK, the last updates were mostly made for video, 3D graphics and user interface of the PS itself. But there will be less and less for 2D photographers and painters.Adobe foresee that less and less users will update regularly, and therefore they do this move. Which means nothing good for users.This 10 Dollar/Euro price for PS is just a limited time advertizement.
Compare the price on Acrobat with its monthly fee. In just 2 years you pay the full price (price before CC) and then you will pay again and again. But does anyone know the difference between Acrobat 9 and 10?The very low price for PS is a very obvious marketing thing. As soon as the shitstorm will calm down, they will double and triple it.
small monthly fee..haha, wait a year or two.
mpgxsvcd: I can’t believe how much Moiré the A7s has in its RAW images
yep, but that is a monochromic text on the limit of camera's resolution.IRL that is not that bad.
Ron A 19: I find it surprising how much sharper sony/nikon/canon FF cameras are compared to the olympus/panasonic titans of m4/3. Even with the low 12MP of the A7s, the image is sharper when shot in raw at ISO 100. FF all the way!
Look on the price, weight and size of cameras+lens combinations.
Retzius: Nikon should IMHO just end their software development. Its almost always poorly designed and never developed after release. Their wifi iOS app was a joke and really nothing more than just a remote release with live view.
TBH, I think the age of proprietary RAW converters is done. The camera makers should do what they are good at, making cameras, and let the software companies do what they are good at, make software.
Let the cameras output in TIFF or DNG (kudos to Pentax for this) and be done with it.
If you think Nikon has poor software - try Canon's =)
ZAnton: Well, basically monopolistic position of Adobe on the photo-software market allows them to do whatever they want.It is time to try to uncover my Nikon's Software and look closer on the other SW.
The only problem of NX - is that I also have Olympus.
Well, basically monopolistic position of Adobe on the photo-software market allows them to do whatever they want.It is time to try to uncover my Nikon's Software and look closer on the other SW.
I am not interested in Nikon 1 unless they make a better than f/2.8 standard zoom lens (24-70 at least) and a normal hot shoe.
ZAnton: Yep A7S is 1-2-3 stops better than Canon or A7R after ISO51000, butI think this advantage useless. IQ is already so bad, that image is barely usable.For me it would be much important to have 2 stops cleaner image @ISO6400 or 12800. It would extend the usable ISO range.On the contrary, what we have now is comparison of different sorts of crap. Yes, one crap is twice as good as the other, but you know, it is still crap.
It is purely marketing. Lots of non-photographers coming to the market and manufacturer must justify the price/size/weight difference comparing to the P&S. First, in order to push p&s sales (because of cell-phones), they pushed the P&S ISO up to DSLR's level, although max acceptable ISO is still ~400, now they are pushing DSLR's "sensitivities".
Yep A7S is 1-2-3 stops better than Canon or A7R after ISO51000, butI think this advantage useless. IQ is already so bad, that image is barely usable.For me it would be much important to have 2 stops cleaner image @ISO6400 or 12800. It would extend the usable ISO range.On the contrary, what we have now is comparison of different sorts of crap. Yes, one crap is twice as good as the other, but you know, it is still crap.
nunatak: DxO has previously verified* that Sony partially cooks their RAW data for noise reduction purposes — so rendered files "appear" to have less noise and better performance characteristics.
quote: "If reducing noise is so easy, why is it not always applied? Well, there is a price to pay: averaging pixels increases SNR, but introduces some correlation between pixels. This creates a grainy aspect to the image which is often as annoying as noise itself. Moreover, if pixels are blindly averaged, fine details may simply be erased."
a similar high ISO benefit could be achieved in post using non-sony sensors, with the exception that the photographer selects which regions and compromises are applied. as DxOmark hasn't broken out how different RAW files from different sensors are treated, comparisons of this kind appear much like RAW batter to cooked fudge. while fudge tastes great, i'm not sure DxO's recipe is absolute.
At ISO 51000 and higher Canon has so much noise than A7S, that no amount of NR would help.Actually at this amount of noise, NR is totally useless.