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.
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.
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.
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.
Terry Breedlove: Loving CC because my software is always up todate for a small monthly fee that is easy to budget in.
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.
Sony had quite noisy cameras until now.A7s is definitely better than Nikon Df, Nikon D4s, Canon 6d and any other of low light kings.Bravo Sony!!!
Garp2000: Good luck with that. If this is as beta and banana software as most Apps camera makers release this is going to fail big.
Nikon Image Space is using Adobe Flash, which is extremely unstable and buggy.
qizhigang: Nikon SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED it from happening at the very beginning. They lied to the public and now they pay the price. Not sure if the price is costly to this big company or not but it definitely has some impact to them. $17.6m is certain not a big deal to them but YEAH, they are thinking about the reputation right now.
It is a lot even for nikon. Especially on a shrinking market.
ZAnton: A version III hassignificantly more noise than v.II (at ISO 3200), and also more than Canon GX1 mk2
@Roland Karlsoncheck RAW files.One good explanation could be, that old Sony RX100 II and new Canon GX1 mk2 are doing pre-cooked raw files, while Sony mk3 does not. But that is a pure speculation and I really doubt it.
A version III hassignificantly more noise than v.II (at ISO 3200), and also more than Canon GX1 mk2
ZAnton: So what is the sense of the mechanical shutter if it is not used?
And what is the sense of that? =)
So what is the sense of the mechanical shutter if it is not used?