For all the anger directed at Adobe there are precious few real full featured alternatives to PS. The GIMP might be the best but as it STILL does not have 16 bit support it falls short as a pro app for me. I use a number of features in PS that may be available in other apps but it took me years to get my skills honed in PS and I have little enthusiasm for starting all over in some app that may not have what I need.As a working pro I need PS but at the moment I don't need to upgrade. If I had been cutting corners by hanging on to CS3 I may be a bit peeved.When a major upgrade comes to PS I will move to the subscription model because I will have to. BUT the upgrade will have to be magical.
With the Magic Lantern announcement of RAW video on the 5Dmk3 I think this item will not receive much love.
sunnycal: At about the same price, why would anybody want this over OM-D?
1/250 flash sync!
So where are the free market people trumpeting the choices they have as an alternative to Adobe?
So far it is just lots of ranting about price.
After the rants will people really change? Do they really move like the free marketers say they will?
I am waiting to hear the joyous shouts from the new users of PaintSHop Pro.
Timmbits: Not only a fight against software piracy, something this product in particular is plagued by, but also controlling the users, the revenue streams... if THEY decide to change the version on you, they'll shove it down your throat even if you prefer an older version that is less bug ridden or works better with your current hardware. Be concerned, very concerned. In the end, the customers will have the last word on this one... the door for competing products has just been widely opened.
I think the bug issue is overblown as they can incrementally add features that have been thoroughly vetted and de-bugged before release. This allows a constant dribble of features and refinements.Of course it is irrelevant if Adobe loses their base.
I guess this will sort the wheat from the chaff.
Pros who make money from PS will subscribe if and when they ultimately need to. The rest will migrate to cheap or free alternatives.Many will hold on to the current version they own and pray that OS updates don't break it.
In truth it is hard to see a need to upgrade from current versions as it already does way more than I need.
Mssimo: from 43rumors
A source told me that the new E-P5 has an improved 5 axis stabilization. Compared to the E-M5 this means that it has a new IS-Auto mode that automatically detects the camera’s movements.And here are some more E-P5 specs:
- 16 Megapixel sensor (same as E-M5)- TruePic VI image processing engine- improved AF (compared to E-M5)- improved 5 axis stabilization- 5fps- focus peaking- Shutter 1/8000 sec- built-in WiFi- 1.04 million dot tilting touchscreen LCD (no more OLED!).
announcement - 1am on May 10 in New York City
17mm, 45mm and 75mm Black lens rumor
It would be cool to have the original Pen shutter that synced at all shutter speeds up to 1/1000. It was some kind of funky focal plane shutter but it would sync at all speeds. We are a bit spoiled with the high speeds though.
tkbslc: I thought this would have a VF. m4/3 needs a rangefinder styled body with a VF like the XE-1 or NEX 6.
I agree but they like their sales of the OM-D. Also we can cast our minds back to the E-Volt 330 for a digital SLR with a "different" look. Sales stank but it was actually true to the old Pen theme.
smithore2: Where is the weight in the physical specifications?? 1kg???Why 2.8, it's equivalent of 5.6 in dof on m43, that's too much.
You could just shoot OOF.
the reason: Autofocus at f8, in 2013...
@raincoat. actually the fact that you can get feature enhancements AND bug fixes for your large investment is a credit to Canon. Considering the complexity of actually engineering and building a digital camera as well as they do is a miracle.If it were as easy as some seem to think, companies like Leica and Sigma would have all the features and ease of use that Canon and Nikon have.
papparazzi: Sigma LISTEN. Full frame are getting expanded now..how about a FF sigma 16-35 F2.8 / F4.0 EX ?
Vote for that!
Maybe, but there is a giant installed base of APS-C and thus less risk. If this is successful FF will follow with a base of believers to sell to on the strength of this lens.
Sigma has done a great job of developing a lens that people have been clamoring for yet we get all sorts of carping about it not being FF, the aperture is "functionally f 2.7" they use "tricks" to get the speed to f1.8. and so on.
This lens IS f1.8. It IS large. It WILL BE expensive. Get over it and enjoy what they have done.
ajamess: This lens looks like it uses the same "trick" the Metabones Speedbooster uses, e.g. compress a full frame image circle down to ASP-C size.
Definitely great marketing, and a great application of clever optics, but it is not "truly" an f/1.8 lens, in the purest sense of the word (it would be much more expensive and a decent amount larger if it were).
MTF looks pretty impressive, so no matter how they came about it, I think it's a pretty big win for the crop shooters out there.
I guess we will have to wait til you show us your design then. I am sure you won't resort to such "tricks" like using glass or metal.
acidic: I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Okay, I know it's super fast and all that, but if it's seriously supposed to convince FF shooters to go APS-C, it's measly 2x zoom range isn't helping any, considering that it's FF counterparts don't weigh much more and have closer to 3x zoom range. Of course if it's significantly cheaper, say in the $900 range, it could be a winner.
The weight is proof that such lenses are not going to be small. As for the fact that the "competition" has a larger range and lighter weight, they don't have f1.8. Nor will it be cheaper.It exists because so many asked for it. Now that the the lens is here you can't ask them to re-write the laws of physics and economics.
blank_: nice camera, but needs some (wide) compact ef-s primes to make sense
For all the fashion of primes one hears the fact that Canon is aware of is that the vast majority of purchasers never get beyond the kit zoom. Those are the buyers that determine Canon's production plans.
PhotoKhan: US$3,995 ?!?!?If this delivers, Canon Cinema EOS cameras are dead.
BMCC has delivered a few cameras amid many hiccups in their launch but Canon is still selling more in a day than they have in their history.
We all love specs but the real proof will be in delivering cameras AND overcoming a number of compromises that the (few) users of the first BMCC noted. Real world useability to make the specs actually measure up to their promise is what matters.
edm78: Is it just me, or does the RX-1 look a little soft over the Martini bottle.
@Robgo2, wait, are you telling me that for $2800 Sony fudged the QC? I would be one annoyed fanboy. They don't mention where they do focus but it does seem that MF vs. AF would introduce awhile 'nother level of debate.
JKP: Doesn't seem to fair too well. Already ISO3200 is all fuzzy, even in RAW-format. Again, Olympus OM-D E-M5 is surprisingly strong and beats other brands.
You could sharpen the Fuji more or the Oly less. Either way superb performance from both cameras.
Robgo2: The X100s looks like a nice camera, but it is not in the same league as the Sony RX1. Check out the somewhat sloppy "crazy comparison" that Steve Huff did on his website:
The RX1 is more expensive and out of the price range of most potential buyers, but considering what you get, it is not unreasonably priced.
One thing you don't get is a viewfinder that lets you work in the sun.