Prognathous: Very interesting interview, but I wish he was asked about the aspect of compatibility of Sigma lenses with new bodies. Unlike Tamron and Tokina lenses which are practically always compatible with newer bodies (same as lenses from the camera brands), Sigma lenses frequently have compatibility issues, requiring them to be "re-chipped" or updated if the lens is recent enough. If the lens is old, then no such luck. Either use it with an old body, or try selling it to someone who does.
Is the reason for these issues the use of reverse engineering instead of getting the specs from the camera brands and paying royalties? This is the most common assumption, but it would have been interesting to hear the CEO take on this.
BTW, fitting lenses with a common micro-USB socket could have made updating lenses easier, more accessible and less costly than having to buy a dedicated USB Mount Dock. Hopefully they add it in future lenses.
In regards to Tamron communicating with camera manufacturers, I would think they at least communicate with Sony. Sony is their second largest shareholder, plus Tamron has been known to have made/designed some of Sony's lenses.
Dolan Halbrook: It seems to have been mostly missed but this update adds camera profiles for pretty much all Olympus m43 bodies, the E-5, and XZ series. Great news for Oly shooters.
I noticed that too. I wish Adobe would do the same for the Sony cameras and provide camera profiles.
Which speaking of Sony, odd why Adobe can provide lens profiles for these newer lenses but still won't provide lens profiles for some of their older lenses, such as the 35mm F/1.8. Majority of my lenses that do have lens profiles are 3rd party lenses, while most of my 1st party lenses do not.
peevee1: "The lens is also designed to stand up to the rigors of use by photographers in a wide variety of shooting conditions and environments."
What does it mean?
It means it is a well built lens.
I know the front element uses a water repellent coating that repels waters and oils. The lens is built like a tank, it has a very solid feel. It uses both internal focusing and internal zooming, so it doesn't change size and leaves less openings for dirt, dust, etc. to work its way into.
In short, it was built to last.
What's confusing is they don't clarify if it will have an internal focusing motor or if it will be screw drive. The previous version had an internal motor for the Canon while it was screw drive for the Sony. The specs state it is internal, but that was before the Sony announcement. So I don't know if it does apply to the Sony mount or if the specs sheet hasn't been updated.
Meanwhile, I do have the original and love it. While a little noisy from being screw driven, there are few screw turns from one end to the other and it certainly isn't my noisiest lens.
I guess I will have to wait and see how much, if any improvement, has been made in image quality due to the improved coatings and if focusing accuracy and speed as been improved to see if it is worth trading up.
Timur Born: I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
Too bad, I would have been more tempted if I knew that I'd get two versions of Lightroom for about the same price that I'd have to pay for two upgrades, with Photoshop CC on top (owning LR4).
There must be some miscommunication going on in the different regions. Last I read, if/when the new Lightroom comes out you will get the latest one since you are part of the cloud/CC subscription.
In the comments section here:http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/09/photoshop-photography-program-now-available.html
If you do a word search for "Lightroom CC" and you should come across a response from Jeffrey Tranberry, who is a Senior Product Manager and Chief Customer Advocate for Adobe digital. He says that you'll get the upgrade to the next Lightroom through the subscription.
At least this is the case in the US. Now whether it is the same in other regions, I can't say for certain but would think it would be the same.
I hope this clears up some confusion.
icexe: The only way I can see this working is if Adobe adopted a far more reasonable and guaranteed pricing model.
A more reasonable structure would be $4.99/month for any single product, then offer special "bundle" prices (E.g. Any 3 for $12.99/month, any 5 for $19.99/month, the entire suite for $39.99/month).
But the most important part to get people on-board is to guarantee those prices for a minimum of five years.
Also, if/when you drop subscription for a given product, it should fall back to a "limited functionality mode" that allows you to still open, view, and print your current images but maybe disables most filters, or the ability the save any new changes, etc..
Those are some good ideas. I do like the limited functionality mode to allow users to at least view their images.
Or if they wish to not do this, maybe at least come up with a separate dedicated viewer that is compatible with the latest PSD files that'll allow people to print or save their images to a more compatible format.
As for the guaranteed pricing structure, I like the idea but find a 5 year guarantee too wishful. Maybe a two year guarantee would be more realistic seeing as how much the market is fluctuating.
Another possibility is maybe guarantee a set rate for so many years if you agree to a contract of that many years or pay a lump sum amount up front. This will then introduce a tiered platform, much like how many cloud storage sites operate. Down side is that those who can only afford monthly or yearly get the least amount of savings, if any.
wireless: I don't get the thing about renting vs. buying. You end up with the same functionality at the same cost if you do regular upgrades. If you own property you must pay taxes on it, or the government will retrieve it back from you. That's a kind of renting. For the price of two Starbucks coffees a month I get $800 worth of software.
Even if you upgrade every 5 years the cloud subscription method is still cheaper providing the monthly price doesn't change much (currently $10/mo). At $800-$850 for a retail copy, it would take a subscriber around 7 years before they end up forking over the same amount of money. If the price was $15/mo from the get go, it would take shy of 5 years to reach the same amount. Meanwhile, they stay current. And that is not even including the fact that Lightroom is included too. That would add another $150 to your starting costs. That would give the subscriber over 8 years at $10/mo and 5.5 years at $15/mo before breaking even with your onetime lump sum expense.
Keep in mind that the next version you might want to upgrade to might not be honored as meeting the upgrade requirements if Adobe deems your version of software is too old.
Not saying this is for everyone, but it can work out well for many others who are able to spend $10/mo but not $1,000 up front. Greater accessibility.
David Rossberg: This is a great deal, Adobe finally did something reasonable and ppl are still complaining.
I've never said I would be angry if Adobe offered a choice. IF they did, that would be great too. That is something I have never ducked. But to attack a subscription model and then to label those who don't fear it as sheep is just ignorant and childish.
The idea of subscription models has many reasons, some good and some bad. One, is a constant stream of income versus influxes when new versions are released for the company. Two, it'll make piracy much more difficult which is a big cost factor to both the company and to legitimate people that buy the product. I have a feeling that number two plays a big factor in Adobe's choice. But these are just a few reasons.
As for questioning whether it is a bargain, that will depend on the individual. If you never upgrade, which I doubt, it isn't. If you upgrade every few years, you might break even several years down the road. If you upgrade all the time, it's a steal.
I don't work for nor have any shares in Adobe. I do work in the IT industry and I am very familiar with how a subscription service works in that field. Plus I am familiar with how EULA licenses work when you BUY a product and that it isn't true ownership. I am also familiar that majority of the people do upgrade their software, some more than others. Because of all three of the above, I do not harbor any fear or anger at a company that is choosing to go to a subscription model so long as the pricing is fair. For $10 a month for two programs and more, I do feel that is fair. Especially so when offered as a retail product only, I felt the cost was more than I was willing to pay up front.
My acts of defense is more so playing devil's advocate. When too many complain against it without giving a thorough, balanced, explanation then I feel compelled to show the other side of the story or at least give corrections to others misinformation. Nothing more.
Felts: There's a lot of whinging and moaning about this (I realise I may get some backlash for this statement)...
£8.78 per month = £105.36 per year.If they put their prices up next year to, say, a tenner = £120 per year.The following year, maybe £12 = £144 per year.
So in 3 years you'll have paid £370 which is still just over half the price of CS6.
And you get LR5, storage etc., and all the subsequent updates as part of the package. I'm not sure I understand the negativity!?
And all this mention of greed... it's what companies do, try to make money.
If you want to sign up, great, enjoy the package. If you don't want to, also great... enjoy your other software programme.
It's made Photoshop affordable for me so I'm going to take the plunge! :-)
Brian, is it really cheaper? If you start with one full version to start the upgrade process, that is $800-850 alone for CS6 Extended. Each upgrade after cost around $400. With Adobe releasing a new full version around every 18 months, that means you upgrade every 3 years.
Within the first 3 years you would spend $1200 just for Photoshop. Meanwhile, on a package like this I would spend $360 for the same 3 years. Within 6 years, I would spend $720 while you would spend $1600, 9 years I would be at $1080 and you would be at $2000. And to top it off, for my cost I am getting Lightroom too. If you threw in Lightroom to yours you would be at $950-$1000 to start, $1280 in 3 years, $1680 in 6, and $2080 in 9.
If Adobe over that period raises the price to $15/mo I would still spend less than you over 9 years at no more than $1620. How about $20/mo? That would be where we would be close to the same at $2160, if I paid $20/mo from day one. But at that cost I am always up to date.
Who said you couldn't have a brain and still fall into one of those categories? So no, it didn't fail to occur to me.
While I do question your brain functionality by rehashing a lame Apple sheep joke, that is besides the point. Brain or not, my point is I question your intentions. Looking at your past comments and your profile status you contribute little more than comments to stir the pot. There is little backing to your claims, no rhyme to your reasoning, nor how the topic involves you.
Again you are mistaken on the subscription process, it is no more being in shackles than you are with a cell or cable provider. You choose ahead of time what you are getting into and, upon renewal, can make a choice to stay or leave with no penalties to you. I keep my photos and work and would already know who I would be switching to if I decide to leave them. Meanwhile, I will be able keep my productivity up at a fraction of what it would cost for a full retail copy. I see nothing wrong with that.
But unlike you, I have a number, a hard figure provided in the quarterly financials. What do you have? An inflated guesstimate, a head count?
Those that like to troll, people who aren't interested to begin with, and those that can't afford to play don't have a voice in the matter.
Trolls don't have a voice for obvious reasons.
People who aren't interested to begin with don't have a voice since they are not potential customers. IE, my grandmother has no interest in PS since it is not going to help her make quilts.
And those that can't afford to play shouldn't be taken seriously either. Those who can only afford to drive a Fiesta shouldn't be complaining about the cost of a Ferrari. Or...those you can only afford a hamburger shouldn't be expecting a steak.
Which one of these three do you fall into?
The 1 million+ subscribers that Adobe currently has, which includes the 331,000+ people that subscribed in the past quarter disagree with your comment.
sebastian huvenaars: Imagine this scenario in 1983.
Photographer has a dark room at his house but needs to pay every month to get access to it.
Sound too unrealistic to be true, but here we are in 2013...
Actually, even PSDs can be accessed by a few other programs.
RobertSigmund: "Rent" is the wrong term anyway - extort would be more appropriate. If you rent a flat, for example, you really have something, all the time, and the landlord cannot let it to somebody else. With this software, though, you get a product and once you got it, the cost for the company is quasi nil! Unless you believe their promises of constant upgrading, of course.
The difference is you are talking about physical piece of property that can only be occupied one at a time versus a software product that can be distributed and used by many while not stepping on others toes, so I don't see it as a good direct comparison. But both are forms of rent.
Following your statement to a tee, you are saying that Adobe should only allow one person at a time to rent the software. Something lost in translation?
Rent (verb): Pay someone for the use of.
This can be a piece of property, a car, a physical object, movies, even software or services.
While I prefer the term subscription service, it does fall within the definition guidelines of what rent is.
For those like me that work in IT, this is nothing new and is considered the norm. I don't see anything wrong with it providing it is reasonably priced, which I feel it is. For everyone else, it may seem foreign. But it isn't much different than a cellular service, cable provider, internet service provider, etc.
Jorgen E: I will NOT let myself be held hostage by Adobe and their "pay-us-for-the-rest-of-your-life"-strategy. I'll stick with my Production Premium CS6 Suite, and continue to update Lightroom for as long as Adobe let me. When that doesn't work anymore, I'll find some alternatives. I think I'm done with Adobe...
And $10 a month is too much?
You seem to be confused. My comment about customers having a hard time understanding Adobe, but that they are having a hard time understanding what it really means to be in the Cloud, what a license really is, and what it means to be a subscription vs "ownership".
Adobe could push harder at educating their consumers what this means, true. But they're not introducing something that is new, so the establishment of knowing what it entails should at least be known by a good portion of those that use technology.
Those that are unhappy will shout louder than those that are happy. Comment sections like this will reflect that, but it doesn't' accurately reflect how successful a subscription model is. Adobe's 3rd quarter report shows they have already doubled their subscription revenue from 3rd quarter last year. Just in the past quarter alone they added over 331,000 subscribers, for a total of 1,031,000 subscribers. Revenue is still on target too.
You didn't purchase to flat out own the product in the past, that is a misconception. You only acquired a license to use, not a license to own, for a single version of software. Read the license agreements to get the full story.
The product you describe is a version that loses support, no longer receives updates, doesn't support newer RAWs, becomes incompatible with newer hardware and OS, etc. Yet you throw down a large lump sum of money up front for this. Did you save any money by going this route?
Raist3d, then you might as well unplug your computer now, cancel all your credit cards, and pay cash for everything.
You are at risk anywhere, it so happens Adobe was targeted and a flaw was found. This has happened to many big fish. The positive from these hacks is their security and infrastructure become more secure having learned from their mistakes.
It is frustrating and annoying, but luckily that is why there are security measures put in by credit card companies and why you are not liable for unauthorized transactions.
I have been inconvenienced by Adobe, Sony, other sites, local stores with untrustworthy employees, etc. Sadly, it seems to be par for the course in today's world. Luckily, the companies who got hacked and my credit card companies both responded quickly to minimize/prevent any damage to me.
Each day they are making it tougher for thieves, but where there is a will there is a way. With enough determination they will always find a way to steal what they want.
Then by your description, your landlord is extorting you. Your flat isn't yours to keep, you don't get to walk away with it if you stop paying rent. If you stop paying rent, you get kicked out. You stop your subscription, you no longer get to use the product. Simple.
Part 2:If I sell a photo, I want to make a profit. If I fix your computer and expect to be paid, I want to make a profit. Without a profit, your business will not survive. Does that make me greedy? No.
Price gouging, that is greed. The price model Adobe is using would be price gouging if it cost more than it would be to own the retail product over its expected lifespan. I am not seeing this as costing more.
So it doesn't boil down to greed and arrogance. But it does boil down to ignorance, and not so much on Adobe's part.
People are blaming Adobe for going to a cloud service and hitting them hard as if they invented it themselves. Far from it. Cloud and subscription services have been around for a while, primarily in the industrial and IT markets. It has even been around in the consumer market too, but not to as large of an extent (cellular, cable, magazines, online storage, etc.).
The problem is the average consumer is having a hard time understanding what it means.