Dear DPReview, it would be nice if you actually pushed for some answers rather than giving Adobe a platform to publish their non-answers. I have never seen that many users react upset about Adobe's move to subscription bases software 'leasing', yet you give Adobe the front page to post their patronizing statement.
Let me get this straight, you expected users to be upset, but went ahead anyways.
You saw a decrease in people upgrading their software because you ran out of creative ideas for new features that people consider worth paying for. So instead of making your products better and come up with new features, you force everyone to upgrade whether they need it or not.
You increase the cost to keep software up to date, yet disowning the buyer completely and effectively holding their work hostage when they don't pay the subscription any more because the software won't even run and open your files.
Adobe, I hear the message loud and clear, you can't come up with product improvements to generate enough income so you force people into a more expensive subscription plan.
Adam Filipowicz: man you folks are a bunch of babies.. its still cheap..considering what you get..its like $1 a day.. for everything.. always updated.. thats cheap.. how much do you spend a day.. driving, drinking coffee?, buying music, or on your cell phone.. i rely on adobe for almost everything i do.. (maxon and MS Office 365) I love the subscription model.. i hope Maxon does the same with Cinema 4D Studio
good for you that it works for you. Please don't call other people 'babies' who have different needs and different opinions. The issue goes far beyond money.
Apple has filed a patent that disables the camera part of cell phones all together based on location. U.S. Patent No. 8,254,902
harrygilbert: This has got to be nipped in the bud. Next step will be a lock that prevents the camera from taking photos wherever a government or commercial entity doesn't want you to take pictures.
Apple was actually working on that. The idea was to disable the camera in a cell phone in areas where no cameras are allowed.
Canon has decided to make more lenses. Now that's something...
Cameras document what happened and by nature they are neutral. They don't have 'selective memory', they don't tell their version of a story, they just document. I think it will make people more accountable for their actions thus making them 'hopefully' more responsible. The acquisition and sharking of information has already been taken out of the hands of the media and put into everyone's hands with the internet, Youtube, twitter and in general through social media. Wearable cameras are just the visual extension of that. People already take photos pretty much everywhere with their phones.
Halstatt: Just what I'd been looking for when still putzing around with my underpowered Nikon flashes.
Take the plunge and purchase some monolights.
monolights don't support iTTL nor do they sync at fast shutter speeds. There are many reasons why people want to use system flashes.
The comments here are just as interesting as the review. People have different needs and it shows that what is great for one person is irrelevant for another. Some people use that as their only bad so they try to make everything fit, others use it just for camera gear and have other equipment and laptop separate anyways. Some do long hikes, others walk 5 min to their location. Some need rain protection, others don't need it. For some it's too much space, others need more. And so on.
Even my own requirements change from job to job. Best thing to do is to describe a product and how you use it, and people can decide if it works for them or not.
Octane: Let me get this straight, you take the idea that has been done many years ago, has been perfected in major movie productions, you wait a few years, take a few cheap cameras, do it over, just poorly and then people say, 'so cool', 'such a great idea'. Alright :)
@cacv12000 When I saw the headline I actually got excited and was looking forward to seeing it. I was just disappointed by the poor quality. The cameras were poorly synced and the overall quality wasn't impressive. The hands and feet wobbled when the actual idea was to freeze the moment and have the camera track in 'bullet time'. Overall the quality wasn't that good either. Just funny to see people say 'great imagination' when the neither the idea is original nor is the execution well done. Well done on GoPro's marketing, thought :)
Let me get this straight, you take the idea that has been done many years ago, has been perfected in major movie productions, you wait a few years, take a few cheap cameras, do it over, just poorly and then people say, 'so cool', 'such a great idea'. Alright :)
RodWright: I'd like comments on the following:
1) I'm an advanced amateur, not a pro, but that said do a lot of nature and aerospace photos using my D7000. Think air show when reading the following.
2) What is meant by the 1.2 or 1.5 crop? Is that new to the D7100?
3) I shoot at airshows in shutter priority set at 1/300th which slightly blurs the props of piston engine aircraft showing the sensation of speed. 1/300th neither stops the props nor displays them as a nearly invisible shiny disk. A faster speed would be needed for turbo prop aircraft, but i have not worked that out yet.
4) Even shooting at 3fps, I overrun the D7000 buffer& have to wait while it writes to the SD card. I'm using SanDisk Extreme SD cards at 45MB/sec. Do faster cards exist and supported? I hate it when I miss a photo due to buffer full conditions.
I read here that the buffer for the D7100 has NOT been expanded, so larger files mean fewer photos before the buffer is full and photos stop. Is that correct?
How much different does an airplane flying in the sky look from one shot to the next one 1/6 of a second later? I guess my question is, why do you need 6 fps and then shoot for seconds for air planes?
For sports or wildlife I see how the change of the athlete or animal is so quick (running, jumping, kicking, ...) that it's really helpful to use a fast frame rate and deep buffer. But of airplanes that don't change shape whatsoever and also fly in a rather predictable way. I don't see why people shoot it at high fps and then keep the shutter pressed for a long time.
But even if you think you need that, the 100 frames buffer size means you can shoot for one full minute! In that minute, the camera has probably written most of these frames to the card already so in real life you can shoot for much longer before you actually fill the buffer.
The comment section turns out to be very useful this time! Thanks guys for saving me the time!
Chaitanya S: Finally, they replaced the worst lens in their telephoto line-up. I am getting this one no matter what.
@thx1138 What difference does it make whether Canon or Sony has a similar lens. If you with Nikon those won't fit and I doubt people are going to swap cameras system for a small difference between one lens.
slappomatt: Nikon has been pricing the amateurs out of photography for years now. Glad to see that is still the case. :(
It's like gas prices, it's pointless to look back 10 or 15 years and think the prices should be the same.
Guidenet: If the optics are great. I'm a player. That's for sure. AFS and VR combined with Nano Coatings. It's another class act. I hope it performs well with the 1.4 converter. Still 560 f/8 is pretty darn slow. Can't have everything for that cheap of a price, I suppose.
Well, $2700 isn't exactly cheap :)
I'm really puzzled what Nikon thinks. Who would possibly spend that much money on a reduced coolpix camera. Let alone that viewfinder for $450.
Abraxx: Buffer is already full with a few Raws in only second? Good for hunting snails... ;)Looking forward to test one, but thats unfortunately already one major design flaw.
It's not a design flaw, it's just not the camera that you want. So tired of people saying the camera is flawed just because it doesn't fit their need. Nikon has other cameras with deeper buffers, higher frame rates, better options, higher resolution, more accessories, larger sensors, smaller sizes, less expensive. You have the choice. Pick the right tool.
Nikon007: My advice has always been "stay away from wide Gamut unless you know what your doing". For me it's not worth the hassle to see colors no one else can. You don't see it in print, your clients don't see it, on the web they can't be seen. So what good is it? It's great for a dedicated graphics station but for general use it causes many folks a lot of head aches. So if WG is your cup of tea go for it. If your not sure do your research first, there are lot of threads on this subject going back for years and nothing has really changed.
So I assume you are also shooting JPG in small size instead of RAW?