The question unanswered is are they replacing using the new improved shutters from the D610 or just putting more faulty D600 shutters back in?
The camera market is finally saturated with plenty of good used cameras on the market for sale. Eventually sales will stabilize to replacement levels. The question is which companies can survive at those lower sales levels?
I'm amazed that Hasselblad doesn't realize at how pathetic this comes across and how much it demeans their otherwise excellent brand.
BTW, I have an Argus C3 that I've taped a Leica sticker to that I'd be willing to part with for only $2,000. Any takers?
What's really good about this lens is that it will put pressure on the other lens manufactures to up there game as well, though hopefully at less cost.
gerard boulanger: I hate to say this but "smart" phones and their integrated camera devices are eating some of the market share of the entry level digital cameras.Anywhere you might go in the world, most people take souvenir/family/vacation pictures with their telephones.Now, how to explain the drastic drop in shipment re DSLRs and even on the relatively new concept of mirrorless cameras? Economy, lack of new technology, prices?
Saturation, there are only so many people in the world who actually want dslrs. And since the product has pretty much matured feature and IQ wise there's no real reason for present owners to update. This is a cycle all products go through, for example the PC market with its declining sales.
Actually, I thought she was a manikin.
scrup: Why all these negative comments directed to the newspaper. Markets are changing, newspaper advertising revenue shrinking every year. They need to do what any business will do to survive. They saw an area that could save costs and made a decision.
For those that say quality will be suffer. Is it better to have a crap picture or no picture. News is global and people want to know what is happening around the world and not just their backyard. 27 photogs no matter how many cameras or zoom lenses they have can't be everywhere. A picture is still worth a thousand words no matter who takes it.
Because they should be cutting high salaried management first, not the people who actually do the work.
happypoppeye: So, to sum up to this point...
- Pulitzer is spelled wrong- People think that local newspapers still need paid full time photographers- wow, unions still exist ...I think its time to kill off the rest- People think that although a paper is bleeding money and about to go under they still need to keep a full photography staff- People are still misquoting the CEO of Flickr by using a statement out of context (by the way: a reason to keep writers and fire photogs)
...and a lot more stupid stuff.
I've worked for too many companies where the management screw-ups were blamed on workers below who were then fired. Surprisingly the problems still remained.
There are far more incompetent managers out there than there are workers. The workers have to deal with reality everyday. The management, not having direct experience with the day to day reality, is separated from it and so doesn't really understand it and so base their decisions on false concepts of it.
Jarvis Grant: In time the paper will realize what a stupid decision this was.
Sure, after they've gone bankrupt and the present management having gutted the company financially after escaping on golden parachutes.
Jacques Cornell: In another cost-saving move, the Sun-Times' entire janitorial staff was let go, and the C suite will receive training in germ abatement, spill recovery, and dust relocation using iMops.
Oops, sorry, got that one backwards. The C suite was let go, and the janitorial staff are being trained in CYA, golfing, and phone tag strategies.
The second scenario would also result in improved efficiency, as the janitors probable know how the company should be run better than the present management.
If the paper is losing money then it should fire upper management and the CEO. They don't do anything anyway except collect big paychecks. And I'm sure their combined salaries are more than enough to pay for the photographers they just laid off.
I think they should fire their reporters as well and just use everyone's tweets to fill their pages instead. After all it doesn't take any skill to be a reporter does it?
The real dead weight is the management. The paper would be much better off firing the management and keeping the photographers, who actually produce something useful.
Tapper123: Sad for the photo staff, but from a business POV it does make sense.
To push off photo pros, but it's not something that will ever be applied to them, where one executive may make as much as the entire photo department.
rallyfan: Have fun selling shots at $50 each, boys.
You think they'll get that much?
Falconest174: Over 4200 total comments on this story in two days. Some kind of a record? From what I have read almost all negative comments except for a few trolls toeing the Adobe line. This kind of crap might work for entertainment software or online gaming but not for business or graphic software. An abysmally conceived idea, doomed to kill the company, 's a shame too. Looks good initially but when the 'net is down and you have a deadline and can't get the stuff to work to finish a project, a pro is out of his business as well. I Always buy a back up disk when I buy D/L software for this very reason.
If you go by the dpreview poll Adobe could lose up to 95% of their present customers. I wondered if they figured that kind of loss into their new business model?
jkoch2: While neither an Adobe employee or investor, I think the change to a subscription model is the only way a software company can continue to make money.
Ladies and gents, it's time to grow up! Gone are the days when, every two years, there were enough changes in PCs, cameras, or software to compell people to buy new versions or upgrades. Meanwhile, the subscription model works fine for utilities, transportation, medical insurance, media delivery, and all kinds of public services. Many people obtain autos on lease or with borrowed (rented) money. Most homes are mortgaged or rented. Most employees work for wages, not a one-time bounty. Photographers charge by the job, not by a lifetime retainer. The queerest thing, in retrospect, is how long people bought $500 or $1,000 upgrades of editing products that offer more tools than most people have time to master, and that offer little ostensible commercial advantage over a $100 consumer version.
I know how to increase their profit by $12 million/year, fire their president.
Since the only people who can justify spending $20-$50/ month for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES just to access PS are professionals who actually make money off of it and so can justify the expense, this means Adobe no longer wants amateurs to use their software. But since all professionals started off as amateurs where does Adobe think any more new PS professionals will come from since virtually all amateurs will now be switching over to alternative products?
The problem is they're running out of new things to add to Photoshop and their revenue stream is dropping. This way they'll force users to give them money forever and have a predictable income.