fotobert: more and more reasons to go for Linux, Raw Therapee and GIMP.
Except you like to see your nude selfies somewhere in the internet.
Just my thoughtsAlbert
A 'mostly on' connection is fine for browsing and email. But it should not be confused with other types of computer use.
Gimp, Raw Therapee as well as Digikam is a great combination that you are free to put on any number of computers and use at any time.
Maybe Chrome OS will be useful in the future if your connection is permanently rock solid. But that is not yet the case everywhere yet.
OMG this is the end of photography as we know it. They obviously knew about this before releasing the camera but couldn't care less. It's a good job I didn't invest in Nikon lenses. Although my Lomo doesn't have interchangeable lenses. I think we should all sneer at Nikon so that DPR comments remain intellectual reading.
It's not about who "presses the button". Otherwise many photographers assistants could expect the same.If there was no other effort involved in making a photograph, we'd all have pictures like that.
KHemmelman: And to think I have full functionality forever with my non-cloud version of Lightroom.
While updates may be more rapid, that is no advantage to the user. My non-Adobe software updates itself automatically at any time. Which could be daily if needed. I never notice it happening until a new function appears.
"Adobe allows.." Wow! I'm so glad I'm not dependant on Adobe and their whims. I use alternatives to Lightroom and Photoshop where nobodies business priorities interfere with my hobby.
Lucluc: No. more aperture = no. more Apple.I have lightroom on my computer but Aperture was the program that kept me with Apple. I don't want to put my pictures in iCloud or xCloud or zCloud. The servers are in the US the country of the NSA. There are restrictions on the NSA for American citizens but not for European.
Many businesses are being much more careful about where their data is geographically stored. A few aircraft manufacturers I deal with insist on, amongst other restrictions, non-US storage of sensitive data.
Michael Piziak: Neither Aperture or Lightroom will get my money. Gimp is free.
Paint.net is a small, fast and simple application that has a useful place alongside the bigger applications. You don't always want to start Gimp or a Raw developer.
MiraShootsNikon: Back in 2007 or so, I decided to switchup my Bridge-Photoshop workflow to leverage one of the newer cataloging-converter apps. I worked with Lightroom and Aperture extensively for the free month both offered, and ultimately I liked Aperture better.
But I chose Lightroom.
Because even even in 2007, Apple had a terrible reputation for cultivating pro markets and then losing interest in them. Hypercard, anyone? Shake? I love their computers and their products, but Apple likes to use professionals as advertising halos--it's never really been about really serving professional markets. It's great to trot out Sara French to talk about how great Apple products are for photography, but when it comes to actually following a niche market? Not so glamorous or profitable.
In other areas it has been shown that letting 3rd parties develop tools is successful for choice and deeper coverage of specialised markets.Should we be concluding that Apple wants to stick to it's core business with a focus on the easy-peasy market, and leave the deeper products to 3rd parties?
Benfr69: Let's see,in 1999 I moved from win to Apple (OS 9) because of windows instability and MS policy on licensing. I loved aperture when it came out, but .... in 2011 I moved from Apple to Linux / KDE when I saw where OS X Lion was heading. (Desktop iOS with total control over the software you buy). iCloud services confirm that, after all you will just be a milk cow for them since they have your data and they can "milk" you so that you use their software to access and process your data.
Finally I did the right thing, today I have a Digikam + GIMP and Darktable workflow, I don't miss any features from my Aperture + PS workflow.
OSS is the future my friends, for freedom and to make sure that your RAW format will be supported and that you don't loose your libraries.
Just my two cents.
Digikam and Gimp is a great combination. Gimp is well known, but Digikam can do so much it is incredible. Plus you can plug in any app for HDR, Panoramas or your favourite RAW processor in a single workflow.
I don't care about the principles of OSS software at all. But I do like the choice and flexibility.
It is always a shame for users when an application is dropped. So let's hope Photos for OSX is a good enough replacement.
Artpt: Agreed with other comments on the industry milestone of three companies offering a mix of lenses and bodies in a common format!....a win for consumer choice.
Brand loyalists may not see the benefit in cross competition among the M43 products, but the exchange of common format opens up an entire industry to innovate on other technological aspects....
Pros already use this model to manage multiple aspects of their work but within their camera brand.
Another thought to consider is how fast a company can innovate a product if the R&D works around a known format over innovating the entire format (lenses, bodies, etc). The legacy costs do eat away at budgets and limit creativity.
The problem with the apple phone is that there is 'basically' only one phone to choose from. If you don't want that one, then you are off IOS. Admittedly Android phones are all very 'samey' at the moment. Having lost a choice of slide out keyboards and blackberry keyboard type phones. Phone makers have been dumbing down, focussing for one "max profit" market leaving us with little choice. I'm glad it's going the other way with a huge variety of new cameras. Like this Kodak, which increases our choice of system cameras. Variety and shared technologies is a bonus for the customer.
If they reached their Kickstarter goal, there must be enough people who think this is worth it. Maybe they are all super rich?
G3User: The demise of photography continues. Now, all the soccer moms don't even have to worry about someone blinking. We are now creating images where the contents never even happened, the truth in photography is over. How sad, you may has well be constructing images with a paint brush, leaving all contents up to the picture creator. Now, given the power of a service like this, it will further decline the number or people hiring paid photographers, why hire someone if I can do it myself and then fix them later. Too bad Dpreview is promoting such a concept. I wish Phil was still in charge here.
You missed the point here, completely! This service makes professional retouching more convenient for some people. Retouching happens today anyway. Even if you hire a professional photographer.Retouching is not a bad thing, if you don't claim the picture is anything different.I also create pictures with a paintbrush. Is painting a bad thing? Good luck to soccer moms if they have an easier way hire a professional.So we don't get anything from your post.
Thanks. I used an Olympus OM-D E-M5 with a 14-150mm zoom.
5 years ago my 10" Kodak digital picture frame (with Wifi) did that. Without needing any Social Networking account. I was sending pictures from my "pre-smartphone" home back then.
Scottelly: This is stupid. NOBODY prints anymore . . . especially not in a small format. The only prints I have made in the last 5 years are 8x10 or bigger. Why would I want to print smaller than that? EVERYONE has a smart phone.
It seems like EVERYONE wants to do the same things. Lets all be IDENTICAL.
That was a sneaky advert from a big corporation. DPReview.drops in my estimation a bit if they don't make it clear to loyal supporters,
This vote is "pumping". Actively inventing activity on the site by regurgitating info and trying to involve users. It does not add any useful information. You can understand why they do it. But it is still user abuse.
mosc: I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?
I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?
Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.
I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?
Easy. For someone with m4/3 lenses, it makes a perfect second body. That doubles as a pocket camera, a backup camera for travelling, an unobtrusive street shooter and something to save you changing lenses in a hurry.