Who makes up these prices. Knock $200 off each model for starters please.
acidic: Neatly packaging up their sensor division allows them to set it up so for a nice clean sale.
But that happens all the time-from the business world to family economics. The good is sold off to try and buttress the weak.
Sessility: This is probably great news for everyone except Sony camera owners, since it could mean a cloud of uncertainty over Sony's camera division.
But, then again, even with a fully supported camera division, you couldn't be sure whether Sony continues one of their mounts and brings out more lenses for it or not...
Good point, ET2. In the simpler film days, it was easier to see how developments for professionals filtered down to advanced amateurs. However, there has been some technology leapfrogging in that in certain segments (smart phones, tablets, etc.), today's consumer may access equivalent technology from Day One.
Just a Photographer: As far as I know their sensors have always been made by Sony Semiconductors . This announcement is purely made to hide the fact that Sony Digital Imaging might go on sale in late 2016 as was speculated about by a highly ranked Sony executive last year.
"The division will be carved away from Sony's devices group as part of a larger reorganization..."
Another press release that was put out to financial institutions:
"According to the financial data released today, Sony's Imaging division "sales decreased 2.0% year-on-year (a 16% decrease on a constant currency basis) to 741.2 billion yen (7,196 million U.S. dollars).
Sony is reporting that a continued decrease in sales of video cameras is to blame for the losses, and their still cameras aren't doing enough to stem the tide."
Even though Sony seems to be on the rise, they still look doomed as their camera's don't stick to the wall enough. This press release confirms that Sony Digital Imaging is not safe within the Sony group.
For various reasons, one can surmise that a Canon or Nikon will fight harder (be more stubborn?) to hold on to what may become legacy products, i.e. now traditional digital camera form factors.
We can't make both gum drops and marshmallows.
What an endless update cycle just to have the current RAW converter.1-Use the RAW converter supplied by the camera maker. I hope that tradition never ends.2-Use Adobe DNG converter.3-Shoot JPEG only.
Would like to see Adobe offer Camera RAW as a standalone, but never happening.
Ivan Lietaert: I'm a great fan of Instax film. I have the Instax Wide 210 model and the Instax Mini 90 model. I regret that Fujifilm refuses to bring a high end model to the market with manual controls and good quality glas/lenses. The alternative is Lomography.com, but their glas is even worse.I modded a 1926 (!) ICA Dresden Reflex camera myself, mounting a lomography instant back (takes Instax wide film) on it. The camera has a Carl Zeiss lens. This setup makes Instax film shine and reveals its true potential. Here is a small collection of my shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivanlietaert/sets/72157650037545493
Did you zone focus or were you able to take the focusing back on and off?
Androole: It's difficult for me to find a straight low-down on the features that are really omitted in Photoshop Elements.
I have Lightroom 6, but it's hard to justify the full $1000+ price of Photoshop for a personal license when I only need to use it occasionally for my photography when doing macro stacking, panorama-stitch fixes, and astro-photography layering.
Does anyone with experience with both packages know if Elements would be suitable for those kinds of applications? Can it do layer auto-alignment and merging? Are all the blending modes still there? Proper layer masks? Does it have content-aware fill? High-pass filters? Does it accept plug-ins like Topaz DeNoise?
I hope I'm not asking obvious questions and don't want to be onerous, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find this information. Much thanks for anyone who can help.
Go to web site I posted belong and that will help. Sounds like you are doing some pretty sophisticated stuff.
AbrasiveReducer: It must be a dilemma for Adobe; how much to leave out of Elements. I don't know about this version but with the previous ones, there are plug-ins that get Elements even closer to Photoshop.
Gesture: + Does 5x7. Many of these compact printers only do 4x6.
- Don't see any memory card slots? $100 too expensive.
Will have to recheck. Couldn't find any mention of card slots on Epson site. Could be something you take on vacation; use from hotel room.
Azurael: Hmm, has the build quality of Canon's printers got good again? My MG6150 (circa 2010) seems to be indestructible... My dad's MG5550 (2013) is awful. It's really noisy, very cheaply built and has endless problems feeding paper... It's a shame because Canon inkjets seem to be the only ones you can leave for more than about a week without the nozzles clogging with dried ink.
Sorry to hear that. I really like the MG printers.
Like it or leave it, this is one of the most potent areas in photography. The good news-people are taking pictures again; among the trivial will be some gems.
+ Does 5x7. Many of these compact printers only do 4x6.
belle100: First, printer companies are notoriously not green, so why all these complaints. To profiteering from dirt cheap ink, they let the users to dump millions and millions of printers in the landfill. I hate HP.
Second, I don't understand why they have to put a monitor panel and all these buttons on a printer, can't they just put a single LED and one button on the panel and allows a phone/tablet to run an app to do the controller instead. It would make a huge saving for all parties involved and do the Earth a big favour. Thank you.
Not all of us are into smartphone apps. This product would be nice if it has slots for direct printing from memory cards. Overall, a welcome product.
Knock $250 off the price and you would have an excellent value.
Lan: OK; sounds great - what's the catch?
R220 one of the best printers Epson ever made!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gesture: DSLRs-the cockpit of the space shuttle is less complicated. Pentax tried to simplify the DSLR interface with the K-01, but was never followed up. No courage to rethink the camera and clearly the OEMs are locked in standardized subassemblies, dial placement, etc.
There is something like 25 buttons, dials, sliders, etc. on a typical Canon-Nikon DSLR. There has to be better way. Look at the Nikon Df-it's almost a parody of a camera.
DSLRs-the cockpit of the space shuttle is less complicated. Pentax tried to simplify the DSLR interface with the K-01, but was never followed up. No courage to rethink the camera and clearly the OEMs are locked in standardized subassemblies, dial placement, etc.
rfsIII: Looks like a perfect second camera for video. Or buy three and you could produce some very sophisticated television programming.
Use manual focus in video.