rallyfan: The Sigma DP "M" series offers excellent solutions to questions very few are asking and for which even fewer are willing to pay; a very impressive evolutionary dead end that sold slowly and performs even slower. Dreary cameras lacking what Ignatius J. Reilly would call the proper geometry and theology, taste and decency.
The rest are good choices.
The Merrill is like when someone doing 35mm sees what their first 120 or 4x5 film neg can produce in terms of details and tonality. It's another dimension of reality.
PicOne: Might this mean that DPR will wake up a bit and perhaps attempt a review of a Merrill compact?
When you buy a DP series camera you are getting a premium lens besides the sensor.
jhinkey: Nice, but not $900 nice . . . .
Although an avid Nikon user for some time now - I've recently added some m43 gear to my kit because Nikon came out with a very anemic 1 system. I couldn't wait anymore for a compact, high IQ system with non-dumbed down bodies and a decent lens selection.The V-2 was a step in the right direction, but it was too little too late as it lacks features that I think should have been there. Plus the lack of anything seriously wide or a fisheye or other fast primes aggravates the situation.
Nikon is playing catch-up to m43 and needs to get serious real fast with high quality glass that's not outrageously costly nor larger than the m43 equivalent.
Part of me wishes they would build something to compete with the Fuji XE-1 offerings.
Samsung has a nice lens lineup and the sensor is APS-C.
Sakura Sakura: Seems to me Nikon are misjudging & overpricing the Nikon 1 system. I just don't get it, the 4/3 system just as compact, cheaper & probably better image quality. In case you think I have a downer on Nikon I have a Nikon DSLR & love it.
But it's an "acclaimed system."
brilliant sharpness ... intricate details ... $900 a bargain. What with modern computer-aided design and advanced manufacturing techniques, can never understand why lenses cost so much.
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: It doesn't matter a whit. I don't use their stuff. I use Aperture, Corel etc.People spend far too much time "processing" and not enough composing or just taking photos.I wish them ill in their move!
Yes, read a book by W, Eugene Smith, all the time he spent working on images in the darkroom. There were 2 Lustrum Darkroom books issued by Ralph Gibson that showed the "processing" mode in the film days.
Not that Adobe is listening to me, but I offer this solution to one issue of the Subscription only model. Also issue a one-way PSD to TIFF converter freely as DNG Converter now it.
kymarto: Basically, the cloud-only model is a tacit admission by Adobe that the upgrades to PS are no longer compelling--the product is no longer worth the money, so now they will live by extortion...
Honestly, look at the last couple of upgrade cycles, the last one especially. What did we get for out $200? A new skin, a cosmetic upgrade to the crop tool, a new effect filter and an improved patch tool, more or less...This is pretty pathetic. No wonder they had to institute a new upgrade policy--just to keep people on the hook in hopes that CS7 had something of value, and they would save money by upgrading twice to get it, rather than having to start over.
Basically we are being asked to assume the burden of Adobe's lack of initiative in making the upgrades to PS desirable to the people who must decide whether to pay for them. It is only their monopoly that allows such an attitude to exist; if there were a decent competitor they would already be dead in the water.
Unfortunately, this is the nature of software as it matures. How much more can you do to Photoshop or Microsoft Word-just gets harder to support hardware-wise. In the early days, when computers had much less powerful processors or memory, there was a premium on elegant, sparse code. That is gone.
A lot of unanswered questions. I work away on whatever stable, paid-for version of Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or Lightroom I now use and enjoy. 5 years from now, I decide to subscribe to the Adobe CC. I want to work with some programs that can no longer be bought standalone or want to work with the most recent version of Photoshop. Will my "old" PSD files work in the new versions on the Adobe CC.
MrTritium: 420g with battery?! The Nex-6 and X-E1 weigh only 350g, and the nex-3n 269g. Is this camera made of LEAD?
I think this camera represents value plus appeal. But, yes, make one smaller with a fixed 35mm effective focal length
Photo Story harkens back to the SP-320, where you could do an amazing amount of in-camera post-production work.
Thanks for posting. We have the P, PL and Mini lines + OM-D. Wonder what's next for OM-D?
tonywong: Industry people will have to migrate to this eventually as more features get put into the files so designers and photographers will be able to work on files they get from CC.
The biggest problem with this subscription implementation is that CC will not even allow you to open or print any file once the subscription has lapsed. If Adobe were to allow a way to open/view/export (limited) regardless of subscription status it would go a long way towards alleviating concerns.
After that is the price, but Adobe products have never been cheap, and it was hard to 'skip' a version if you were always working with other studios and designers giving you more recent Adobe files.
If Adobe were to allow a way to open/view/export (limited) regardless of subscription status it would go a long way towards alleviating concerns.
Many programs used to come with Reader Apps so you could create a file readable-only by someone else.
Otto Fabricius2: Again we see the arrogance of company which has reached a near monopoly status. Furthermore, cloud computing is really not ready yet. There have been to many serious problems, and many areas in the world do not have sufficient bandwidth for this use of the internet.
Going fast, but many of us would prefer to download upgraders and then upgrade sans internet. You have one copy of a program. If the upgrade, which now can take hours, gets interrupted-where are you.
David & Katherine Barto: I don't rent software. If I stop paying them I lose access to all my images saved in their format. Not going to happen.Sadly Ps 6 will be my last purchase from Adobe, and I'm sure that they won't care. Annual updates (actually Bi-Annual for the past 10 years) works well for me as I don't need the latest feature and the cost of annual renewal was too much for my hobby. Looks like I get to save a bundle over the next few years.
There are interpreter programs like GraphicConverter.
showmeyourpics: Hi, I am a part-time fine art photographer, restorer and retoucher on a tight budget. As a NAPP member, I have been upgrading Photoshop every other version for $160.00 every 3 years. A subscription would now cost me over $700 which is unacceptable. Yesterday I purchased the CS6 upgrade for its full price (I couldn't find it at Adobe, Amazon, B&H). I will stick with it and wait to see what Adobe's competition will do. I already use dxo optics pro with very good results so raw conversion is not a problem for me. I am also considering the Google NIK suite offer for $149. It would be the right time for Adobe to further develop Elements but I don't trust their sales and pricing policies anymore. I believe I will drop my NAPP membership too. I try to accept my gut feelings but act with my brain and both are telling me that the good times with Adobe are over.
The competitive landscape will be different
Wally Brooks: Tom Hogan had an interesting point that the commercial users would be happy with cloud pricing. It's the individual user who won't like it. I personally plan to get the latest boxd version of Photoshop - not the entire CS suite- and that will be my last Adobe purchase. If the functionality won't work in three years it would be time to move elsewhere Gimp or Apeture.
Others here have noted that. A web design company, graphics studio may not mind, getting access to the full suite of programs, having the resources to constantly upgrade computing power, etc. There was a time when the elegance and smallest possible footprint of a program mattered. I use programs still in Apple's Classic mode that in many ways have never been bettered.
anthony mazzeri: I just signed up for it.
I swore CS4 was my last ever Adobe upgrade because it was a rort of $1000 or more basically every 18 months or so for the Design Suite. So coming from CS4 the monthly offer is $29.99 for the first year basically to upgrade to CS6 now, and CS7 due in July - which is more acceptable than previously even if I don't even plan to use all their included web and video apps like Premiere or Dreamweaver etc.
See what happens in a year's time in terms of competition and pricing etc, as I can always revert to CS4 again.
But it only makes sense of you use multiple apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc. If you only use one app like Lightroom as many people here do, then the situaton is the opposite.
It seems like some sort of Reader program for each application would be appropriate. Like Adobe Reader. Used to be more common in the software world. You'd create a file in a given program and be able to share a readable version with someone.
frng: In small business terms:Previously, the Adobe software was an assetNow, it will be an expense.This has HUGE implications for MOST creative businesses, like photog, architects, graphic designers, etc.98% of these are small companies, who cannot afford a regular expense like this. Its a shame for Adobe as their products (esp. the suits) are reasonably well integrated products...RIP
I would go a step further.
As I posted elsewhere, many independent artists, photographers, graphic designers, desktop publishers, web page writers will need these programs, but not be able to afford them. I think this model will really pinch the lower-earning folks in any of these disciplines. It takes a critical mass of work/revenue to support this model. So newcomers, part-timers, etc will have a hard time establishing themselves.
It only costs $600 a year to have full access to the programs, but you must also have the computer processing power to support these advanced programs.
OBI656: The point is, that this concept is very good for very few but no good to many. Overwhelming majority of photographers ( just look how many cameras CANON / NIKON / SONY etc., is selling ) is using Photoshop and these photographers with all updates for DSLR’s and lenses expensive hardware are prone to saving their money.
ADOBE is using trickery with all these so call updates since there are plug-ins for camera shake etc + etc which come a way much cheaper than CC monthly payment.
ADOBE should insure one thing. 100% compatibility, processing speed of Photoshop and stop evicting small plugin developers from their segment of business.
There is sooo many predictions what will happen about this CC “concept” but I am saying that ADOBE will feel it. There will be a strong decline from photographers to update. There will be huge effort from developers to fill in where ADOBE left.
Everyone doesn't need the latest and greatest. There was a time when elegance and economy was valued in software development and performance. I always want the much efficient and elegant solution for my needs-not the kitchen sink approach. But anyone who uses these programs for their living will obviously abide adobe.