prsz: You are right. WTD? You all have too much time on your hands. Where is the continuity in WTD #1382? I guess we all have different senses of humour. I am afraid these don't even raise a smile for me.
You must be a hoot at parties!
One would think Canon would just buy out Magic lantern, or their engineers, and put this stuff into their camera's to begin with? I know, crazy thought to make a product to max out it's abilities, when someone else can just take your product and make it better for you. That doesn't make you look foolish, does it?
Here's the rub for all of you arguing there's value in this,you don't get to stop paying once you've reached a certain dollar value. You just keep on paying for the latest and greatest, whether you need it, want it, or can afford it. That's great if you are a business with unlimited income, but for the home user, it's often unsustainable. And when you stop paying, you get nothing to show for what you've paid in!
Unless you work for Adobe, own stock in Adobe, or are some sort of Adobe groupie, there's no way to spin this that it's somehow 'good' for the consumer and not just good for Adobe.
jameshamm: The cost is too high. If it was in the $10-$30 range, maybe. The way it is it's approaching $1k per year!
Yes, that price is 12 months, EVERY TWELVE MONTHS! Add that up for the 18 months new version cycle. So really, $49 x 18 = $822, and you are forced to essentially buy what amounts to $822 for every new cycle.
MisterPootieCat: Almost 1200 comments and counting, the huge majority being unfavorable. It looks like Adobe has stepped on it's Johnson again. I wonder if Adobe will end up having a "Kodak Moment" in the not too distant future.
Kenneth works for Adobe.
Awesome, just what I wanted, another monthly bill. Thanks Adobe! Do I replace gym membership with an Adobe membership, or my monthly gas bill?
fmian: In regards to this cameras handling, I think it feels like a dog made out of bricks.The camera is weighted horribly towards the opposite side to the grip, seemingly beyond the placement of the lens. While having no protruding grip, there is also an annoying strap lug placed where the fingers would sit, along with a mash of tiny buttons and nothing for my thumb to grip except the back dial.On top of all that, the outer section of the lens is deceptively designed to make you think that it can be rotated to change settings. But it can't.The only saving grace seems to be the lens, and the way the camera looks from certain angles. I was also quite unimpressed by the fact that the top flash plate, where it says 'BRASS' actually seems to be made of plastic.Too little, too late. Pentax, please see Canon & Olympus for how to design a compact camera.
Why does making a camera look like a fake retro 1960's knockoff hailed as beautiful? So you want your HD tv to come in an oak cabinet?
photog4u: I tested (2) 35mm lenses on the D7100; the Sigma 35/1.4 Art FX ($900) and the diminutive Nikkor 35/1.8 DX ($200). I was surprised that the Nikkor was nearly as sharp (you must pixel peep to see the difference) and rendered colors identically to the Siggy. The Sigma a bit more contrasty. The Nikkor combo is so much nicer to shoot with...with the Sigma attached, the rig feels like an anvil. Bokeh from the Nikkor was very nice as well. Not too shabby for 1400 bucks...
You don't get a true Nikon experience without that anvil feel though. Big cameras, big lenses. The heavier the gear, the better the photographer, and the camera company!
AngryCorgi: If you've seen the gallery for the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, EOS M, 7D, or 60D, then this is just more of the same. Canon has become an extremely boring company, IMO.
Godspeak, no, Nikon is no different. That's why the two are referred to as Canikon, and their buyers as sheeple.
rb59020: No f1.4 lens, no 4k video? No way!
Marik, you need to Google sarcasm.
Well that was about the fastest turn around for a review. All the older camera's stuck in the pipeline are wondering who the GH3 slept with to get to the front of the line?
The fact that you can't change aperture in live view mode is pretty bad. Makes LV kind of pointless.
I find it funny how the art of photography is a creative art, yet photographers have zero artistic inclinations with regards to their equipment or allow anyone the pleasure of being unique or different. Weird for a group that labels themselves artists. You'd think you could paint your camera, put stickers on it, etc.
And for those that say that wouldn't be professional, it's a k-30, not a Nikon D4. Most people in this price range are taking pictures of family, vacations, etc., not fashion magazine covers or Nation Geographic shots. Why does everything have to be so serious? A black camera doesn't make your pictures better, maybe just your ego. Photography is suppose to be fun, let it be.
Essai: Im glad I no longer shoot Pentax. What a pathetic company it is now...
Did someone from Pentax run off with your wife or something?
This comment section makes me weep for the human race.
mpgxsvcd: When your only update to your product is to offer it in a variety of colors you know that things are not going well.
You mean we all shouldn't just want a black camera because camera's used to be black in the old days?
BTW mpgxsvcd, it's not an update, they have sold this way in Japan. They are now offering them elsewhere. One would think that's because they are actually selling. You aren't in the business world it seems, are you? really dumb comment.
plasnu: I'm wondering if this marketing has really raised Pentax camera sales.
Why, does everyone need a black camera only?
raztec: I can see the folks at Pentax have been working over time to come up with this brilliant marketing ploy. Running out of ideas are we?
You seriously got two 'likes' for that dumb comment?