vladimir vanek: Someone should stop google from their spy activities. It's/will be really dangerous that a private company has so much data in possession... And excavates more everaday from your emails, searches, tracking, calling etc.
That's how they make money - by using that data for targeted advertising. You give up some privacy, and in return get nice things like free storage space (drive) and so on.
It's scary, but I'm more concerned about governments than Google or other tech companies. If your views are too far away from the ruling party's ideology, Google/MS/Apple/Amazon won't care and probably never will. Governments on the other hand.....(at least the US isn't there, yet.)
Scales USA: Google also has facial recognition, so it can name the persons in a photo, and even inform the FBI if a wanted person is found.
The potential, as noted sounds both wonderful, and also frightening. Snapping a candid photo of a person and having them named? Its possible now for millions of people, but so far, Google is holding back due to potential privacy issues. (big $$$$$$$$$ lawsuits)
IMO an even bigger worry is that all our children will grow up in a surveillance state.
That said, this development is impressive (if used properly, to help visually impaired people). Kudos to those working on it.
Gollan: I like OneDrive, and this should be good news, but their client for Mac OS has been extremely unreliable since it was released. For those of us who work in mixed environments, this is a show-stopper.
Using a browser isn't as convenient as a native client. On Windows, OneDrive stuff will automatically sync. You can open/edit files as if they were only local, and a background sync engine will keep everything in sync (both ways).
If you only have a browser, you'd have to download/upload files manually to keep things in sync. Not a big deal IMO, but some others might think differently.
Not sure we (photographers) are the target market for this?People who just browse the web, check email, and occasionally edit a few documents won't mind having less storage and no micro-sd slot.
On the other hand, the only attractive feature I see is the display resolution. Every other spec is kind of mediocre.
Pete Perry: This is a great idea and it isn't like VMWare, it is more like Citrix.
The only issue will be if Adobe fails to keep up with their server farms as then things with get slow.
As for using it on Linux, I would do it! This would mean that users of Linux and Chrome can now have MS Office and Adobe CS so, you're no longer tied to either one of the two mainstream operating systems.
Oh and, until Photoshop gets open CL support, there's no reason this won't run as fast as a MacBook Pro... even with Open CL support, the MacBooks use crappy Intel processors so, there would be less of a benefit than using a higher end graphics card.
I think we're still fuzzy on what's going on. Are you sending inputs to Adobe, which then does all the processing in the cloud? Or is the photoshop app doing the processing locally, but is just limited to saving in the cloud?
Their comment about OpenCL suggests that it's running locally, and could take advantage of graphics hardware later (if it were running remotely, it'd have no way of accessing graphics cards, unless they're talking about a server farm with graphics cards).
On the other hand, "streaming" suggests something more like remote desktop/citrix. If that's the case, you better have a really good internet connection...
AbrasiveReducer: Assuming the appeal of Chromebooks is the low price, when they figure a way to make Photoshop work on a $400 Chromebook as well as it works on a MacBook, they'll have something.
Pete - source? It seems like it saves to the cloud, but runs image processing code locally. What you say seems to contradict what's on Adobe's site, which mentions PS running within Chrome's app sandbox. (And by virtualization, I mean something like Java's JVM, Microsoft's .NET platform, or Android apps, where the program's code sits above a translation layer).
Also, you don't quite make sense - if the app is completely running on remote server farms, Adobe would not be tweaking the level of performance you get from your machine (because it's not even running on your machine). Every machine would give the same performance, dependent on internet connection latency, of course.
Wye Photography: Perhaps Adobe is trialing a full cloud solution before moving it to Windows and Mac.
Oh please no. Internet service (especially good internet service) can't always be expected when traveling.
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
Not always, when you're working off a laptop and have limited hard drive space. I've started deleting raws after conversion, and that results in a lot of 'orphaned' entries in LR's database.Lightroom doesn't just force you to copy pictures off the card, it forces you to add pictures to its catalog.
I actually use RawTherapee, both on Windows and Linux, and like it better than Lightroom. It doesn't force you to copy pictures off memory cards before you can start converting.
David2553: Interesting. This would means PS is moving to cloud base and indeed a good idea. The only problem is storing Raw files in Google's cloud is no where near cheap.
Storing stuff in the cloud to backup or share is great, but I'm not sold on using the cloud in place of local storage (which is what's happening here). Since image files aren't small, that places a lot of demand on your internet connection. And it's not always easy to get a fast internet connection, especially when you're away from your home/office.
That would be nice, but I very much doubt it. It's running in a virtualized environment. Virtualization means a performance penalty. And not being able to access GPU resources when virtualized means performance will be cut even further compared to native photoshop.
You might as well just get a cheap $400 Windows laptop - it'll probably run photoshop better than a Chromebook (once you take all the preloaded bloatware off Windows)
It sounded interesting at first, but relying on a strong internet connection (often hard to obtain on the go) and not being able to use fast local storage really reduces its appeal for me. Running in a virtualized environment also hurts performance.
On top of that, Chromebook hardware tends to be weak. The Chromebook pixel (Ivy Bridge i5 at 1.8-2.8 ghz, 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD at $1450) is weaker than even the Surface Pro 3 (newer Haswell i5 at 1.9-2.9 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD at $1450 w/ type cover). The SPro 3 is arguably more portable too, and lets you use photoshop offline.
And if portability is not so important, you could beat both the Chromebook Pixel and SPro 3 in terms of processing power with a laptop at the same price.
Patrick H Lockwood: I see some comments here where they are suggesting that this camera will only have a value for sports shooters. As a wedding shooter who owns a 7d, here is the camera's value for me. First, in combo with 5d, I like the 7d's apc sensor which, in church, the extended reach using a 70 - 200 ( effective 112 - 320) is invaluable. My current7d produces very usable shots at IS0 5000 in low light ( though the exposures have to be right on ). So, if the ISO reach can go higher, that plus the focal point tracking improvement ( shooting candids ) this is a camera I definitely want to own. It won't replace the 5dmkIII, but it makes a formidable companion.
I don't know much about wedding photography (I don't do that and probably never will - I think it's too much pressure). I also don't have a 7D.But I did use a pretty decent APS-C cam before, the Sony a580, and ISO 5000 was kind of passable if I shot raw and did a ton of post processing. So perhaps it's not the raw output that he's talking about, it's the output after raw conversion, tons of noise reduction, and maybe downsizing too.
I think everyone has different standards for "usable". In fact, one person would probably have different standards for "usable" depending on how the images are going to be used.For example, if I knew that a picture would be displayed no larger than 300x200 online or would be printed in a newspaper, I'd have no problem hitting ISO 12800 on an APS-C camera. The noise just isn't noticeable enough at those sizes.
Joseph Black: She has a loose thread near her right shoulder blade. Considering the lens I would have stopped it down a bit and used a slightly higher ISO. It looks like there are moments when she's spinning so fast the shutter speed isn't adequate to freeze the motion. Still, we appreciate some great first shots. The plant and glass are tack sharp.
Not stopping down the lens is a good test of the focus system, though. And at least when I shoot sports, I tend to use a fast lens wide open, both to isolate the subject and get the highest shutter speed at the lowest ISO possible.
May I ask what AF settings you used for this sequence?
Calistoga_Guy: Another reason for Canon shooters to go full frame, that is unless they tend to stay below ISO 800, then maybe this camera might appeal to the Canon shooters. Canon got slapped so hard by Nikon back in 2007 by the D3 that they never recovered. But money wise, it's worked out for them to give their consumers second rate sensors and keep counting their money. The 7D had a mediocre Rebel sensor, now the 7D mark II gets the mediocre 70d sensor. It has all the bells and whistles, but still blows at high ISO. It's just another Sony 77 mark I or II, nothing to see here.
"Canon got slapped so hard..."-well they got slapped, but they did recover, partially because Nikon managed to produce two FF DSLRs with well publicized issues, and partially because Nikon never followed up with new versions of the D300 and D700.
Today, Canon's still in the top spot for interchangeable lens camera sales, and Nikon's still #2. If there's anything to learn from this, it's that if you don't cannibalize sales of high end cameras (D3/4), someone else will.
sneakyracer: Well, while the 7D2 seems like a superb camera, but large DSLR style crop sensor cameras still reminds us of the time when Full Frame sensors were too expensive so most manufacturers adapted 35mm DSLRs for use with smaller sensors. The Fuji S2 pro is an example.
Only the most recent crop (no pun intended) of mirror less cameras take advantage of the smaller (crop) formats and gives us great cameras in a MUCH smaller package and most importantly, fast, really superb optics in small packages as well. The smaller sensors then make sense since the user gets size and weight savings across the board.
I would have liked to see a fast, pro build, mirror less body with industry leading (mirror less) AF performance along with a new line of lenses for said camera including FAST and affordable telephotos.
Maybe in ten years Canon will do that, if we are lucky!
There's the problem: fast telephotos. Once you go for fast, long glass, the size/weight reductions you get from using small sensors goes right out the window as the lens starts to dominate the system's weight. Might as well go for a FF DSLR at that point for better IQ/AF/battery life/responsiveness.
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: Its interesting to note that Canon announced 7D mark II while nikon did not announce their D300 successor. On the other hand Nikon announced D750 and Canon did not announce 5D mark IV. Marking the territories (for this year sales of course) with mutual understanding?
Canon doesn't really need to announce a 5D IV to stay competitive in the 'do everything kinda well' FF segment. A price drop on the 5D III would probably do it - the 5D III is still competitive with the D750.
What Canon does need is a uber-high megapixel FF camera to compete with the D800/810. I'm not in the market for that kind of camera though.
Potemkin_Photo: As usual, the Japanese "differentiate" their line-up by putting one feature and taking out another. Have a touchscreen in the 70D but leave it out on the 7D just for sake of "differentiation." I guess they will be laughing all the way to the bank when fanbois go ahead and buy both because they must have both features.
I'm sure there are other factors to it. Perhaps putting a touchscreen in would make the camera $50 more expensive, and management didn't like that because the AF system and parts necessary to shoot at 10 fps were pushing the price as is.