piratejabez: I don't really get it... Doing the math, the subscription is cheaper than buying the software license outright, especially for what you get. It takes a couple years at least of monthly subscription to reach the traditional price, which is about the time many users may want to upgrade anyway. Plus you get access to every piece of Adobe software available, so you can play with apps you may not have had access to before. And if you only need one app like Photoshop or Lightroom, the price is even more affordable. Yes, I do worry about future price increases, but for now I think there's way to much fuss.
One is required, the other is forced. I update to the next version when I have an off season month to learn it. not when adobe announces it. IF I have a bad year I struggle along with the old software. It's my choice not theirs.
Are you an Adobe employee?
MrArt: This kind of sweeping change always produces great fervor. It was inevitable that they would be trying this. We should have all saw this coming a year ago. The fact is there are a lot of pluses to this kind of thing. Sadly, there are also a lot of minuses too. Some of the pluses are that you would always have the latest version. That is a huge plus in my book. Another is you wont have to burn back-ups to DVD anymore. You should be able to reload/access the software anytime. Some of the minuses are pricing (that is a huge one). I know I can't afford $600.00 a year for one seat. Which brings me to another possible minus. What happens to the allowance of putting a single license on two machines (generally a home base and a laptop)?
The fact is the Apple App Store works in a very similar way and they have had success with it. They also have pretty fairly priced apps. Whether we like it or not I really believe that this will be the way of the future.
You buy apps on the app store, then they are yours. You don't ever repay for them and can redownload them for free. It's not even close to the same thing.
rgames1: Interesting decision - they're moving the CS titles out of the amateur market. In the broader world of professional software, there are relatively few software packages that allow perpetual licenses, so this type of licensing is standard for most professions. Adobe products have been different, of course, because they have such a huge amateur user base. People don't buy enterprise resource planning or point of sale software packages and mess around with them in their free time.
I seriously doubt the move will have any effect on their base of professional users (the costs increases are small). Adobe is establishing a clearer distinction between their professional products and their less-featured counterparts (the Elements series). The amateurs will just switch from the full-featured software to the "lite" versions.
If you're a professional, that's actually a good thing because (in theory) Adobe will have more time to devote to the concerns of its professional user base.
Professional user and teacher for more than 15 years. I am going to cancel future Photoshop classes because I won't hook others in.
I'll continue to use CS-6 until I find something new, but I will not look at another adobe product.
Perhaps most importantly, I will stop recommending it to the many, many people who ask me what they should use. I'm not the only one.
I know several professional photographers who do not upgrade Photoshop more than once every other version, if that. It's not a money issue. They use what they need in their current software and don't have time to learn the quirks and changes of each new release. The CC model is not for professional photographers, but for graphics production professionals.
So now DPReview is the PR wing of Adobe. Not a good move, but I'm guessing greed follows greed.
Time was DPR was my first stop every day and the often throughout. Now I check in a few times week.
Adobe has opened the door for the next phase of image editing software, but it won't be from them. DPR long ago opened the door for a new hallmark digital photography site. Now the question is only what will replace both of these titans.
Thomas Kachadurian: Adobe killed quarkXpress with inDesign only because quark got greedy. I've been using (and paying for) photoshop since version 2.0.
But I'll find another solution. There is always something else.
It wasn't nearly as good until about cs2. I also lived through this. It was frustration with quark's unstable verification that opened the door. I saw one production house (20 licenses) decide to switch in one weekend when they went down and couldn't get back until verification problems.
It won't happen overnight, but photoshop isn't an OS, there will be other options, and we will all learn to use them.
I've been teaching photoshop for almost 10 years. There will be a real market for classes on how to avoid Photoshop. I'll be teaching those soon.
Adobe killed quarkXpress with inDesign only because quark got greedy. I've been using (and paying for) photoshop since version 2.0.
Yawn. talk about a giant step backward. Where's the viewfinder port? Isn't that a mistake Olympus made way back with the E-P1 and never again.
Better be pretty amazing because it's way too close in price to the Canon 24 TS-E which pretty much defines amazing.
I love this trend, but DPR hit it on the head. $1,100 is too much for an f2.8 lens. The x100 with a f2 lens and viewfinder is the same price. They're smokin' something at Nikon.
Here's an idea for Panasonic, get some stock to the USA market. You can't sell what you don't ship.
This statement "The answer may change, but 1/2.3" is the answer at the moment" tells us exactly why Canon is struggling. Tiny sensor cameras are completely replaceable with phones, but their pride won't let them admit that they are lost in the weeds.
It seems to me that lately the once great Japanese designers are suffering at the corporate level with the blind pride of their aging CEOs.
AndyGM: The biggest market for this device is video shooters (the EOSHD crowd are going nuts over it). For them, the slow AF is not an issue since they mostly manual focus anyway, and putting a big lens on a tiny camera is no issue for them either, since they use tripods and rigs (the adapter has its own tripod mount for just this reason).
One thing not mentioned in the article at all is that the adapter gives you aperture control from the mirrorless camera body, since the EOS system is all electronic aperture control, the cheapy manual focus lens adapters that are out there for NEX and m43 can only use EOS lenses wide open. So thats aperture control, an angle of view closer to the original, and a stop brighter. Just those 3 advantages alone will be enough for this to sell well.
The m43 version will be an even bigger hit - the GH2/GH3 video community cannot wait to get their hands on this thing.
Also very effective as a tiny back-up body in a FF bag. Put one of these with a NEX7 in your Canon bag and you have something you can pull out in a pinch when the 5DIII fails.
Put me first in line for the EOS/m43 version.
The DP3 has to be the silliest offering Sigma has ever presented.
I don't know what they're smokin' over there at Sigma, but I'd like to try some.
The Japanese are a strange people.
There was a time when DPReview was the source of news, now they just report what we've already seen elsewhere to have content on their page. Maybe they need to pay attention to what's happened to Kodak.
#1 is something you have to earn everyday.
fuego6: What isn't mentioned... and the one item I don't like about LR... is its inability to understand a drag/drop or "open with" from another application of OS. I love the catalog feature.. but - if an image is already cataloged in the database and I drag it onto LR (or use Open with.. LR), LR should be smart enough to find the path from the image and just show you the image in its database (edits and all)... not require you to re-import the image and force you into the importer... STUPID!!
If they could just make this change, then I could use LR as my main database/editor and use other tools as well as ways to locate and edit images on my system...
I know I can use ACR for this.. but - ACR doesn't save RAW edts so they would not appear for images without them...
Come on LR... make the move!
"I know I can use ACR for this.. but - ACR doesn't save RAW edts so they would not appear for images without them..."
Sure it does. If you use DNG, all the edits are stored right in the raw file, not a sidecar. With snapshots you can store several different recipes in the original file. In practice that mean all I need is the single DNG file and I have my original data and various cooked versions. I don't need a data file, data base, nothing. I store that one DNG file and I have it all.
Here's the money quote for me as to why this logic is completely flawed: "If you've read this far, it should be obvious that maintaining regular, current backups of the Lightroom catalog file is absolutely essential. In the event that your Lightroom library stops working properly the catalog file is always the first thing you’ll want to salvage."
No, you are wrong. The first thing I want to salvage is my raw image files. I am a photographer, not a database manager. I can't tell you how often my students call me saying "I've lost my photos in Lightroom (or Aperture or iPhoto)."
This is the problem when programers think they know better than photographers. Perhaps I have a better memory than other people or I am better organized, but using the folder system in 5 minutes I can lay hands on any of the hundreds of thousands of images I have shot since well before digital.
EssexAsh: interesting article, thanks :) How does this compare to using hyperfocal focusing though?
Hyper focal distance relies on DOF, which is the appearance of deep focus. But the lens is really only Exactly focused at one distance. There is one one plane of precise focus. Tilting the lens allows you to move the plane from 90 degrees to matching the horizontal plane of your composition. Things don't just look in focus, they are in focus.
Just a Photographer: All of my previous Sigma lenses have sucked so far.Optically it might be good, but the built quality always lacks.
I'd rather pay somewhat more for a non rattling but quality good built lens. My Sigma 150 mm VR Macro makes a clunky noise during the focussing process. My 105mm has problems with the aperture blades sometimes getting stuck.
No more Sigma for me.
I would have agreed with you until last year when I got a 50mm f1.4
In the past I've had terrible Sigma experiences, but it looks like they are making a real effort. My Sigma 50mm f1.4 is easily as good or better than even Canon L lenses. (I've had red rings fall right off.) Based on the 50mm I plan to get this new 35.