It would be more accurate to say "Want to remember short term? Don't take a photo." But test memories a year later, after I've reviewed the photos I took, and the non-photographers rely only on their minds, and I bet the results would be very different.
The study seems valid, but the conclusions being drawn overly broad.
I have to laugh at all the criticism of Adobe. If you don't like it, don't sign up. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
I have to laugh at those people who say it's "wrong," especially those who tell me what is good for me. It's neither right nor wrong. It's a business decision. If it generates more income for Adobe it's "right" for the company and it's shareholders. Adobe isn't in business to make you happy; it's in business to make money. And what's "right or wrong" for you doesn't matter to me; I'll make up my own mind, thank you.
The only real problem I have with this deal is that it's bait and switch. After 1 year Adobe jacks the price back up to their normal rate, anf you're screwed.
BBnose: It is probably the most arguable camera review by dpreview. So many comment against it. I think dpreview should review their review on GX-7 and redo the review. Huh!
No, it's not the award that's contentious. It's downgrading it for things you don't criticize other cameras for, like the ridiculous comment about in-camera raw processing. DPR has devolved from a serious review site with rigorous evals by knowledgeable people to an opinion-based blog written by amateurs. Sad to see a great resource become meaningless.
David Hull: The question people should be asking is: "What does the price increase to after Dec 2, 2013". Adobe is starting to remind me of my cable company. They are always offering a a very compelling deal if I will switch vendors but I can never get them to tell me what the price will go up to after that first year is up.
fjbyrne: Not everyone - I don't see a Linux version. Wouldn't buy it anyway.
And I assume you know that "everyone" was DPR's language, not Adobe's. Besides, they're still offering it to you at that price. There are just some conditions of use.
Jogger: Its funny that people have no issue with $900 iPads (replaced annually of course), $700 phones, $100/month phone plans, $10 month XBL accounts, $5 daily cups of coffee, $1.5/L of gasoline...
But, paying $10 a month for a software that is part of their business (ie. allows you to make money) is somehow treasonous.
$50 per year. It's already in the fine print.
xeriwthe: when will some non money grubbing company finally knock adobe off it's pedestal and release SW that everyone wants and uses? good lord, greed + SW is going to be the end of humanity
Yeah. Except, of course, there's that whole open source thing.....
CollBaxter: For some some buying its a great deal.
So lets see . If you went out and purchased CS6 and lightroom . It would cost you about $800 . So that means you could rent it for 6.5 years for the same money and get the upgrades free and not have to buy upgrades. 6 years in adobe speak is around 2 version for CS upgrades and quite a few for LR.
Although if you already own it and paid full price ( How many did) then you are getting screwed. Actually its going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
Corel PSP X6 costs $100 and a near yearly upgrade of about $70 . So for a bit more $20 you can have CS and light room .
Is a ducks bum watertight.
"o lets see . If you went out and purchased CS6 and lightroom . It would cost you about $800 . So that means you could rent it for 6.5 years for the same money and get the upgrades free and not have to buy upgrades. 6 years in adobe speak is around 2 version for CS upgrades and quite a few for LR. "
Except that $10 price is only for the first year.... Then it jumps to full price, which is currently $50 a month. Not quite so attractive.
sandy b: I'm in. For the price of three beers a month I get LR5 and PS CS6. No more paying for upgrades. Compared to the price of this hobby, this is one of the cheapest expenses.
The way I read the fine print on Adobe's site this is a bait and switch deal. At the end of your first year, the price will rise to the then "normal" price, which is a heck of a lot more than 3 beers a month.
"RenewalAfter the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering."
Your only choice, then, will be to give up PS or bite the bullet and pay through the nose. Clearly Adobe hopes you'll get so sucked into PS you'll be unwilling to give it up. Typical of DPR's reporting they don't point this out.
The way I read the fine print on Adobe's site this is a bait and switch deal. At the end of your first year, the price will rise to the then "normal" price, which is a heck of a lot more than $10 a month.
Your only choice, then, will be to give up PS or bite the bullet and pay through the nose. Clearly Adobe hopes you'll get so sucked into PS you'll be unwilling to give it up.
Roland Karlsson: Those are pictures. You may, or you may not, like them. That is just fine. It is every ones right to have an opinion, and in the free parts of the world it is also every ones right to voice it.
It is also reasonable to question why DPReview shows them, if that is what you think. It might even be reasonable to question why the photographer spends time doing those (in your opinion) lousy pictures.
But the posts here go way beyond that. It is pure hate, against the art form and the photographer personally. "He should not be allowed to touch a camera again" - etc, etc, etc, ...
As you may have seen, I am one of those that likes some of the images. And there are actually other here that do. So, it seems like they have some kind of value after all.
My advice - do not tell others what kind of images they are allowed to take. And if you have some critique - be nice. Someone may dislike what YOU do.
And some people actually like Engelbert.
The point, though, is that you should criticize the technique, not the person.
DPR, how about when you publish an article about photohraphs, you actually make the photographs big enough to really study. Why only these dinky little images? Let us click through to large images we can actually view.
DPR, PLEASE keep cell phone coverage and real camera coverage separate. I don't care what kind of worthless cr*p you post here on "Connect," be keep it on Connect. Don't put this cr*p on DPR's home page.
Just think, maybe you could actually find room on DPR for articles about real cameras again! What a concept, a camera site that's about cameras!
If I want to read about cell phone photography I can find my way here by myself.
Dimit: To the DPR editors:First thing you were about to do writing down your first impressions would be to search around the diameter dimensions of all mft pancake and small lens as 12,14,17,45 mm,etc.It took me 12 minutes to verify that NONE fits the othewise very interesting camera WITHOUT PROTRUDING OR BEING EQUAL TO THE HIGHT OF GM1 !!!The camera can't ''sit'' on a surface with any lens otherthan 12-32 !The camera should be 0.5 to 2.2 cm higher!!!Glad to have your feedback,Regards..
I almost never take pictures with my camera sitting flat on a surface. Do you? I mean, really, is this that big a deal? When you're using the camera for what it's designed (taking pictures), it's a non-issue.
Wodheila: As others have noted, if this is a Panny/Oly M4/3 mount, why would we need to buy it kitted, at least at first?
Because every other current m43 lens, except the lens cap, are huge compared to the camera.
For all of those who have been complaining that m43 cameras are too big, this is great. Ditto for someone who wants a relatively large sensor camera to keep in their jacket pocket.
For those that care more about ergos and control layout than size, this isn't the right camera. But it sure is great to have choices, and I'm glad Panasonic made it.
For everyone who has found something to complain about on this camera, get over it. There are lots of other cameras to choose from.
ToolMan78: Interesting for people who use their phone as a camera, but I'd love to see an article on new/little known free software for photography enthusiasts. I can personally recommend GIMP, AutoStitch, Light Zone and IrfanView.
Little known to people who care about photography, as opposed to messing around on tiny screens with gimmicky apps designed to make mediocre photos "hipster cool" and post them on facebook.
Gee, when I saw an article referring to photo editing apps I thought this was going to be about real post processing, gimmicky apps designed to let you ruin photos on tiny cell phone screens.
I wish you guys would f'ing leave cell phone articles on your cell phone site, and use the space here for stuff real photographers might care about.
Not allergic to Apple. Not even allergic to smartphones. But I AM allergic to have what is supposed to be a camera site wasting time and resources on both when you can't keep up with reviewing real cameras.
There are plenty of cell phone review sites. You don't need to be another one. Stick to what your many thousands of readers came here for.
11. By dividing short, simple articles across 10 or 12 pages you can get more clicks and make your advertisers happier while annoying your readers.