qwertyasdf: DPR, go with the times!I just need to know which camera is best for selfies period
If you're planning a career in politics you'll need a camera that's good for "selfies".
onlooker: dual12 wrote:"A gold award means nothing."
Barney Britton responded:"@ dual12 - really?"
I also agree with dual12. Barney, DPR produces great reviews with a lot of data points. One needs to read them carefully and make up his mind based on how the camera fits his needs. I remember long time ago Olympus 3040Z did not get "Highly Recommended" (equivalent of "Gold" back in those days). Yet, based on the info in the review I bought it, and it was the best compact I ever had, period - for me.
It sounds like the gold award means the camera is more fun to use which is fine but it's like giving an Olympic champion a gold medal for being the most popular.
Still, if gold means the camera is fun, it's nice to know that most cameras are a lot of fun.
RStyga: Let's us dispense with the myth that all "professional" photographers know exactly what they want or what it is required. I have seen a fair share of them not having a clue about what gear to buy, not only because they fail to follow the industry's rapid changes (understandable to a certain a extent) but also because they don't even know basic technological terminology (e.g. what is VC/IS/OIS/IS).
There is a significant difference between a person who makes money out of taking photographs, a photographer (in the artistic sense), and one who knows about photographic technology and application. Neither category implies any of the other.
In most fields, a professional is someone who, among other things, knows a bit more than everybody else. My dentist wouldn't qualify but my doctor would.
With cameras, all that is required to be a professional is to call yourself one. That's it. And that's why the president's personal photographer and Ken Rockwell are both seasoned pros.
JDThomas: It's a custom handmade camera of which only FOUR were made and this is the only one that the whereabouts can be accounted for.
If it were a rare prototype Ford Model T nobody would blink an eye. But it's a Leica so idiotic judgements must be passed about "rich people showing off their wealth".
Guess what? Rich people show off their wealth all the time WITHOUT Leicas. They fly around in private jets, drive expensive (new and antique) cars, and pay exorbitant amounts of money for rare food.
So what if a rich person is a camera enthusiast and wants to own a rare hand-made camera? How's that different than some rich car-lover buying a rare one-of-a-kind automobile?
I don't know if it's still true but in Japan, collectibles (cameras, guitars, cars if you had room) were a tax dodge.
The other day, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. The folks at Antiques Roadshow were way off, even at the time for a real Luxus. The reason this stuff is in decline these days is that people who know the history and importance are leaving the scene.
Still a lot of dough for a little camera with no phone, no plastic, and--yikes--a viewfinder. No multitasking with this thing.
First, I look for a camera with a gold award. That doesn't narrow things down much so then I see what Ken Rockwell recommends and buy something else.
spiderhunter: It appears that Canon and Nikon are so complacent with their toaster-sized DSLRs that they are blind to what is going around them. They can reduce the size of things but they just don't do it. The song "the times they are a-changing" comes to mind. Sure, they still have their lion's share of the pro market but I feel Sony has rocked the boat. The Sony FF mirrorless are still not there yet when it comes to AF tracking abilities ( but great for non-action work) and battery life but given time and more RD, they will get there. I hope the size of truly capable pro models will get lighter, not heavier.
Hand phones got lighter and smaller. The early models were gigantic by comparison. Compactness and portability is what manufacturers should aim for. Yes, there is a limit as to how small FF lenses can go but striving to reduce sizes and making things lighter are surely the way to go.
Go Sony, go! Show them the way!
It seems there will always be companies who insist on making money from traditional designs this while innovators like Sony don't make money from cameras. Wake up, Nikon & Canon! There's money to be lost and you're missing out on it.
Cane: So funny listening to people's viewfinder battle. Are any of you really trying to convince the other side of something? It's like yelling at clouds.
There are no sides. And it isn't a battle. Like it, buy it. Don't, don't.
There's no reason Nikon or Canon or...even Sigma couldn't make a lens this good--if size, weight and price were not a consideration.
ThePhilips: Wow. I'm talking about the price: wow.
At that price, instead of taking photographs, it's cheaper to invite the models personally.
True, but the Canon f/1 is not intended for the same purpose as Otis so there is no way to compare the two.
razadaz: I think the foundations to all this were set when Adobe started requiring activation for their products back with CS2. First it was a case of anonymous activation, later they started to require full details of everything down to your shoe size. Now it's pay by the month. Eventually I believe they will move all their software into “the cloud” to make pirating impossible as no installation will exist on your computer. Bit by bit we were led like lambs to the slaughter. I have always thought it was a shame that more people didn't complain when they first brought in activation. It never prevented piracy it was just the first step on a slippery path to total control.
Newcomers to photography will sign up to this because they have never known anything different. After all, this is the generation that happily sign up to a 56 page itunes agreement.
This reminds me of when Verizon calls and I explain I love the phones but the data plan is not happening. But if you think $60+ a month is ok for a phone I guess you'll hardly notice another $10 for software. Alll these necessities add up.
onlooker: For those who say Adobe is doing great and subscriptions are overflowing - let me explain to you a basic business fact - NO BUSINESS WILL LOWER PRICES IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO. To do otherwise would be utterly idiotic. So when Adobe slashes the price in half, please don't tell me their program is doing great.
You would think this would be obvious but apparently not.
sandy b: Just signed up. The 9.99 is considered a standard price. Locked for a year. Sales guy said it may go up next year, or may not. I told him about the response here, he laughed and said they have sold 30,000 subscriptions in just the last two days, and that the subscribers he signs up are very happy.
They're breakin' down the doors so you must act fast. The $20 offer was so successful, they're doing it for $10. Order before midnight tomorrow and we'll throw in a Ginsu knife and non-stick skillet.
But you never know; the price might go up next year.
iJoost: Subscription ware sucks. Adobe can go play with themselves. Paid for PS CS3 through CS6 and that'll have been the last time they got my money. I'm done with them.
What about people who upgraded only every other version or even less often, due to the perceived lack of value and the need to re-discover where they moved all the icons?
Richard Murdey: Adobe are offering their software at a special discount bundle price of $60 a year each for LR and Photoshop.
DPreview members: "No! The horrible scum! I'm never giving them any money again!"
I'm telling you now: You guys are a strange bunch.
And you get two applications for the price of two. You have can pay $120 per year or just $60 for every six months. Or just $3.04 a day. The bottom line is, for most people, it's not the money; it's the renting.
plugger4: If you have not realised software is becoming commoditised and the undeniable trend is that the days of software being tied to a computer are over and thank god for this. The future is about device/platform independence, apps and your data always accessible, innovation delivered simultaneously across all of your devices and a commercial model that allows you to jump in and out of the service.
I for one applaud adobe for their move to the cloud and for the moment I will invest in their service and if someone else produces a better service in the future I may switch.
Adobe are a commercial organisation providing a service for a fee and if you like the service great if not invest elsewhere.
Apparently, the future is paying for lots of things not once, but every month and telling yourself they're "investments". They had better be, because they're won't be much left after all the subscription fees.
NJOceanView: From what I can tell, this is best for people who *don't* have the prerequisite CS/LR products already (CS3+). The link below from DPR shows that if you *do* have those prerequisites, the $9.99/month price is guaranteed for life.
As the saying goes, guaranteed for life, if you don't live too long. I cannot imagine they will be happy with $10 a month for long.
Confused of Malvern: "Through December 2, 2013...." ? What ghastly grammer!
Come on DPReview, you can do better than that - either "Until 2nd December.." or "Up to and including 2nd December..."
It's grammar, not grammer.
DesertRat2012: In the final analysis it's a matter of legal licenses. Just as Apple revolutionized the world of media distribution by selling cheap licenses via internet, major software developers are also trying to capture at least some compensation for their efforts from more than a miniscule fraction of their actual user base. Having just returned to the USA from Latin America I can tell stories of major design firms circulating a single 'broken' copy of CS to be installed by the 25 or more menbers of their design team. The real question, in fact, being whether or not the firm had actually purchased even a single license in the first place. Maybe it's time that we in the US and Western Europe, where the threat of litigation might actually carry some weight, are ready to stop subsidising development costs for the entire world.
Unfortunately, it is not the fault of people who buy and use software legally. The world has changed and intellectual property has no meaning in much of the world. That's not Adobe's fault and it's not my fault, either.
While I deplore schemes that make you pay every month for the rest of your life, the number of smart phone users suggests people are willing to rent instead of buy if it means enough to them.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review