This is honestly the kind've thing that makes me so suspicious of this entire digital photo world that we live in now. At the drop of a hat some CEO can determine that everything is obsolete. I have negatives dating back over 40 years that I can still make prints from. But, will my RAW files be able to be opened in ANYTHING 40 years from now?
Jay A: Isn't CS6 still available in many retail outlets for purchase? I think that if it is, it kind've stinks that Adobe is doing this. While I can understand the push for the cloud, they really should wait till CS6 products have been off the retail shelves for a decent amount of time before allowing customers to spend a few hundred dollars on a product only to tell them that the camera they may buy in 6 months won't be supported. It's almost like buying a car and a week later telling the customer "oh by the way, there won't be any batteries made for that car anymore."
Yes but Photoshop relies on ACR to open RAW files.
Isn't CS6 still available in many retail outlets for purchase? I think that if it is, it kind've stinks that Adobe is doing this. While I can understand the push for the cloud, they really should wait till CS6 products have been off the retail shelves for a decent amount of time before allowing customers to spend a few hundred dollars on a product only to tell them that the camera they may buy in 6 months won't be supported. It's almost like buying a car and a week later telling the customer "oh by the way, there won't be any batteries made for that car anymore."
Apple is too busy building watches and looking into purchasing auto companies to bother with its old customer base.
>>>>>I agree. I have a Sigma lens but have not yet purchased the dock. I've thought that would be a good service for bricks and mortar camera retailers to offer for a small charge. It could help build a stronger relationship with their customers.<<<<<
Frankly, I don't think many retailers would want to put themselves in a position to screw something up on a customer's lens (or camera for that matter) by providing an update for something that is under manufacturer's warranty or that which the manufacturer is responsible for.
What a perfect comment on modern day society...centuries ago, the lands were forcefully taken for personal use out of greed and disregard for the native Americans who lived on those lands. Today, as with much of everything, that is not enough and instead, the powers to be look for ways to maximize their profits off of it.
Ok, something I don't understand...if the 1/32000 shutter speed cannot be used for fast moving objects, what's the point?Just so one doesn't have to use ND filters to keep the aperture wide?
It's really very easy to make fun of Leica pricing and I do agree that the expense is rather a bit much for a camera and lenses, but two things come to mind...1 - I think pretty much ALL cameras are way over expensive to the point of being ridiculous. I mean come on now, thousands of dollars for camera bodies?2 - Even with the expense I have to admit that my M240 and the two lenses that I own to use on it (35 and 50 summilux) produce some of the finest looking files that I have gotten out of ANY of the digital cameras I have used in the past 20 years, and that's been quite a few. Yes, I worked hard to be able to afford what I have, but the Leica files actually have color, contrast, micro contrast, sharpness and a general look to them that make the expense worthwile as far as I am concerned.
So this question may have already been answered someplace but I haven't seen it...how did the photos get on the internet to begin with? If the camera owner put them there, I am sorry but I think he is naive for expecting that they would be taken down. They are probably all over the place by now.
Can't ANYTHING be brought into the marketplace anymore without SOME kind of issue?
Not sure I understand the arguments in this thread about these photos. Fact is, some will like them, some will not. What's that got to do with hate?Personally, I think they are very skillful, professional looking images, but at the same time they are probably the corniest, and most contrived collection of images I have ever seen. I hate nothing nor no one here, I am just giving an honest opinion based on over 50 years of doing, studying and teaching photography as an art form.Take my comments as you will...accept them or reject them. But take them at face value, as they are honest feelings that I have about these images.
Tried this in a store with a metabones lens adapter to try out some Canon AF lenses on it. Not sure if there was something wrong with the camera or adapter, but it took about 6 seconds for the combo to achieve auto focus.
Been doing photography for literally 50 years and I must say I am getting more disgusted with the industry every single day.
It's not just Nikon!
I've been wishing for a retro Nikon like an FM2 or F3 Nikon digital for years, but I too think this will flop. It looks more like a combination of both and frankly I think it looks ridiculous.
Good example of how Nikon just doesn't get it. I am sure people have been asking for a retro camera like an FM2 or F3 style but this looks more like a false front building like those used in western films out of Hollywood. It looks kind've ridiculous really.
Why exactly IS Adobe keeping customers credit cards on file if all the customers had done is purchase copies of software online? I can see if it's to periodically pay for the cloud crap, but if one just purchases something, isn't it illegal to actually hold onto a credit card number once the transaction has been completed?
The biggest thing Nikon has going against themselves is their own arrogance. They feel that just because they are Nikon that consumers will flock to their products when something new comes out. What essentially happens instead is that people stay away because a lot of these products (the 1 system, the Coolpix A are 2 great examples) are simply overpriced for what they are. Perception is that one can get as good as, if not better than by going with Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, or Ricoh than by spending a few hundred dollars more for essentially the same item from Nikon.Wake up Nikon...look what happened to Leica using similar practices.
Yes but can it do 3d?
>>>>>Every camera in this price range must answer this honest question is it better then the Sony RX100 for the same price ??? The answer on this one is a huge NO .. Another one bites the dust<<<<<
How exactly do you make this determination without ever having shot with the camera? Seriously....the RX100 is a nice point and shoot camera, but I would take ANY of the Fuji cameras over it.
The problem with this poll is that it asks you to choose one concern. If it were only one concern from those listed, I would have no problem responding and I would probably have no problem signing up. However it's all 4, having to repeatedly pay, the pricing, having to connect, and uncertainty. The combination of all those things will force me to move to another solution.