citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.
This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.
@ W5JCK - simple solution... dont subscribe! You'll happily drop $2k every 2yrs on a new body but $240 for the same 2years on the best editing software out there is a ripoff... rich! And no... no drama in your post at all!
Samuel Dilworth: Paving the path to subscription-only Lightroom, as feared …
I long for the old days of selling something the customer wants at a fair price. Why is this model so untenable?
@skytripper - "Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."Adobe holding a gun to your head to use CC? Threatened violence to you or yours? Yeah, didn't think so... exaggerate much?
Kim Letkeman: One question: Does LR CC change the database in any way to make it incompatible with LR 5? Because that would completely blow their concession out of the water ...
Edit: It seems like there will be a perpetual license upgrade to LR 6 at some point. One supposes that it would be acceptable to try LR CC for a year or two and then drop back to perpetual license version, even if forced to upgrade to maintain compatibility. But since Adobe have a poor backward compatibility record, this remains a point of concern.
No Kim it does not change the db at all between 5.5 and CC
PS CS6 is still available as a stand alone product for all the conspiracy theorists out there. Amazon even has it on a special conspiracy pricing as well...http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-Old-Version/dp/B007R0RKV8
Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?
How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?
Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?
The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.
@ quiquaeLR Cat will not become unreadable if CC is discontinued as LR is still a standalone product and a lot (me included) have LR5.X as a stand alone product already.
PS files that I back up? RAW, JPG and TIF - pretty much readable by any editing product out there. Adobe(CC) stops working - DL a copy of CS6 and you have access to all your PSDs.
Do you seriously think Adobe is going anywhere? Personally, I really couldn't care less what you use; I'm happy with CC as for me, its a lot cheaper and easier than buying full blown LR/PS and doing upgrades every version.
Prognathous: The only thing you need to know: the $10 photography bundle is a trap.
Quote from Adobe's membership contract:
"The price of your one-year commitment (as reflected in the monthly installment amounts) may change for your next annual renewal, and we’ll provide you notice of a change by email"
In short, nothing but a teaser price. Get ready to pay through the nose as soon as you've created enough project files and can't properly open them by anything else. Good luck being Adobe's hostage.
@ Mark Alan Thomas...Yep, all of us who subscribe are "suckers, apologists and self loathing". So typical of the average DPR user that it always end up in insulting those you dont agree with.
Go use Gimp or whatever app you love and I'll continue to use LR/PS.
What happens if your cable provider goes out of business? Your cell phone company? Your car company? Your bank? Look, no one is forcing you to use Adobe, there are lots of free options and paid option; use one of them and quit stressing over Adobe.
There actually are people who prefer this method of software delivery. If Adobe goes under, who cares? I back up all my files, I have no brand loyalty and I use whatever fits my workflow.
Perpetually licensed software... and what do you do when you buy a new body? Continue forever shooting jpg's or upgrade to the "latest" PS and/or LR?
I love how people come to DPR to complain about $10/month to Adobe and yet have no issue shelling out thousands of $ in a scramble to buy the latest and greatest body.
Name me something that doesn't go up? Oh wait a min... everything is a trap! <sigh>
NoCoShutter: The cloud...What could possibly go wrong?
So all the creatives (like me) who needed to use Adobe software logins today should all take a paid vacations today. Paid by Adobe, of course. Right, Adobe?
Not sure what your issue is; the software still works, you just don't have access to "the cloud". If your storing unfinished projects there then lesson learned I guess.
String: So half the names on here bitching about Adobe have no issue giving Canikon $2000 plus every time a new camera comes out but balk at subscribing to the most powerful/useful software out there at $10/month?
While $2000 will buy me 20yrs of PS/LR
rickpoole: Right now I spend a average of $40/yr on photo software. Switching to CC would more than triple that amount. More than I'd care to spend but not outrageous. But, with the prospect that if I choose to end my subscription my software will stop working rather than just stop updating it is and always will be a no go - regardless of the price.
And that is your choice. If you are happy with it, why are you complaining?
Retzius: Folks will gripe and moan about a developer charging $40 a year to give them a web based app with seamless photo editing integration across platforms but then go out for dinner and blow $50 for a couple burgers and beers and think nothing of it...
How on earth do you lose all your photos? Is all you are saving are raw files? No tif or jpegs? Thats not an Abode issue, that's a user issue. Bitch more please.
So half the names on here bitching about Adobe have no issue giving Canikon $2000 plus every time a new camera comes out but balk at subscribing to the most powerful/useful software out there at $10/month?
Mel Snyder: I've never been a MFT fan - I believe size matters in sensors - but at under 800 ISO, this is impressive. For those who shoot in high light levels and post only on the web, this camera will do very well - impressively,
It was interesting to see how much better the lowly A3000 is than this camera over IS0 800. One poster who claims to have sent back his A7r and bought this for the IBIS must have been shooting under high light levels, because there's no comparison. If the A3000 sensor i what is in the A6000, I'd think that's a better machine for those who don't need IBIS to take slow shutter speed shots.
I guess if Olympus could pack this performance in a package as small as my old Olympus XA, just about any photographer could rationalize buying it as a true pocket rocket. But in a size and price competitive with small APS-C DSLRs, it will remain a niche product appealing mostly to MFT fans who can't afford or justify the top-of-the-line model.
"A camera that only does well under ISO 800 is useless. To me."
And that has what exactly to do with the EM-10 review?
Mel, the problem with that logic is that even though your shooting with a small APS-C body, your still very limited in lend choice. Neither Canon or Nikon has a very rounded out lens selection for them which forces you to go to their FF selection. Not very ideal. Both P and O have excellent lenses for the m43 sensor.And if you believe that this is a sensor only for showing images on the web, sorry but you really have no clue.
BuckarooBanzai: Nikon's strategy is confusing. I know they don't want mirrorless sales to encroach on their DSLR sales when they price their new mirrorless kit higher than all their other DSLR kits except the D7100 (which can be purchased for $96 more on Amazon in the US).
"Yes! 20FPS, which is great for... ?"
People who need to shoot 60 images in the hope that 1 might be good? :)
mdmiataman: I have an APS C Nikon D5100 and three lenses, a Lumix GX7 and three lenses and my waterproof Olympus TG-2. I have all the bases covered. Why would anyone spend $1200 for a smaller sensor camera than a M 4/3 with limited lens choices is beyond me. My Nikon DX lens choices are about 50, and Panasonic and Olympus M 4/3 choices are about 40 and increasing in numbers monthly. Nikon 1 V3 is a waste of time,.. and money !!! ..to quote Ken Rockwell, " It's always better to spend your time and money on learning art and photography, not by spending it on more cameras. "
Quoting ken Rockwell is an even bigger waste of time :P
Graham Hill: It's a mirrorless camera....no one will care.
Mirrorless sales are tanking hard.
As are DSLR sales. Your point is?
Kodachrome200: it does look like a joy to use though compared to other mirrorless cams
Like what; the EM-1, the XT-1, the EM-5, the GH-4, the XE-2?
Sounds like Nikon aren't the only ones who are delusional...