The theory being that Nikon designed this for "serious photographers" who only take photographs... hence the reason they left video off of it?
I'm sorry - I know a good many "serious" professional photographers - and today, they've had to adapt to include video in some of their work as that is what the client is asking for. Nikon just excluded a whole swath of potential buyers with an assumption.
As my Grandfather always said, "NEVER assume".
I've tried it and it's interesting, but then when you try to share your photo on Facebook, it wants permission "to post things to your friends on your behalf". Um - NO THANKS. Throwing my friends under the bus to get ads from these people just to share a photo isn't what I call friendly.
FYI - if anyone uses Internet Explorer the 3D effect won't work, either. They have to view it in Firefox or Chrome.
I'm just wondering if it's possible for Jony Ive to say anything about anything without sounding like he's tripping on Heroin at the moment (reading above - I'm guessing not).
Aside from that however, and I am one who normally enjoys objects that look like "art" - I have to say this looks like something I'd see in an advertisement from Toys-R-Us for a Black Friday sale for a child's toy camera. I can perhaps see a 14 year old Japanese girl wearing one of these around her neck, though. So maybe there are enough of them with wealthy Fathers to justify the cost of developing it.
I've only done one pano with my 5S since getting it, but it was done very well and the lighting was surprisingly good. More details than I expected, too.
I wish Apple had done more in the way of settings, though - allowing you to choose the direction you wish to pan, such as from bottom to top if you wanted to do a pano of something really tall like a Redwood tree, etc.
People whine too much.
Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.
Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.
After so long, still no update to the G1X. Wow. Gotta wonder what they're smoking in those tiny little cubicles they sit in over there.
I think the Olympus 2100 UZ deserves the award though for one of the best cameras of that time period. I still have one today that works perfectly and while I really don't use it, will always keep it for the sake of nostalgia. Excellent zoom, lens, and features for that time.
It included those little extras that were considered high-end then like a beam to help the focusing, threaded lens for filters, and image stabilization. And back then camera makers only came out with 3-4 new models per year, max, and took the time to test the stuff before shipping it out - today they use consumers as testers who report bugs and glitches that have to be fixed with firmware later. A different time, for sure.
Tons of promise for this, and I'd love to be able to own one to be honest, and would even consider dealing with some of the limitations of a Win8 phone to do it. But there is *no way* I'm switching from Verizon to AT&T to get this phone.
Exclusives are not practical today. Regardless of whatever padding a carrier is paying you to do it, you're alienating tons of potential buyers. By the time it eventually leaks over to other carriers, who knows how many potential buyers will have already resigned on a new contract with a different phone? Bad move.
CS6 was my last "purchase" from Adobe (and they didn't even offer me a DVD - it was download only). It will be my last, so I'll just keep using it until one day when the Windows OS advances to the point where It won't work any longer.
I have no doubt that a subscription service works for SOME people, and for those - "hurrah". But it doesn't work for everyone, and that's why for customers who you supposedly appreciate, you offer CHOICES - and Adobe has decided to no longer appreciate a percentage of their customer base by no longer offering those choices.
Call me old school - I like to buy something and hold it. Then buy it later when I choose to upgrade. Adobe no longer wants people like me, or my money, and that's fine - Corel has already said they DO want us, so I'll be doing future business with them: http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014
At least two of the major local news channels here in Atlanta decided not long ago to give each of their field reporters iPhones and "let them do the work" of taking photos and videos at news scenes, on top of them having to send in a field report.
The results so far are disastrous, though if you asked the editors at the news stations they'd probably say differently.
News viewers are now subject to iPhone reports with compressed, blurry, jerky video with bad sound for our "news". Way to go.
Personally, I only use a few plug-ins from Topaz, and they work fine in Paint Shop Pro, though I did have to do some digging to find out how to properly install them.
Corel's only real issue was one that I think a lot of developers made over the years - they just at some point threw their hands up and surrendered to Adobe, knowing they had the monopoly on the game, and weren't quite as innovative with their updates as they COULD have been. Corel for example probably has one of the better alternatives, but they did not continue to mature some of their built-in filters like the CA/Frings filter, noise reduction, etc, and just kept adding a few fluff features with each update.
Adobe's recent booboo will HOPEFULLY cause Corel (and others) to snap out of the coma they've all been in for the last few years, and start cranking the wheels of innovation out again - it's the perfect opportunity to do it. Let's hope they do.
I suppose this would be cool (if it were 1895). But we have smart phones now and that's probably "an app for that", regardless.
Corel's special pricing offers for CS users are still good for a while, too: http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014
This will to some degree, have a bit of an effect on whether some decide to buy upgraded cameras or stick with what they have. Those who "bought" CS6 but who won't get new Camera Raw updates will be hesitant to upgrade cameras now as they may not wish to use the maker's bundled software or Lightroom, etc. Adobe's decision will in fact, have a domino effect like this - what remains to be seen is how many dominoes wind up falling.
In terms of Corel's Paint Shop Pro, they are doing a promo to offer discounts to Adobe users, too. Link: http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014
Nikonworks: You did not include PhotoPefect, one of the best programs available.
Looks decent enough, but at $80, I'd be more tempted to go the Paint Shop Pro route.
(Sound of Applause).
THANK YOU Dpreview for this article, allowing people to see their alternatives, some of whom they may not have been familiar with.
Options are good - especially now.
I've said it before, but it stands repeating... I've been impressed at how quickly Corel has stepped up to the plate regarding this issue with an official statement, and now only days later, offers for CS users...
I think Corel and others had a "defeated" attitude in the past, thinking "why bother" to try to overthrow Photoshop when it was so firmly entrenched. But now that Adobe has stepped in the Cow pattie, so to speak, it gives Corel an excellent opportunity if they are smart and put enough resources into it, to actually overthrow the King. I wish them the best. Have Paint Shop Pro X5 Ultimate now on my system and can say it's certainly an improvement over past versions.
Corel is actually responding fairly quickly to this now. Here's their new ad to offer discounts to CS users...
While Paint Shop Pro in particular may not be QUITE equal to Photoshop in all ways, in a few other ways, it's actually better. Folks should at least give it a try. I think we all agree that relatively few folks actually use ALL of the features in Photoshop - most don't even know what they all are without some training. PSP might be a good alternative for those who want something more than "Elements" but don't really need Photoshop.
JM67 has a good idea, or he steered in the right direction regarding RAW converter test of the past.
I think that if Dpreview is on most folks side regarding this issue, they should do a good article comparing "Photoshop Alternatives" as well as RAW converter software, so folks will know exactly what's out there. People are aware of a handful but I'm sure there are others that we typically don't think of.