And someone said "write second in a row, that makes it sound even more like a trend".
Anyway, thanks for bringing this to our attention.
I think it's the only way for Adobe to continue making money. Nowadays you could easily skip an update and remain with CS3 or CS4. With Adobe CC you cannot do this anymore. It will be more expensive for all people that do not upgrade to every release (almost everyone I assume)! Adobe CC is a business decision, not one that serves customer needs. But please tell me how is that a cloud application? The software is on the desktop, the data is on the desktop, all the calculations are on the desktop: What's that got to do with the cloud? The cloud is mostly a license server.
Of course the first "cloud" the version will not deliver much value, but potential lies ahead, and anyway, I think this is natural evolution of software. We will have to get used to this.
And if Adobe succeeds (and they probably will) others are going to follow. Office 365 only, anyone?
I have the predecessor, the 50-150 f/2.8 HSM II and it's one of my best lenses. I like it a lot.
capteneo: This conversation confirms what I've long believed about the DPReview community: that it consists mostly of tech-heads who care little for the craft of photography. Many of the comments below are predicated on the belief that with expensive equipment comes good photos (a convenient fiction for all of these hobbyists with pricey kits!); few take the perspective that photography is, in fact, art. When you hire a photographer for your wedding, you're commissioning an artist to bring his vision to bear on your event. If said artist is conscientious, the process will surely require much time, effort, and gear. But that's not the point. You're paying for the art, not the bodies and lenses and flashes. Wedding photography is not some mercenary business, like plugging holes in leaky pipes. It's an artistic endeavor. If you're happy with the results that $2000 of raw gear can buy, more power to you. For those who take photography more seriously, the eye of an artist is worth paying for.
I can't hear this pro = artist stuff anymore. It's not true, not if you know real artists. Pros are work horses. An artist makes a painting, a pro paints a wall. Both can make great work, but you can't compare them.
jrg: People getting married have no qualms shelling a lot of money out for limos and flowers, but they immediately moan and complain when they look at prices for a wedding photographer. It’s actually amusing. As the years pass there will ne no limo, no flowers, but the photos will be there as loving testimony to the event.
That's a gross generalization. I think generally people that are getting married pay a premium everywhere. It's not just photography, and trust me, they also don't like the price of the flowers or the limo. The problem is that the other people are selling them goods and the photographer sells a service and the goods later.
$2,500 for phone/internet that seems way too much. I would have believed $500, even $1000, but $2,500 is just overblown.
Anyway the whole calculation is pretty laughable. You can't deduct the yearly costs on the wedding season only. I mean if she still gets out of that with profit, that means that the studio and everything she has is more than paid off in just 4 months and she has 8 months to make real money. Isn't that awesome!? I mean the studio, the car, the whole gear, the shoes (lol!) and everything else is also used during the rest of the year.
I think there's no denying that wedding photography pays of a lot.
nathanleebush: The 60fps continuous shooting is certainly shocking, but who really needs that, besides sports photographers, who are probably unaware of this camera's existence? All the interesting new advanced technology feels very superfluous, while the essential core functionalities we take for granted are frustratingly absent.
I don't remember the exact quote, but Steve Jobs said something to the effect of: if you don't make your own technology obsolete, your competition will.
It seems like Nikon is being very conservative, trying not to undercut its own DSLR dominance, so tepidly entering mirrorless with a bizarre series that doesn't compete with its products, but appeals to nobody in particular. It needs to wake up quickly or Sony, Fuji and everyone else moving slowly into the pro territory with mirrorless refine their products and Nikon becomes the next Kodak.
IF he said that, I highly doubt he used the word "technology" and Apple would be in big danger, because they never made their own technology obsolete. Last time I checked Apple still sold the iPod next to the iPhone, next to the iMac,... And even their newest product, the iPad couldn't put the iMac to rest. They even sell the iPhone 3GS alongside the iPhone 4 alongside the iPhone 4S.
I think the Nikon 1 is generally a very appealing package. If I had to pick the top 3 points from the Pro arguments it would be (in that order) "Good image quality (comparable to 12MP Micro Four Thirds sensor output)", "Very discreet - silent shutter in Electronic shutter mode", and "Exceptional continuous shooting rates - up to 60 fps" followed closely by the hybrid AF.
My favourite would be the J1 because it's more portable, but a few things put me down, especially that it shoots fewer frames in the continuous shooting modes.
The Cons generally do not weigh so much in my opinion. A lot is about lack of control which is only a problem if it's not right in the first place. I'm all for less control if it just works. Admittedly the review suggests it doesn't just work.
However what really puts me down is that wireless flash is not supported. Portraits just look crappy without external flash and I do have an SB-800 that I can put to good use. Oly's PL3 can do it, why can't the J1?
ag0176: I fear time is approaching when we would see the slow demise of the Dino that Nikon is becoming. Over priced Camera systems & Lenses, being sold more on hype and brand value than actual performance and Value-for-Money justification. No real innovation has come out of Nikon portfolio over the last decade, and most of the new product introductions have been me-too offerings at a higher price points.This new format will not offer the potential for performance and IQ on par with the products from Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Olympus, primarily because of the smaller sensor size chosen by Nikon. We all know that Nikon does not manufacture its own sensors, and depends on other fabs for the developments in sensor technology. I fail to see what ground-breaking innovations can Nikon offer with a smaller sensor to wean away enthusiasts from Sony et al;More pros now use Canon than Nikon, and soon serious enthusiasts may start getting attracted away from Nikon.
First, Pros have favored Canon for a while already and actually some are going to Nikon because of the D3 and D3X that eat into the Canon 1D. You didn't see many photojournalists with a Nikon 5 years ago, nowadays there are more. So Nikon's strengthened that.
Second, the Nikon 1... What's a Pro got to do with it? They're certainly the least targeted audience. Targets are casual people that would turn to a G(F/H), Pen, or NEX instead.
> No real innovation has come out of Nikon portfolio over the last decade
That's the most bs sentence I have ever read. The D3/D300 combo were an absolute innovation at their time. The D3 was extremely well received in the Pro world. The D90 the first DSLR with video. Nikon built a compact camera that allows to project images onto a wall. That's another innovation. I don't know where on the moon you live...
Jason Butler: Hooey! This left brain - right brain nonsense has been dis-proven and only serves as fodder for self-help tracts. The idea of distinct functions between brain hemispheres stems from 40 year-old research that has been superseded many times since then. (Note how the author cites an art book from 1979.)
Just as star signs belong to astrology, not astronomy, split-brain theories belong to phrenology, not neuroscience or psychology.http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2007/06/left-brain-right-brain-myth.htmlhttp://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htmhttp://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/10/the_left_brain_right_brain_myt.php
No, it's just wrong to take any argument, present it as true and then base your own point on it. That doesn't make sense, besides spreading that left brain right brain stuff around should really stop. What would you say if he claims the world was flat and then makes a point of how that influences photography? Because that's pretty similar to what he does.
"The left hemisphere, or L-Mode as it's called in the book, is the objective, rational, and linear thinking part of the pair, and it handles the verbal, written, and number-crunching aspects of life. The right side, or R-Mode, is the subjective, intuitive side, and is the side that processes audio / visual content."
You're basing all your argument on the information of a single book from 30 years ago! That information is completely outdated and all of today's neuroscientists are shaking their head about this. Some even go out to the general public to talk about this and that it's simply not true. I've attended such a series of talks and in the first part she explicitely spoke only about the "difference" between the two brain parts. There is NONE (a.k.a. no significant in science terms)! The brain is symmetric, processing occurs on both parts.
Do the world a favor and stop this whole left-right brain bull***, take the whole article down, contact a neuroscientist and rewrite it.
Good hint and finally I know why I never save higher than 10.