HowaboutRAW: Just a Photographer:
And the paid for PhotoShop CS5 will remain amazing (like world's best) photo editing software for years to come. It just isn't real useful for extracting raws from cameras released after late 2012.
Sorry but I'm not going to give Adobe $1 dollar a month to keep my programs active. This is why people are looking at other raw extraction software--no not ACR 8, running within LightRoom 5.
Adobe has made the same mistake Microsoft made when MS released the unstable Windows Vista:
Unlike 20 years ago, people who have been using computers for 30 years are now in positions to say: "We'll buy something else or make do with old hardware." Or still from the OS point of view: "Get a Mac or use Linux".
And people who have been regularly using programs of any complexity for the last ten years just say, "Well, let's see what competing programs are out there to download as trialware--they should be easy enough to learn if you can use a computer at all."
The subscription and validation parts are bad, but what really gets me is when you can't or don't want to keep paying. No more software.
Zorak: Still waiting for a simpler way to synchronize pictures with my iPad...
You might want to take a look at Photosmith. http://www.photosmithapp.com/
Would it hurt to put Canon and Nikon in the title so that those of us who don't shoot those can bypass this? Oh, but then we wouldn't get to see the lovely ads.
The lack of raw support alone is a deal-breaker for me. Next....
mlewan: There are loads of people with impressive skills in different areas, who are unable to make money from their skills. Your dentist may be an excellent violinist. Your bus driver a wonderful painter. Your bank clerk a magnificent poet. It is just that they are not quite good enough to make a decent living from it. That is tragic but that is life.
My deepest respect to the skills of the laid off photographers, but time seems to have caught up with their jobs.
I would bet that many of them are BETTER than good enough, but are held back by fear and/or insecurities.
Cane: So if you are outside and don't have wifi, you are stuck using the cable only, like it's 1980?
There is bluetooth functionality (if you have an additional BT receiver dongle), but according to their site they chose to focus on WiFi yet left the BT in. I just got my TT dongle a few days ago, but haven't had much luck with the BT and an old i-Cip BT dongle (which does support A2DP).http://triggertrap.com/ttm-bluetooth/
Timbukto: Pixel peepers making a big difference out of nothing again. Difference between the K-5IIs and K-5II is less than the K-5II and K-5. Yet the difference between the K-5 and K-5II is no difference except testing error where a different focusing point *and* aperture was used. So in a word there is practically no difference in all three except that the K-5IIs is gimmicky in giving some pixel peepers emotional satisfaction at the expense of moire. If slight differences in focus makes a bigger difference at f8 or f9, what do you think makes the biggest difference in real-life at wider apertures? I would have to guess lens performances at wide-open + AF performances of your camera. So the big question here should be how much better is the AF on the K-5 II over K-5
Thanks TomC67, I'm very glad to hear this. Since I got my K-7 in 2009, I've been increasingly less happy with its performance. I checked out the image samples here and on other sites and came to the conclusion that an upgrade from the K-7 was justifiable (and needed in order to resuscitate my favorite hobby!). Just ordered a K-5 IIs earlier today, even before reading these comments. I'm already excited!