Seems very similar to the Olympus SP-100, Fuji S9800/S9900. Same kind of thing as the Canon SX530. I seem to recall someone mentioning that they are made in the same place - just minor changes (China?) and badged for the eventual rep company.
Zvonimir Tosic: And DPR recommends … Nikon D7100?Gosh, both 7DII and K-3 are far superior machines, kings of this category. Both in capability, ruggedness, and one in price too. And we are supposed to trust DPR’s ability to acknowledge truth and facts?Good Lord, what is going on with this site?
Bossa;The categories and rankings by DPReview do seem to be somewhat - loose - if I may use that word here. As in somewhat undefined and open to interpretation. And that it is means that the reviews based on it can be open to the same comment. I'm with you though - they can be accused of showing bias here. But then again their whole ratings system does have a large amount of subjectiveness to it and as a review somewhat impossible to have he bias removed. I would think that the K3 would be a better machine than the 7100 as would both the 7DMkii and Alpha 77 Mkii. Whether either the 7DMkii or Alpha 77Mkii would be a better camera than the K3 may depend on intended use. I can't help but think however that if Pentax created the 7100 and Nikon the K3 we'd see the that the Nikon K3 would easily win over the Pentax 7100. After all I believe I read that Thom Hogan called the K3 the Nikon D400 that Nikon didn't make.
stern: DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
Mr. Tharp - you seem bitter about that lens thing. Go ahead and have a chat with Mr. Hogan on that.
Heie2: ahahahahahahaha recommend the D7100 over the K-3.
Mr Tharp - how many DX lens does Nikon have? And how many do Pentax have? Now I know you'll say that Nikon can use the FX lens but you know they aren't optimal for the DX system. And if we add the Tamron and Sigma DX lens to Pentax and Nikon why the Pentax still has more DX lens. It seems that if you are a Nikon DX user you have far more to complain to Nikon about.
Gimp and Rawtherapee. Better. Free.Or if you want to pay - Corel's PSP x7 at $79 Canadian. Better. At Adobe's upgrade price.
peevee1: Did they all sign a model release? If no, the pictures are not photographer's, are they?
to graybalanced - I take it god may be some ticked at all of us then.
PhotoHawk: Truly disappointing - nothing new here. It is the same Olympus strategy we've seen before. The same box, slightly different dials, same IQ, same sensor, the same performance. Do you want fries with this or do you want home fries.
Think back to the EP1, EP2, EP3, EPL1, EPL1s, EPL2, EPL3, EPM1, E600, E620,E5. All use the same sensor and pretty much have the same IQ. Different form factors but we don't even have that really in three models of OMD.
If someone can slam Canon for reusing the 18 MP sensor in many bodies then we should be critical of Olympus as well.
Now Fuji - thats exciting! They are moving the bar forward fast. And say what you want about Sony but clearly they are moving quicker as well.
To Revio;The EM5 (the EM5 is currently $899 with 12-50mm lens and the E10 is $699 body only) and EM10 aren't that far apart in price at this moment. Which would you like French Fries or Home Fries?
To Thorgem;No, their best sensor is not moving any ball forward. In that same time frame Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Pentax, Samsung and Panasonic have all upgraded their sensors and their electronics. Olympus is repackaging the EM5. Its not new - only an EM5 without some features and with some other from another model.
Truly disappointing - nothing new here. It is the same Olympus strategy we've seen before. The same box, slightly different dials, same IQ, same sensor, the same performance. Do you want fries with this or do you want home fries.
PhotoHawk: There are much better programs out there for editing photographs than PS Elements for the same price or less. Frankly the GIMP and Rawtherapee combination is far more capable for $149.99 USD less. If one would want a current commercial package the latest versions of Corel's products are quite a bit more comprehensive.
Sorry - you are correct BacPacker - $99.
You are correct HowaboutRAW - Rawtherapee is quite a bit more featured than the crippled ACR in Elements. And yes I find DXO or C1 better than ACR for many things. Certainly better than ACR in Elements.
There are much better programs out there for editing photographs than PS Elements for the same price or less. Frankly the GIMP and Rawtherapee combination is far more capable for $149.99 USD less. If one would want a current commercial package the latest versions of Corel's products are quite a bit more comprehensive.
This new twist pretty much signals Adobe figures it made a mistake. They have lost "face" with this move. Now what Adobe? My bet is that you'll relent and introduce a model that also provides for a purchase of the software as before. Even if you are making a profit on this snafu you certainly have seriously eroded your brand. And trust is very, very hard to regain.
My strategy? DXO Optics and Gimp - I have and use both with excellent results. I'll eventually retire my CS5 and from then on its DXO and Gimp.
I may look at the Corel products and I have Capture 1 as well. But Adobe you are NOT getting another buck out of me!
Reminds me of Kurt Vonneguts Player Piano. Only question is whether the professional photographers will become reeks or wrecks.On the other hand should a monkey become able to write a book all authors will work for peanuts. Some would have us believe we are already there. Why would photography be any different?
PhotoHawk: Lets see now - the camera division lost 23B Yen - that's about $230M dollars (1 dollar = 100 yen) So if they stop making low end P&S cameras they still won't stem the loss. They may pare it down by about $20-25M but not outright eliminate it. And that savings is predicated on losses of $10 for every PS camera they eliminated assuming that loss on average for the 2.4M cameras they will take from their forecast (5.1M to 2.7M units). So clearly they will need to do something else. And they already have made some fairly severe cuts. And they have already curtailed R&D dollars to the Imaging Division. Unfortunately without some surprising products, something that will disrupt the market, Olympus's imaging division may be another future Kodak story.
peevee1 - my figures are a guess. I admit that. But what they were intended to show is that the merely saying that they will stop the V Series and cut some more production will not stem the loss from the camera division. Not even close.There is a word for this strategy - its called market sector retreat and if you do enough of it your critical mass disappears. Olympus already has this problem arguably and we see it in many areas. This retreat here may make the ability to generate a going concern worse, not better, unless this strategy is accompanied by something other than retreat.
Lets see now - the camera division lost 23B Yen - that's about $230M dollars (1 dollar = 100 yen) So if they stop making low end P&S cameras they still won't stem the loss. They may pare it down by about $20-25M but not outright eliminate it. And that savings is predicated on losses of $10 for every PS camera they eliminated assuming that loss on average for the 2.4M cameras they will take from their forecast (5.1M to 2.7M units). So clearly they will need to do something else. And they already have made some fairly severe cuts. And they have already curtailed R&D dollars to the Imaging Division. Unfortunately without some surprising products, something that will disrupt the market, Olympus's imaging division may be another future Kodak story.
Kinematic Digit: I wonder how many people would complain if you could use a new Nikon D800E, Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx or a Canon 5Dmk3 for $19 a month and then after a year decided to return it?
It wouldn't be $19 per month. Take a look at the camera rentals. Adobe is charging $19 per month for a product that costs $399. For a product that costs $3999 it would be $190 month on the same upgrade cycle. Put like that its a pretty expensive lease isn't it? No residual value and no ownership.
johnvr1: I don't think Adobe cares one iota about our opinion, at least not the CEO and his pals. But I do think they care about the market, which so far has pushed Adobe stock down since the announcement. It's down more than 2% so far this morning, while the overall market is just a bit in the negative. If this trends holds, the financial media will tag on, and Adobe might well have to revert its decision because of market pressure.
Right jkoch2 - who said Photoshop wasn't carrying its weight? It might have been the only product that was. Which led them to "mine" it more.Care to guess how much marginal profit there is in software download for an upgrade to CS6? Pretty much the majority of the $199 USD. With their current strategy they will have less subscription service than they could have and no upgrade licenses than if they thought this through a bit more.
John Haugaard: So, how many of the cry babies here have paid $3 for a cup of coffee recently. That was really worth it. So, Photoshop is a tool that can facilitate your career, or let you practice your craft. Make a decision as to whether it is worth it. If not, then move on. Use the GIMP, or some splendid Corel product, or whatever. Make a decision. Move on.
John;I don't think you understand at all. Many of us have a significant investment in Adobe. And this was undoubtedly factored in and taken advantage of by Adobe. A good many of us in this and other threads will evaluate our investment and make choices. What we are saying to Adobe and to you as well is "we don't like being taken advantage of." To you personally you exhibit as much empathy as Adobe has. Do you work for Adobe?
jkoch2: Adobe's decision won't be solo. Revenues from software sales are destined to stagnate or decline, unless the publishers adopt a similar way to convert their products into a sort of rental service. The old model, which involved sale of new products, followed by periodic upgrades, will fail as the margins of improvements and the motivation to pay for upgrades both narrow.
Adobe has numerous competitors, each offering programs similar to PS or Premier, for relatively low prices. Most are either losing money or face a decline in margins parallel to the collapse in sales of P&S cameras or camcorders. The dip in PC sales also cuts the opportunity to sell to people who upgrade a desktop and want new software to go with it. Tablets, meanwhile, were born for "cloud" applications, since their on-board processors and memory are modest, and they draw their breath from WiFi or G3 links to the Internet.
Luddites: complaints are futile, so find HDD tools whose wheels won't fall off soon.
Seriously jkoch2 - that must be sarcasm about tablets. If you think tablets will replace 21" wide gamut monitors in any sense you clearly have no clue.And this move by Adobe is not meant to address tablets in that the whole of Photoshop is run locally. That is not possible on today's tablets - nor will it be anytime in the foreseeable future.
This is an extremely bad spin from Adobe. Particularly:1. They expected that the hobbyist photography would have view this subscription service negatively and admitting that there was not a lot of value in the subscription model for this market segment smacks of poor understanding of what I'd say is a large part of their market. The identification as this market as only incidental to the professional one is surprising.2. Mr. Hendrickson would appear to have lost all credibility with admitting that the software is downloaded and then subscribed to and yet later saying that the model of providing the software as a perpetual license couldn't be done because of the brutal software development and that they weren't happy with the results. The only thing that changes is the licensing model not the software.
In my opinion, Adobe appears evasive and disingenuous in this article.