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.
Wow - that announcement is aimed at the heart of u4/3rds. The A7 and A7r bodies are lighter. I don't know about the lenses. But even if they are 100g heavier as a package the benefits of the FF sensor (noise and resolution as a system) would outweigh the small weight savings.At this point you may say that the EM1 has a few things the Sony can't do (IBIS for one). I would imagine that over time Sony will add the innovations missing. But 4/3rds can't be FF. So Sony can match Olympus and Panasonic on features but they can't match the performance the Sony FF sensor provides.
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.
Adobe has also hurt the training and consulting industry surrounding Photoshop. There were many enthusiasts who not only won"t buy into Adobe's profit grab but also will have little need to buy the training and reference book material by Mr Kelby, Mclelland or the like. It appears like Adobe speared its supporters and its surrounding environment. Simply unbelievable. Talk about friendly fire!
One really has to question Adobe's strategy on this. Who will be using Adobe products of any type knowing that this sort of thinking is steering the company? Who wants this sort of dictatorial control over choice? Sorry Adobe, not me. I won't be using DNG going forward. I will generate other options for a graphic imaging manipulation program other than yours. I frankly I'm really, really tired of using your bloatware Adobe reader as well. Hopefully your will learn that most of your customer have a choice and hopefully they will exercise it and buy something else.
I am against buying CS as a service (in the cloud). It is very much in Adobe's interest to have me work with CS in a subscription model and very much not in my interest. Adobe can artificially create a "burning bush" by making new features available only in the cloud but frankly all they will do is alienate me and I'll find an alternate such as Capture One for example that recognizes that not everyone wants a software as a service model.Frankly I think Adobe is a getting a bit too pushy and is putting long term alienation of its user base at the altar of short term profits.But then most of us have been saying that for years.
Zachawry: People talk about how much fun it is to shoot with Leicas.
It MUST be fun, because the experience of shooting seems to blind people to the mediocrity of the results. There are of course masters who shoot with Leicas or other rangefinders, but the average quality of the rangefinder enthusiast seems to be far below that of the average (D)SLR enthusiast.
But it's just so much fun that they don't actually care what the photos look like. Many of the photos provided here prove my point. I'm looking at you, blue truck.
I remember a story about Jimmy Connors the tennis ace when he was introduced to the President of Rolex while playing at Wimbledon. Upon being introduced Jimmy asked the President, "Hows the time business?" whereupon the President of Rolex is reportedly to have said, "I have no idea, I'm in the luxury business".Morale - don't confuse luxury with the task at hand. $12,000 for a currently really mediocre photographic device - shame - $12,000 on a luxury - well, its your money and you can't take it with you. Just realize what you are doing.....
Let me get this straight - in my case I bought CS3, CS4 and I skipped CS5 because their wasn't a compelling reason to upgrade. The features of CS5 weren't dramatically better than CS4 is for me.So now I get to pay $199 less 20% and then pay another $199 to upgrade to CS6? The full price of CS5 ia $699. So I guess my upgrade to CS6 is $159+$199=$358 if the upgrade price is still $199.I think I paid just shy of $400 for CS3 and about $199 to upgrade to CS4.Adobe I hope you price yourselves out of this market! I was going to upgrade to CS6 for which I would have paid the $199. But almost twice that - get real! I'll pass and I hope a lot of people do. I have GIMP 2.7.3 loaded and Rawtherapee 4 as well - see ya!