My last 35mm film camera that I kept with me at nearly all times, was a Contax S2 - titanium bodied, 100% mechanical shutter - fitted with a Ziess Planar 50mm f1.4. If I wanted other focal lengths, I'd shoot on my Olympus OM-1 and the assortment of Zuikos I had. Renenber, this Contax was my take-everywhere camera, and I wasn't interested in toting a "system" around day-to-day. The results of shooting Kodachrome 25 through this lens, even wide open, were nothing short of stunning. Even made my prime Zuiko glass look fuzzy by comparison.
Since I went digital about 9 years ago, I've been shooting Olympus with Oly zooms. Good images, nice handling, but nothing to compare to my Zeiss 50/f1.4.
I am about to invest in my next DSLR - and am VERY tempted to forego autofocus and zooms, and instead buy a couple of Zeiss prime lenses. Myt only quibble: Nikon's focusing thread runs back-to-front compared to Olympus & Canon, and I am not sure I could get used to that!
Actually (thanks cknapp61) I *am* an iPhone user. And iPad. But also, decent (if old) DSLR.
Prints? Via Polaroid?! Pur-leeze!!! If I want to print from ANY of my kit, I have some jolly decent inkjets at my disposal - as well as one of the earlier (but still 100% functional) Canon dye-sub jobs.
Why on earth would you want to pay neo-polaroid prices for grotty old-style analogue prints?
designdef: I think it's worth pointing out, Olympus's main product line is in Endoscopy. Cameras are a small, but important part of their business. I've almost been tempted to purchase two or three of their excellent cameras and certainly have been shafted by one or more of their endoscopes;)
PS - just as well the cameras are small, because ... oops, no, better not go there! 8-)
Bend over BlackAdder ... it's *** time!!!
[for our US cousins, this is a reference to a cult GB comedy that didn't involve Benny Hill] ;-)
And so it goes on ... but what **I** want to know, is where is my E-7 ???
Still using a much-loved, 5 Mpixel CCD based Olympus E-1, one of the best DSLRS from (errrr) about 10 years ago. And wanting to leverage my investment in glass, accessories and more.
Serious Kudos to Dave Ackerman! Brilliant project, amazing results, fascinating blog article. Made my day! :-)
Well Duck Me - one less thing to look forward to in my weekly copy of AP!
Definition: "Hyperbole" (/hīˈpərbəlē/) [n] ... one of the best satirical comic strips in the world
arhmatic: Thanks for the entertainment, Adobe and dpreview...
I am here solely for the comments.
Nah, you can't see the slow motion unless you subscribe to Adobe Premiere CC ...
Tom DeMita: Adobes' stock went down 3 points in 3 days. What happened 3 days ago?
Yeah, looks fun if you view the past week ... but look back a month, and they are still higher than they were 4 weeks ago; 12 weeks ago; more.
Biowizard: I haven't paid any money to Kodak for several years. They sent a bailiff round to take all my 35mm transparencies away so I can never see them again. And now that Kodak has gone bust, I can't even get my slides back by paying.
Twilight Zone? Or simply the New Reality. Thanks, Adobe, NOT.
dinoSnake, sure you can save your FINISHED work in TIF, PNG - or even the ancient PCX format. But these files will not contain all your separate layers, adjustments, vector text, and so on, ready to edit further. It's the same with InDesign: you can save to PDF (which you can then render to TIF, PNG, PCX if you want in Photoshop), but you'll lose your editable, adjustable file.
It's the fact that loss of access to CC would mean loss of access to YOUR SOURCE DOCUMENTS, Your IPR, that sticks in the craw. Of course your derivative works will be perfectly printable and viewable forever more.
I haven't paid any money to Kodak for several years. They sent a bailiff round to take all my 35mm transparencies away so I can never see them again. And now that Kodak has gone bust, I can't even get my slides back by paying.
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?
You CAN hire a camera if you want to. Or buy it on finance. Just as you can cars. Or golf clubs.
But once you have paid in full for your camera, it's yours to keep. You can trade in for a new model if you want, or just stick with the old one you know. And if you then lose your job or run out of money for some other reason, it won't suddenly stop working. Or be taken away. And neither will you be denied access to any of the photos you might have taken with it.
So yours is a poor analogy. This Adobe thing is altogether more insidious than you make out.
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.
I never pay stupid money like that for coffee - Starbucks is a rip-off too. But even if I was crazy enough to shell out several bucks for a frappuccino with strawberry and foie gras foam, or whatever, and could bring myself to drink the muck, NOT buying another cup would NOT lock me out of MY CREATIVE WORK.
Harry Shepherd: Charles Boot posted "Here is a proposal, which these greedy people would never think of: Let everyone upgrade to CS 6 if they want to at a reasonable price (free for users of CS5.5) and keep ACR updated for CS 6 for say 10 years. Something like this would have earned stars. as it is they are hated."
That would be nice, but it would appear you cannot even buy the CS6 upgrade at the full price anymore.
Looking on the bright side this will save me money. Bye adobe.
CS6 is still available on DVD from some resellers - I just bought my last-opportunity copy 2 days ago, and it arrived within the past hour - not bad for a UK purchase of a disk that was in a California warehouse! At least FedEx is a large company that prides itself on customer service!
epo001: All this endless whining. Adobe don't want to sell me any upgrades? Fine, I'll continue to use CS3 until the competition improves. If you have CS it will continue to work, what's the problem?
Most non-commerical users don't NEED Photoshop, it is just a name they've heard or they are fetishising the most polished toy, rather like people who buy a sports car and just use it to drive to the shops.
Yeah, existing installations of CSx (or even, as in my case, Photoshop 7) will work on ... UNTIL, of course, you need RAW support for your new camera ... or Windows 9 drops support for the 32-bit version you have been relying on ... or ...
Who would rent a house, if they could afford to buy one? Even though it is a massive investment, most people would prefer to live in their own place, rather than at the beck and call of a landlord.
Who would live with a hired care forever, if they could afford to buy one of their own? Again, though it's a major expense, most people are willing to sacrifice other things to pay for it.
Now if a RENTED house cost more than one you owned, or a HIRED car cost more than buying and running your own - NO-ONE would rent a house, or hire a car. We'd ALL buy and be done with it.
And yet here were are, where Adobe now wants EVERYONE to become RENTERS ... but for MORE that it used to cost to become OWNERS.
Pigs in the trough don't get close to describing their cynical greed.
The poll has missed my MAIN worry: potentially losing access to all MY artwork and creative IP, simply because one day either Adobe goes bust and my software times out, or I cannot afford my subscription any more.
It would be OK if the software could still open/edit/print images PREVIOUSLY worked on, even if you stopped paying for the subs. But that isn't how it works.
HubertChen: A true story: Decades ago the leading E-CAD vendor introduced a hardware dongle as copy protection. It plugged into the printer port and thus you could not print anymore. Real bummer on a CAD workstation. ( This was before printing over network ). Our CAD department was very upset, because the only way to print was to obtain a cracked SW. We never used such thing before. So in the first year we paid for the SW with dongle, but used the cracked version. However, in the subsequent years of new versions, the cracked version remained but new licenses were no longer purchased. The inhibition barrier of using a cracked version was broken. I truly wonder if this new move from Adobe will decrease or increase illegal copy installations ?
Nothing to do with Intergraph, I suppose? Still have one of their dongles somewhere, never even did install the stuff.
QUOTE: "The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC products."
Er, HELLO? Just HOW hard is it to REMOVE the "phone-home-and-disable-me" code to convert CC back into a stand-along CS version?
I never thought I would be encountering so much SNAKE OIL at one time!
Michiel Koolen: The Adobe Financial people have gone over this. They will lose revenue from people who would upgrade only every few years. They already accepted that 2 years ago, by only allowing upgrades from the previous version.
People who will pirate the software will keep on doing that. It will be the never ending cat-and-mouse game between hackers and DRM. Adobe has a perfect track record of losing that one. I'm sure they know that.
So what will they lose financially? A few thousand enthusiasts who would spend a few hundred dollars every 2-4 years.
What will they gain? No more need to push out updates every 12-18 months. They can add 1-2 features and boast about it. Predictable and constant revenue, for products that have reached such a maturity level it makes it difficult to come up with something new and generate revenue in a traditional business model.
The Creative Cloud is very innovative indeed. As a business model. The real innovation will now have to come from the competition.
Yeah, rattymouse, you MISREAD Michiel's eloquent post - which is NOT pro-Adobe in any way!