It's taken a number of years, but this is the obvious and inevitable follow-on from the "Authorisation/Activation" model that Adobe first introduced with the original CS (that followed on after Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10 & InDesign 2). Up till then, you could buy your CD, and install it on a computer without even having to register it. You had a personal serial number, and "agreed" not to make multiple installations or to give the software away. And if you did the latter, the serial number could be traced to you.
With CS, once you'd installed your software, you had to go online to get your stuff "activated" - without this it wouldn't work. At the time, many of us felt this could one day be abused, and this is one of several reasons I stuck with PS 7.
Looks like we sceptics were right all along. It's just taken Adobe a few years longer than we originally thought.
This is BAD, Adobe. VERY BAD.
I bought one of these around 6 weeks ago, and it is brilliantly designed and very well built. I will almost certainly buy one or even two more, to keep permanently with my assorted iPhones and smaller cameras. *****
Just holding my iPhone 4s against the rubber eyecups of my Swaro binos lets me align and hold the camera perfectly for a casual "digiscope" shot - I can't imagine why I'd want all that plastic getting in the way.
luisflorit: It is actually a shame that not every single DSLR offers this as a default feature, not even modern flagships with video, and you have to shoot with a phone! For example, the Oly E5 doesn't have timelapse. Still, it is not very hard to make timelapses with it: http://luis.impa.br/photo/1204_varios/nuvens-cristo_timelapse_EV-2.0_JN-120407-E_21672-22915a.aviBut shooting several of these movies will ruin your shutter.
I would never use my DSLR for time lapse - the mechanical shutter and mirror combo would wear out far too quickly. One single movie of 9,999 frames would use about 5% of the entire rated life of the shutter on most modern DSLRs.
OldArrow: Reminds me of something from way back during the '90s. A friend went diving with a Nikonos III and forgot to screw in the flash socket plug. The whole camera and 15-mm lens ($1400.-!) was flooded. My diving buddy and me took it all apart and washed every part in 50% alcohol - 50% water.The camera was easy, but there is about a million tiny parts that need careful handling, especially hair-thick springs.Taking the lens apart is a weird feeling, partly because of the price, but we managed to do it as well.Alcohol and water make a better solvent than either of them alone, and the evaporation of alcohol helps bring out the water too. We managed to remove all traces of the brine and dissolved film emulsion, and put the camera and lens together again. We used a toothpick to oil all moving parts with WD-40. Everything worked okay.If your camera ever drops into the sea, wash it thoroughly as described, wrap it up to keep it wet, and send it immediately to the service.
A pro photographer friend of mine flooded several Nikonos III cameras during his diving days, but didn't manage to salvage them. I also had an N III, which I travelled with extensively is the ultimate waterproof backpack camera. If it got wet or muddy, I simply washed it under a tap when I got back to base. My only issue was trying to replace a film that I'd put in at 6,000 ft above sea level, when back at the coast the next day. It's amazing how much a column of air a couple of inches across and 6,000 feet tall all actually weighs :-)
tkbslc: Just curious why if you care enough about the shot to pack a tripod, you wouldn't also just bring a "real" camera? Seems to work well, I just usually think of cell phone photography in terms of unplanned convenience vs premeditated to the point of bringing specialized gear.
I wanted (or rather, still want) mounting options for my iPhones, for use with time-lapse and stop-motion applications. These are things that, with the correct apps, iOS devices do better than my DSLR.
Chinese Junk ... I ordered an iStablizer "Dolly" and an iStablizer "Glass" device, each from one of two different Amazon vendors. This stuff was getting good reviews on the photo forums.
Well, the "dolly" arrived in bits and pieces, showing scuff marks where someone else had clumsily assembled it, played with it, then pulled it to bits and just chucked everything back into the box, and one of the wheels was stiff and didn't want to turn. Sent it back to Amazon on Friday.
Today, I tried using "glass", the suction cup thing. And it turned out that its tripod screw had been badly machined, and would not fit into the standard tripod socket on the mounting device. Sent it back to Amazon today.
Friday was the first time I have EVER returned faulty goods to Amazon, and now I've done a second time in as many working days. Both devices designed in America, and made in China. But unlike the iPhone or the iPad, this was true Chinese Junk.
clear glass: How did the Rover take a picture of itself from a camera on a jointed arm (I assume) without showing part of the arm? Was the arm that raised the camera above the Rover extended so circuitously that it's out of the picture or in a blind spot? Is this a duh question?
It's only semi-duh, inasmuch as I wondered the same thing about the high-res image shown elsewhere on dPreview - then I figured it: as this is a stitched mosaic, all they have to do is use parts of the image that DON'T include the robotic arm - and et voila, it's gone!
A true replacement for the Nikonos underwater cameras, with full-frame sensor, inductive charging and wireless data transfer, so that the ONLY time they would need to be taken apart, is when selecting and changing the lens.
God this is so simple, just give me 100M to produce it, and it will be the ONLY camera on the market forever more. All it needs is ... [oops, patents pending so can't talk now ... watch this space!]
Lovely video - though I was briefly worried for one tree that appeared to be in the way!
What on earth has happened to the concept of "HD"? This acronym defines the NUMBER of pixels on a display, NOT their SIZE! The Note 10.1 and Nexus 7 have EXACTLY the same number of pixels, and yet you describe one as not HD, and the other, as HD.
Full HD (1080i and 1080p) means 1920*1080 pixels, with a lesser HD (720p) being specified as 1280*720. Clearly both tablets come under the latter category.
And to argue that a smaller screen makes it "look" like higher/more definition, would throw a massive spanner into the works if you tried reviewing fifty-inch plasma or LCD HD TVs! What would you call them? "Ultra-Low-Definition" because they are even bigger than the Note 10.1?
Common guys, this is a tech review site: learn to use your tech terms correctly!
Lose the dodgy colour photos (we have no way of assessing how "good" they are to start with), add some of the old scene so we can compare new cameras to old, and put in some depth for DOF/Bokeh comparison.
tkbslc: Dpreview has a real problem. They keep making the site better, but a big group of whiners are driving the regular users away by making the site less friendly. That leaves a higher concentration of sour-pusses on here which only exacerbates the problem. Pretty soon it is just going to be a handful of people who share their time between telling kids to stay off their lawn, and complaining about anything dpreview does.
Another person unable to comprehend reasoned constructive criticism. You want spoon feeding? Get yourself a spoon, and feed.
simon65: I'm slightly puzzled at the use of another cameras photographs in a test scene.
If the test shot isn't sharp, how will readers know if that's due to a fault in the camera/lens being tested or is inherent to the photograph in the scene?
Surely its better to stick with items that everyones knows have an intrinsic and unvarying (over time) colour and sharpness?
I've already made that very point - why include photographs of uknown quality in a test shot? They could all have been made on blunt pinhole cameras for all we know, and mis-processed with the wrong chemistry. Apart from "standard" (ie commecial) colour charts, the ONLY thing worth including is real objects.
oohaah: no, the globe is gone :(
I'd blame iOS 6 and Apple Maps for that! LOL!!
From the old scene, I miss:
1) Paperclips and Baileys bottle: metal/metallic respectively, with specular reflections.
2) Martini bottle & Batteries (Peripheral), Queen of Hearts (central): all ideal for checking over-sharpening, edge chromatic aberration, JPEG artifacts, noise, and the like.
3) Kodak Q-60 colour chart - large gamut and wide ranging palette.
4) The dark box of Yarn reels - which were great for checking shadow detail.
In the new scene I dislike:
a) Too many colour photos of unknown quality/calibration/gamut
b) The non-standard playing cards: you should stick to a known standard (eg, Piatnik, Bicycle, etc) like your previous Queen of Hearts.
c) Dull "flat" feel (which I realise is actually unimportant, but hey ho!
In the new scene, I LIKE:
x) The computer PCB, wine corks, and other real items/textures around the periphery
y) The hatched engravings - assuming they are genuine originals
IN SHORT: you are MISSING some vital textures/reflections/shadows.
Shoot ... you mean it DOESN'T connect to FaceBook or make phone calls? Sheesh ...
Brian ( :-) )
Google transmogrify language good explains, so kind knowing differs in specification. Upkeep with good works, thanking.
Annoyingly, I got a brand new iPhone 4S just last week - and still have my previous iPhone 4, unlocked. And I've already bought a case. Had I seen this first, I would almost certainly have gone for it. Actually, I might anyway!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review