Bloke living in Richmond upon Thames with wife and three kids.
blurredvision: I feel this move is out of desperation, Adobe has realized that users aren't upgrading as fast as they used to, if at all. They have reached a point where they are running out of stuff to add/upgrade to make the price attractive enough...earlier versions work perfectly fine and most users aren't missing anything by staying behind.
Due to this, Adobe has to try to maximize services to keep up revenue. This is exactly what is happening with Microsoft and their Office suite. Office 2013 will be the last "numbered" version we'll see, they will be 100% subscription going forward once 2013 is removed from stores.
The ultimate end result here is you either accept the new service as-is, you try to find a suitable, affordable alternative, or you ultimately decide you can't live without Adobe's products and suck it up. For all those getting very upset at this, your current version of Photoshop will still work for years to come, I doubt you'll be missing out on much going forward.
Spot on with the Microsoft comparison. Both are big companies with lots of employees to pay yet they can't persuade people to buy their software upgrades any more.
What they should do is reduce the frequency and price of upgrades. That would make sure that a greater proportion of users upgraded and give a steady income stream. They would have to substantially reduce the size of the workforce, but that is just how it goes.
This company seems to be run for the benefit of the management and employees rather than the customer or shareholder.
If they move to the CC model then maybe a few pros will subscribe, but most users will find alternatives. Their revenue will simply crash. What is astonishing is that they cannot see this!
Absolutic: Pentax just need some big company with deep pockets to buy them. Not sure how long they can survive on their own. Sony or somebody else, buy them already.
Quote "Pentax does not have deep pockets, period".Which period are you talking about?In the year to March 2012 (last full accounts) they had sales of $24.4 billion and shareholders funds of $10.5 billion. That is pretty deep pockets - period.
kwhi02: '$2100/£1955/€2149' - I don't understand, at current exchange rate £1955 = €2439 or $3149USD. Are they honestly selling for $1000USD more in the UK?
If you take into account 20% VAT (sales tax) payable in the UK the equivalent price to compare with the US is £1,629 or $2,639. So still over $500 more expensive. It is strange that companies feel they can rip us off like this so consistently.
We need a free trade zone with the USA, that would stir things up a bit!
Shogun Fantastico: Just another misstep by Nikon. When will they learn not to build $4000 cameras when people aching for $1,854 cameras only have $600 in their domkes, no? When they learn to honor their market, I will await for a $721 camera with a 18-500mm f1.8 lens and a medium format sensor in a small body I can put in my kimono without obvious bulging and enter museums. I am crazy for pictures of beautiful light effects and brick walls. Nikon Picture Controls do this for me. Canon is way better, but I may sell it for this now.
He is joking...
Dattaphoto: I think the choice between a K-5 and K-30 would depend a lot on whether you should manually or in program. I generally shoot my K-5 in M mode and I frequently use the green button, AE-L button, and AF-L button. I could get equal results from a K-30 but I would miss the hell out of having those functions on separate buttons.
Ditto. You have to pixel peep at 100% to see any noticable difference between the K-30 and K-5. If you shoot RAW and post-process there will be no effective difference at all.
Which camera to choose should be driven by whether you want the robust solid metal body, "pro" style controls, top LCD screen and the separate buttons and levers for all the major shooting functions or whether you want the slightly smaller, lighter body and can live with more menu diving, or usually rely on the automatic metering / focusing.
I doubt anybody will "downgrade" from a K-5 to a K-30, particularly if you do not use video or live-view much.
I bought my K-5 with 18-50 WR kit lens for £699 last December (using a £90 cash-back offer), only £20 more than the K-30 is currently priced at (£679). The same shop is now sellling the K-5 with 18-50 WR for £725. £46 difference? I doubt I would have bought the K-30 in preference to the K-5 for just a 6.6% saving (but then I use LV rarely and video never).
MPA1: If you think a Pentax K5 is a high end DSLR your definition of high end and mine are not at all the same!
As a K-5 owner myself I could take offence at your remark, but you are right. The K-5 and the OM-D E-M5 (name far too complicated IMHO) are clearly shooting for the same market, those needing a small, robust weatherproof travel camera with good ergonomics. The Olympus emphasises the "small" angle and Pentax the "ergonomics" angle. Horses for courses.
If it had been released when I was in the market for a new camera I might have looked at it. Personallly, however, I would find it very difficult to work with a camera that did not have a decent optical VF, or at least a built-in EVF of sufficient quality.
The benefit of this lens was obvious in the days of film when films had a fixed ISO rating and anything higher than 400 asa was seriously grainy.
However with digital, the fall-off in quality by going from ISO 100 to 400 is probably a lot less than the compromises resulting from a lens at f1.0 compared to f2.0. In fact with a 16mp camera with a good f2.8 lens at ISO 800 will have a better "printable" quality than the same camera with an f1.0 lens at ISO 100.
If you want a shallower DOF than you will get with an f2.8 lens, why not go medium format? A Pentax 645D with the "kit" 50mm costs the same as this lens!
Yakbutter: I LOVE shooting my my iPhone 4. As a professional photographer, it's nice to always have a camera on me and not have to haul around my D700 for everyday stuff. People trip out when i post pictures to Facebook and then I tell them it was taken with my iPhone.
Nice snaps. However looking through them what sets them apart from the average Flikr collection taken with a P&S or DSLR is the heavy use of "effects" and processing - your selective blurring is particularly effective (Dana point and Roadside tagging). However I have to say I am seeing the "Polaroid" effect everywhere these days and it is losing its novelty and becoming a bit stale.
It is clear that for you the main benefit (apart from always having it with you) is the processing apps available. Maybe that is the iPhone's real advantage over a tiny P&S or other camera phone?
I like L.A. Country Fair Sunset (the first one). A real example of the advantage of having a camera to hand. How many times have I said to myself "damn, If only I had my camera with me!" when I have spotted scenes like that.
Excellent article, it is clear that Mr Britten has a great eye for a "found" image, wherever they may crop up. There is a similar article in the Economist glossy periodical Intelligent Life:"Cairo, before and after the fall of Mubarak: pictures from an iPhone, by Steve Double"
Ultimately though this tool is limited to opportunistic shots - mainly street photography and photo journalism requiring an instant reaction. Fixed high DOF is a boon here, rather than a limitation, as focus is less critical. However what it is not good for is: - high quality portraits - event photography - landscapes - wildlife - macro - telephoto - low light (ie virtually dark) - sports photography - flash photography - studio photography(and so on)Whereas any half decent DSLR would be able to cope with all of these. So don't worry, the iPhone is not likely to replace your Nikon quite yet!
However for capturing street life the only camera worth having is the one in your pocket.
jcmarfilph: Great article but the title doesn't fit. You could have said...
How to make great pictures out of cheap phone or camera.
It's your skills in photography and post-processing made these shots. Not the iPhone or whatever.
I mostly agree, as it is clear the author has a brilliant "eye" for a good image and - for him - the best camera he has is the one he has with him because he could clearly take a good picture with *any* camera!
However the Apple iOS photo apps are generally extremely good quality and very usable because they are produced by people/companies with extensive experience in image processing and publishing using Apple software and hardware (I include Adobe in that category). Try and find a publishing or image processing professional who *doesn't* use Apple kit. You will be looking for a long time!
Lots of problems with this, despite the wizzy demonstration. Looking between the lines Lytro suffers from:- Huge data files but very low resolution- The need to post-process to produce a useable file or print- Even the in-focus bits are blurry!- Not a patch on even basic P&S cameras
Most P&S users take most of their pictures of friends and family. Their major fruatration has, in the past, been missing focus on people's faces. Despite being derided as a "gimmic" in these forums, I know lots of people who think face recognition in compact cameras has massively increased their number of usable and printable shots.
Fundamentally the biggest market this camera has, reducing the number of out of focus shots of people, has been solved with face recognition. Sure you get a faux artistic background bokeh blur, but photographers looking for that "artistic" shot won't be prepared to put up with the camera's other sever limitations.