HubertChen: Significance of Chinese Mobile Phones coming
I live in China and I have a Huawei Android phone since one Year. In many regards I love it more than the Apple phone of my colleague: * Free choice of Phone Network Provider* Rounded shape is more comfortable to hold* I can upgrade SD memory to ridiculous size at ridiculous low cost* It costs < 100 Euro
In all aspects I care the quality is comparable to iPhone and it has features important to me which the iPhone has not and all of that for 1/5 of the cost ( in China the iPhone costs 500 Euro ).
That this is Android and not iOS is a bonus to me, as I do not feel so locked in as with iOS.
Today in the western wold iOS phones and Android Phones cost about the same. Imagine how the market share will further shift towards Android once Chinese Phone makers sell their phones in the western world at they same price level as they sell in China!
Hi Hubert.I don't know which western world you consider.Here in Italy for example, it is easy to find Android phone from 100 Euro onward (the Samsung Galaxy S III is about 450 Euro), while the Iphone 5 starts from 729 Euro and arrive to the unbelievable level of 949 Euro (official prices on the Italian Apple web store).So in my opinion is not strange that Android is taking a so large part of the market.By the way, I still daily use my Nokia E5 with the old Symbian :-)
Dyun27: Just downloaded the trial version of DXO Optics Pro 8 and compared a couple of photographs that I processed in DXO and in Lightroom 4.3. I have a Nikon D600. As far as I can tell, I much prefer the results I get in Lightroom 4.3 to DXO. DXO isn't bad and maybe has some advantages that I can't see, but in my opinion and at this point I would take Lightroom 4.3 over DXO any day. Lightroom is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and in my eyes produces better results. It felt a little painful working with DXO due to the constant lagging each time I applied a change to the RAW file. As if that wasn't enough, Lightroom is also much cheaper. Nearly half the price, especially if you're a student and can buy it at less than $100.00.
To see some of the advantages of DXO, try with pictures that need perspective or distorsion corrections (also for example UWA or fisheye). In my opinion DXO is not great as complete raw editor, not very responsive, but very good as specialized tool for the above mentioned features. Probably for this reason now they also offer ViewPoint, a simplified program just specialized in those corrections.
At present I use ACDSee Pro for cataloguing and Raw development, and DXO Pro mainly for perspective and distortion corrections, where in my opinion is unbeatable.The review (showdown) is interesting, but I agree with other comments, it would be better to also have other alternatives, cross-platform and not, considering that in these days the sector is quite crowded.
Dandersson: I'm a PC guy... And I once was a happy RSP user when Adobe swallowed Pixmantec and buried that software. I got LR version one and struggled with it up to three when I finally gave up and now I do all my DAM and RAW conversions in ACDSee Pro6. The good things with ACDSee is that it offers most of what LR does but does not force you to manually import your images. Just browsing a folder of images (or for that sake importing them with ACDSee to a folder (or sub directory if you prefer that terminology) is enough for ACDSee to register your images in its database. So, it kind of offers the best of two worlds. It is a fast and efficient browser and viewer AND a database supported DAM tool (and has a build in RAW converter/developer [like LR] AND a simple but extremely capable pixel editor AND you can ad external editors that you send you're files to when you need external editing power...For me ACDSee is much faster to work with and I spend a lot less time in front of the computer.I like!
I fully agree with Dandersson.After testing and comparing LR, I chose ACDSee Pro both for browsing/cataloguing and for RAW development (now I have the 6 version).The speed, the simplicity and the readable interface of ACDSee allow a much better workflow for me. Sincerely I think that many people use LR simply because it is from Adobe. The countless discussions and necessary explainations just about its basic features indicate a quite involved product. Surely good for Adobe, authors of countless books, courses and so on, I am not sure for real users and photographs.