I wish there weren't trade offs (other than price) when choosing between the two bodies. Why no electronic shutter on the A7R? Why a composite body on the A7R vs magnesium for the A7? The A7 seems to have a better AF system too.
Bill T.: Can anybody characterize the amount of vibration introduced by the A7R "noisy shutter?"
I shoot stitched panormas with very long lenses, where mirror vibration from my present camera bodies is a major nuisance requiring clumsy work-arounds. I wonder if I will have issues with A7R shutter vibrations with say 200mm+ lenses when tripod mounted?
According to the table of differences, only the A7 has electronic first curtain.
I have to speak in support of Mayer. In context, her comments aren't nearly the big deal that it would otherwise seem. And kudos for getting out in front of the issue with pro accounts.
I think that the general direction of Yahoo has changed for the better since she took over. And people have been complaining forever about Flickr's UI. I think the changes are a step in the right direction. There have been legitimate reasons to abandon Flickr but this isn't one of them.
GPW: Who the hell need 2 terabytes of storage?
I have 3TB in still images alone. I know others who have much more. Of course, those are RAW images. I don't know that you can even upload RAW to Flickr.
It seems to me that Adobe and its defenders are completely missing the fact that photographers, perhaps in a way that is different from other creative disciplines, are creating work which we expect to remain relevant, important, and accessible for our lifetimes. If a designer creates an advert or a film maker creates a film, once they are done they are typically done. A photograph can continue to evolve over time. Unless it is done for a client, it remains part of us, part of our history, part of our being. The idea that we could reach a point where we can no longer access our photographic library due to cost (or whatever), even if the chance is slight, is something we do not wish to contemplate. And to be clear, when I say "access" I do not mean "view". I refer to being able to access the work product that went into the image -- the layers, the filters, etc. — and continue to refine that vision if desired.
djsphynx: All this talk about Adobe and the future of its product offerings has me thinking even further down my workflow. Because of all this, I'll begin to move away from PSD files where possible since I don't want to be beholden to their formats which may or may not work long term.
As for me, I'll stick to PS CS6, I'll retire LR in all likelihood (don't want to be tied to their catalogues since LR will inevitably be only offered in CC) and will pick up a couple of alternatives, starting with Pixelmator and Aperture.
They have the option to do what they did, I have the option to do what I'm about to do. The thought of not being able to open a file in a few years is scary as hell for me (and for other photographers), I can't imagine ever subscribing ad agreeing to such a scheme.
I certainly agree with your sentiments about using CS6 until I absolutely have to move on—and then praying that a good alternative emerges in the meantime. I can't imagine ever choosing to rent software. I don't have quite the same concerns about LR though that may be foolish on my part given the clear direction Adobe is headed.
Ilya the Great: If only Nik software could replace PS! Can it?
I wonder if Nik/Google has had second thoughts about eliminating Snapseed for the desktop. Nik/Google is the company that first comes to mind as being able to take advantage of this competitive opening that Adobe has created with their money grab.
To summarize, yes, Adobe knows they're screwing photographers and, no, they don't care. Yes, you will lose the ability to access your PSD's and other Adobe-formatted files the moment you quit paying and, no, there is nothing you can do about it.
Contempt is not a strong enough word to describe what I feel about Adobe right now. I truly hope that the outrage being expressed across photography forums actually translates into lost sales.
What outfitter did you travel with? Was the expedition photo-centric?
Love the article, Eric. What an experience.
I do agree that, at the very least, a smaller watermark would enhance the enjoyment of your images. Love that Petrel shot (the ship).
JmaverickPro: When they first announced this tactic I was really upset about it, but since using it I have to say I am honestly very pleased with it. I think it's currently the only win-win situation for everyone.
The only people who should be complaining about this are the boot leggers. The product works offline and allows access too all programs.
Assuming Master collection costs around $2500, at the current rate of $50 a month (I am only paying $29 as an "upgrader"), it would take 4 years to pay out the same thing it would cost to own it. By that time, Adobe would have already released 2 if not 3 more versions that you would again have to purchase.
The way I say it everyone wins. The legitimate owners get a price cut, and Adobe actually gets paid for the product they make.
I wonder if your initial assumption, $2500 for the suite, is accurate. My employer pays less than half of that. You do raise an interesting issue though. I wonder if this move will stop piracy or encourage it. For those thinking it will stop piracy, remember that the programs are still downloaded and installed locally. You just rent instead of own.
I'd love to know the real story behind all this. Regardless of the true response to Creative Cloud, you would expect Adobe to say that "everyone wants to rent software but you" once they decided to move forward. On the other hand, Adobe isn't going to slit its own throat if it doesn't believe this attempt to squeeze more cash out of its customer base isn't going to work. It makes me wonder what percentage of their revenue is derived from corporations vs. individuals and small businesses. I would guess it is the latter that will find this most unacceptable. I can't imagine myself ever renting software from any vendor.
Bart Hickman: $20/month for Photoshop? That's much more than double the current cost with upgrades. The competition must be jumping for joy at this huge market opening Adobe is handing them. CS6 will certainly be the last version of Photoshop I buy.
@wlad This is the problem, isn't it? When once company becomes so dominant in an industry they start to feel like they can extort money from their customer base. It's hard for me to view this any other way. My hope is that by the time CS6 needs upgrading, alternatives will be available.
TheSquid: for some of us, we DON"T want to have our images stored on someone else's servers. Nor do we want to run software from the cloud....that's why we spend a ton of money on our OWN systems to have them do what we want, when we want, and away from an internet connection as well....how do you use the cloud on a cruise ship or an airplane?
To be clear, you install the software locally. But, at least to this point, if your computer doesn't contact the Adobe mothership at least once a month to verify your subscription it will stop working.
Gabor Szantai: I don't get some comments...
The full box was about £600-650 when I bought, I paid £200 for upgrade and now I will pay this previous amount monthly. I am paying for an online service instead of offline software. So what?
My dentist doesn't work for free, I have to pay in the supermarket, my customers pay me for photography and retouching.It's a tool. A carpenter has to pay for his tools, a photographer wouldn't?
There is a free alternative picture editor, GIMP. Enjoy.
@Gabor I don't get your comment. Your dentist provides a service. Although Adobe would like to adopt the software-as-a-service model, it is not inherently so.
You talk about tools. How many carpenters rent all their tools? Do you rent all your photography gear? I'm guessing you don't. If you do you are certainly in the minority.
Wow. Isn't this what many people feared when Adobe first announced its scheme to rent software? I can still hear Adobe apologist Scott Kelby bleating "You don't HAVE to rent it. You can still BUY it." So much for that.
I can totally understand why Adobe would do this. Who wouldn't want to force their customer base into providing a continual, predictable revenue stream? For me, this new paradigm absolutely does NOT work. I feel like Adobe is trying to pick my pocket. What will I do when CS6 becomes so long in the tooth that I need to upgrade? I don't even know. It won't be Creative Cloud.
Photographer Martin Bailey shared an interesting personal anecdote regarding the Creative Cloud apart from the rental issue. He was on an Antarctic trip that lasted over 30 days. Although his bill with Adobe was paid, he had no internet connection to let his software know this. After 30 days of no contact with the Adobe mothership, all his CS software quit working. Nice.
LarryK: Rambus is not so much a technology company, but rather a patent lawsuit mill.
Best to walk away from anything they develop, it's likely just something their attorneys will use to sue people.
That all sounds good until someone sues you because they own a patent on all objects with square corners.
ThePhilips: Comparison of expensive, big-name tools. Not immediately useful. Somehow I never doubted that if I had plenty of cash to throw around, I can pump IQ easily. That's not a challenge. So to my point:
How about shedding some light on cheaper or free alternatives?
For the vast majority, LR4 is so inexpensive now that cost is almost irrelevant compared to the price of gear. Given this, I don't see the point of reviewing low end freeware.
rockjano: Does it really matter that much how thick is your tripod.
Tha weight is a lot more important at this will not make it a lot lighter.
Completely agree. 30% reduction in weight = impressive. 30% reduction in girth = meh.
Glen Barrington: I don't think there is any mention of the logo or the company outright, just the patents. This isn't the Motorola deal.
And it's bigger than many of you seem to think. Kodak practically invented digital photography, many of their patents make up the base level of technology. And none of it (digital photography) has passed into the public domain. It is likely that the new owners would be able to collect royalties from just about everyone involved in capturing and displaying photographs.
And let's be honest. If Apple and Google team up to buy them, there aren't many who could outbid them, and given their litigious nature, I suspect the partnership WOULD be smart enough to enforce their patent rights.
Kodak may well end up like Polaroid, but I doubt it will be because of the Apple/Google consortium.
I certainly agree with your sentiments, tirmite, if not the very rude way you expressed them. The problem is the U.S. patent system and the fact that it allows you to patent not only innovative ideas but obvious ideas that have occurred to all of us at one time or another—stuff that can be described as anything but innovation.