dialstatic: "The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 (known as the GX80 outside of North America)"
This US versus non-US naming of cameras is silly enough in general, but this is downright confusing. Regular consumers may think that the GX85 is a newer camera as it seems to follows the convention of higher model numbers for consecutive generations.
Actually, it's a weak mechanism to discourage gray market importation into the U.S. The idea is that a) it will be easier for U.S. consumers to know the import status of a camera that is offered for sale and b) authorized-import retailers in the U.S. will have a (very small) differentiator for their products against the gray market versions. This practice of giving the U.S. market a specific model name for any given product became very common in the camera industry in the 1980s, but it's not very effective at reducing gray market sales and many companies (Nikon, for example) have abandoned it.
As for calling it the GX-7 Mark II in Japan, that would be a purely marketing thing.
As a hopeless sucker for pictures of winsome pooches, I say well done, lads.
Further evidence of Mr. Lubezki's charm:
Several years ago, I had a fantastic girlfriend who was a marketing executive. Her company was shooting a TV commercial in Argentina and she went to supervise. There was a bit of excitement surrounding the shoot because they'd hired some guy named 'Chivo' to direct it, she said.
About 3 days after she flew to Buenos Aires I got a phone call that was, in retrospect, predictable. "Your girlfriend appears to have developed a crush on the director," she said.
"Interesting. Do you think you'll be coming back from Argentina?"
nznikon: Hopefully Nikon will follow suit, especially on the prices of its long lenses (like to 400mm f/2.8.
This will definitely put pressure on Nikon USA to also lower its prices. Nikon is enjoying exactly the same benefit of the stronger dollar, so they should also have room to lower prices.
J A C S: Canon has been running rebates for months and stopped now. After those drops but without the rebates, the prices of many lenses are actually higher than before.
Dealers won't be hurt. Canon will price protect them -- i.e. issue a refund for any lenses the dealer bought at the old, higher price that he/she still has in stock.
Rebates are easier for the manufacturer (partly because price protection is a big logistical hassle), so that's the first tactic they use when the yen/dollar gives them room to lower prices. But reducing prices is a more effective sales booster than rebates are, so if a manufacturer feels the currency situation is stable, they may go to the extra trouble to actually reduce prices.
junk1: In regards to mirrorless, this interview reminds me of the Kodak interview many years ago (1998/1999?) when their rep said digital cameras would not catch on (or similar statement).
Kodak had 60,000 employed in Rochester, NY at the peak, versus now they have around 2000?
The Kodak analogy is nonsense in this case. First, it's a myth that Kodak didn't see the digital revolution coming. They were absolutely the leader in digital camera development right up until about 1998 when you say they didn't think digital cameras would catch on. They tried very hard to get into the camera business in the 1990s -- spent billions doing it.
But Kodak was a chemical company, and photography switched from being based on chemistry to being based on electronics. It was just too monumental a change for Kodak to navigate even though they saw it coming. (Fuji, to their credit, did better.)
Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally exactly the same as the digital cameras Canon has been making for 15 years -- in fact, they've probably sold 125 million mirrorless digital cameras over that time -- they just didn't have interchangeable lenses. MILCs are not a major technology change at all for Canon -- they could do it in their sleep.
zodiacfml: Now he's telling that it's not difficult to design lenses for the FE mount which previously he mentioned that it is difficult and just considering the idea. How can that be difficult if its essentially an E-mount. He just meant that there no existing lens designs for the FE mount to copy from and design almost from scratch.
I knew they won't let go of the camera division. Canon and Nikon started as lens manufacturers and Sigma is doing the same.
I like the image quality of the DP Quattro but the size has been too big. Yet, I'd still get one once my DP2 stops being usable. Yet again, they have to stop the madness in chasing more resolution. It just makes their cameras less user friendly.
"Canon and Nikon started as lens manufacturers"
Small thing: this is true of Nikon but not Canon. Canon was founded specifically to make Japan's first 35mm camera. Canon bought its lenses from Nikon for the first few years of its existence. Early Canon cameras came with Nikkor lenses.
Daniel Lauring: So if you put a filter over the lens when you take picture it is OK but you aren't allowed to add one in Photoshop?
It's obvious that they aren't talking about modest alterations to color or contrast.
They said the large majority of disqualified images added or subtracted elements from the picture. And in the cases where toning was the issue, it was extreme -- i.e. to the point of obscuring important objects or elements in the picture.
These people aren't simple-minded; they're not disqualifying people for brightening an image by half a stop or using a warmer white balance.
dwill23: Best marketing and business teacher told me something i repeat about once a month.
"If you own hotels, do you want one on the beach for the high priced vacationers or the one across the street for higher amounts of people, although at a lower price....... you want both!".
In other words, they want to sell at every price point. You can have identical hotels, one on the beach one across the street, and boom you now cover the whole price range.
This opinion articles hurt the market. One person influences too many. I prefer to only read reviews and let actual camera buyers and shooters post opinions and take polls.
I really don't see how opinion pieces on a photo enthusiast web site can "hurt the market" or even a particular camera maker, in any meaningful way.
But even if that were so, it's not DPReview's responsibility to protect the market or camera companies. It's their responsibility to publish stuff that their readers will find useful or entertaining, preferably both.
The camera companies can protect their own interests; they're big boys.
mpgxsvcd: If they had spent their time making a great mirrorless camera instead of making excuses they wouldn’t be in the position they are in now.
You mean the position of being one of only two highly profitable still camera companies in the world?
And the other, even more highly profitable camera company has even fewer mirrorless products?
Despite my low expectations for concrete information about future products and strategies from any company, I will say that I was a little bit struck by his answer to the question of what he would improve on modern digital cameras.
He said responsiveness and image quality. I think connectivity, defined broadly, should be a much bigger priority, given its abysmal current state in standalone cameras and its importance to consumers.
In Mr. Akagi's defense, he may have been thinking only in the context of high-end DSLRs since that's what he had been discussing (and where connectivity isn't as important), or he may simply have had a momentary brain blip and forgot to mention it.
mpgxsvcd: " In my opinion, 4K is too much"
That says a lot about where Nikon is heading. It doesn’t matter what he thinks. It is what the customer thinks and right now they are asking for 4K so you need to give it to them or some other company will.
Right, which is pretty much exactly what he said.
aandeg: Not sure what others were expecting? Did they foolishly believe a company would let them personal know what it's plans for the future were? LOL
Agreed. I guess people have never read a corporate interview before, especially one with a Japanese company.
Can somebody clarify something for me. The WSJ article includes the statistic that motion picture film sales have fallen from 12.4 billion feet in 2006 to an estimated 449 million feet for this year, a decline of 96%.
The article talks almost exclusively about what media films are being shot with nowadays. But am I right in guessing that those sales figures must include all types of motion picture film, including internegative, interpositive, and release print stocks, not just camera negative film? So it's probably the case that the vast majority of the decline in sales comes from the large-scale switch to digital post-production and (for movies) digital projection?
In other words, the 12.4 billion feet of film sold in 2006 was not all camera negative film was it? Thanks in advance for any answers.
Danny: The message is simple: who is supporting a CC system is supporting a very scary future. If Adobe will be successful with their CC, others will follow. Visa versa.It is up to you how you would like to see the future. Plenty of alternatives, so no excuse.
Say NO(!) to Adobe's CC, they lie to you, and you know it.
You personally may not have liked Adobe's pricing or feature development, but obviously enough other people did to keep them in business.
If they really are offering no value over any length of time, other companies will take their customers away.
And there is nothing in the CC plan that prevents users from going someplace else. Yes, you might have to migrate some work and data to different applications, but that risk is inherent in every piece of software you use. It's a barrier to change, but in the case of Adobe's photography apps, it's not a very big one because there are well-established non-proprietary formats for pictures and for picture metadata. Adobe will have to be offering something of value to keep its photo customers.
Adobe cannot succeed over the medium or long term if they become grossly stagnant and overpriced, no matter what license model they are using. Their position is not that well protected, and I'm sure they know it.
GaryJP: If you are inclined to believe Lightroom and others will never be converted to Creative Cloud only, trust what they tell their investors, not what they tell their customers:
"More importantly, moving forward all Adobe and channel focus will solely be on Creative Cloud offerings and CS6 perpetual revenue becomes de minimis."Adobe Systems CEO Shantanu Narayen
"Q2 was the last quarter we broadly offered perpetual volume licensing of CS6 through the channel. As a result, there was high demand by customers serviced by the channel who wanted to add to their perpetual seat capacity. This drove the upside relative to the high-end of our total targeted Q2 revenue range. We believe these customers will migrate to Creative Cloud over time. Beginning in Q3, the channel is solely focused on licensing Creative Cloud."Adobe CFO Mark Garrett.
Seems pretty clear those statements were about CS6 specifically, not about all Adobe software and were made back when the transition to CC was still relatively new.
Adobe still offers many perpetual licenses: Lightroom, Elements, Premiere Elements and also many pro and commercial applications like Acrobat, Framemaker et. al.
In fact, as of right now, a quick scan of their product page shows about 60 desktop software titles available with around 33 of them being sold with perpetual licenses -- more than half of their desktop products are available with perpetual licenses.
I think it's easy to see that Adobe will sell its titles via whatever license model they feel will produce the best business results for each title, on a case-by-case basis, and it's not automatically true that subscription is the answer for every program or target market.
Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.
@ Svetoslav Popov
Just as a side note: your accounting is incomplete. In figuring the cost of Photoshop perpetual, you have to include your initial purchase price, not just the upgrade prices. At some point in the past you paid 700-800€ for your first copy, right? That counts (although figuring out how much it counts is not straightforward).
PicOne: How do upgrade fees (to eg. LR6) get calculated if the upgrade becomes available somewhere in the middle of your 1yr contract?
IOW, to say this $9.99/month cost structure is "permanent" doesn't mean much if LR5 is about to be replaced, and this pricing is only valid for LR5 +CC (and no other future version of LR).
> "However, for the stupid people out there's sake, can u tell me how the customer "off the street" visiting www.adobe.com actually navigates to the catalog page you linked?"
A link to the perpetual version is on the main Lightroom page. It's below the CC price boxes at the bottom of the page and it's labeled "Upgrade to Lightroom 5 >" (Note that it looks like neither the CC boxes nor the perpetual link appear if you are signed in to your Adobe ID -- or at least my ID, which Adobe knows has a current subscription, so they likely suppressed all the purchasing links.)
And as others have pointed out, Lightroom perpetual can be purchased from hundreds of vendors other than Adobe.
mumintroll: As I predicted. Adobe lower the prices to lure new stupid customers.
. "They didn't lower the price. It's a one year deal, after which the price returns to $20 a month."
What do you get out of coming here and lying? What weird psychological benefit does it have for you?
Nowhere does Adobe say that the price will go up to $20 after one year. Nowhere. You don't have the slightest idea what will happen to the price of this package or anything else Adobe sells.