Tom Hix: Wow. What a bunch of nabobs of negativism. If ya don't like Adobe products, don't use them and find something else or shoot film and work in the darkroom. Adobe must be doing something right as they are still around for 25 years.
And Microsoft too. But every time I have to help another otherwise intelligent person work through the tangled mess of Microsoft Word, or scream at Adobe Illustrator's 25-years-out-of-date Arc tool, I wonder how long these dinosaurs can survive.
It's so funny seeing anybody try to justify Adobe's CashCow (CC) enforcement model. These people use Adobe's outrageous CS6 pricing as some sort of 'norm' by which other prices should be judged. Only a fool could ever believe Adobe's prices were a fair benchmark.
For CashCow, Adobe now pushes the false urgency and false importance of 'keeping up to date', as if you will somehow miss out if you don't pay month-after-month-forever while the Adobe snail trundles along delivering very little. Clearly a time for great celebration at Adobe then! Even less pressure then ever to innovate, and a positive reason to do as little work as possible. Why fix that bug this month if they can collect another month's worth of CC payments for doing absolutely nothing?
Wikipedia: "The term cash cow is a metaphor for a "dairy cow" used on farms to produce milk, offering a steady stream of income with little maintenance".
With all these positive comments I must give DPP another try! When I bought my 550D, the supplied software looked just like the usual unintuitive and pointless crap that manufacturers give away to 'add value'. But I'm always looking for an entirely free / open source (i.e. dump-Adobe) workflow, so this new DPP looks very promising.
** A non-owner and never will be's perspective **Leica =- Very nice lenses.- Technology always lagging current achievements.- Bought by people with more money than sense/knowledge/ability.- [And nowadays] Probably just a prettied-up version of a Panasonic hiding inside?
A pretty case and a red dot don't make you a better photographer, just a lot poorer. Leica as a brand was past its sell by date many years ago.
" As such we can't comment much on how it handles, but we do know that it will be splash and dust-proof."
That's nice. And one wrong move and that beautiful front element will be ruined! Aren't 'pro' lenses supposed to be able to take a few knocks?
It's nice to see Olympus making more of a case for buying into the OM series, but with people predicting the end of APS-C because FF is becoming cheaper, what real future is there for tiny MFT sensors?
Reactive: Wow, am I glad I still have my old Olympus OM10! I can get a roll of this film and shoot off 36 hopelessly inaccurate shots. And the best bit... when I get it developed, the lab will attach one of those little stickers "Problem: Your camera may not be light proof." to every shot... just like they used to when I used an 80A for artistic effect. :-)
...And I've just thought of a great idea for a crowdfunding campaign: A printer that prints your digital photos onto fake film transparency stock. You then mount the transparencies in a slide, use an old projector, and pretend you still use film! How cool is that? You could Photoshop all your digital shots so they have hideous colour problems, print them using the new printer, and then pretend you took them on some new-fangled film.]
Wow, am I glad I still have my old Olympus OM10! I can get a roll of this film and shoot off 36 hopelessly inaccurate shots. And the best bit... when I get it developed, the lab will attach one of those little stickers "Problem: Your camera may not be light proof." to every shot... just like they used to when I used an 80A for artistic effect. :-)
dialstatic: Many (hopefully) sarcastic comments here about how this lens would be a poor choice for an APS-C photo camera like 'it's not f/2.8', but I truly don't understand. Not being a video shooter, I wonder why this lens is so desirable for video. That's not a value judgment by the way: I know next to nothing about video and I'm honestly hoping to learn something here. Is it the incredible range? I would think videographers would use multiple lenses (as in the 7D mk video). What would be a typical use for a huge zoom like this one? And while I understand enough physics to see why they don't make a 50-1000 zoom 2.8, I wonder why this slow (...compared to photo zooms) aperture is apparently unproblematic for video. Can anyone explain?
I think these obscene zoom ranges are normal for broadcast cameras. Think of golf coverage on TV - the camera zooms all the way from a distant golfer walking up the fairway, all the way back to a wide angle view of the green. They do the same on coverage of the Wimbledon tennis championship, zooming all the way from a court-wide view to a (slightly wobbly) *close-up* of the London skyline - miles away! I think the slow aperture might not be a problem since for video they never need to use a fast shutter speed.
Well I guess very few companies will be interested in making a competing product; its market niche is even smaller than the cameras' resolutions. Good luck to Mr Rowan if he has cornered a tiny scientific market.
"In the Illustrator family, Illustrator Draw (formerly Adobe Ideas) gives users access to their favorite vector drawing tools..."
Does that mean I can use Android to enjoy the same, worse-than-useless 'Arc tool'? Can I really draw thrilling 90 degree arcs (only) on other devices too? Whoah! Perhaps by 2050 Illustrator will let me define start and end angles for my arcs, just like CorelDraw (and almost any other drawing program) has allowed me to do for decades...
Awwww... and I was so looking forward to an exciting announcement about a massive 0.1% price reduction on 'selected' lenses!
I can't work out any more who is the worst for sickening, detestable, marketing of insubstantial product developments. Adobe are still the king of bu11$h!t I think, but Canon are obviously trying to downgrade their reputation to match. Oh well, perhaps one day they'll announce an exciting new product.
Darren Lee: Sorry Canon,Too little too late. Mirrorless is the way to go now.
For ages I pondered getting a 70-200 F4 L IS... but then I saw an Olympus OM-D EM1 in a shop window... and now the just announced 40-150 f2.8 Pro lens. My next camera definitely won't be a traditional SLR.
[EDIT] Just went to the Canon USA site link to see the big reductions! Ughh? They're not worth looking at! I expected the big announcement to mean 15-20% off, not measly little $50 here and there. Get real Canon, your days are numbered.
Being a Canon I expect the handle is an extra £9,000 accessory? And following Canon logic, if they ever make an IS version it will double the price (for no extra glass) to £198,000? Can't wait for the 'extender' version.
Reactive: I'm a Canon user, and frankly I'm sick of their obscene prices, bulk, and lack of innovation. Recently, an advert for the lovely little OM-D EM1 has been staring at me from the back cover of a magazine on my side table... the temptation!* Since Panasonic also make MFT lenses, my next camera is highly unlikely to be an SLR. Roll on the OM-D EM1 MkII...
* I owned an OM10 30 years ago, and still can't understand why modern SLRs are so stupidly bulky and heavy.
My decade-old Panasonic video camera focussed almost instantaneously, so when Canon announced that the new 70D sensor 'improved' autofocus speeds during video (from the stupidly low benchmark of previous EOS models) it hardly seemed like an innovation, just an overdue patching-up of previously crap performance.
People have been slotting-in extra magnifying elements into telescopes, magnifying glasses and other lenses for well over 100 years, so again it hardly seems innovative to me!
My daughter's £100 Nikon compact tracks several faces very well. So they put it on a 1DX. About time. If you can program the 1Dx to recognise particular faces (e.g. Celebrities A and B) and it can then lock onto those in a paparazzi scrum, then yes, that is quite a good development of existing technology.
I'm a Canon user, and frankly I'm sick of their obscene prices, bulk, and lack of innovation. Recently, an advert for the lovely little OM-D EM1 has been staring at me from the back cover of a magazine on my side table... the temptation!* Since Panasonic also make MFT lenses, my next camera is highly unlikely to be an SLR. Roll on the OM-D EM1 MkII...
sdh: I'm inclined to think a lot of people's expectations are way out of line here.Canon's offering a true ultrawide lens at a price point that halves the previous price floor.
I've used this lens a bit in recent weeks and am very pleased with its images. Stopped down (around F/8) my picutres look consistently sharp from center to corner, even at 10mm.
Maybe my expectations were low (this is admittedly my first UW), but at $300 the lens would have to be truly garbage to warrant complaints about IQ. This lens is far from garbage.
AFAIK UW's are harder to design than standard FL's. This lens reeks of value.
I'm very happy with my purchase.
If Canon have made another "cheap-but-much-better-than-it-should-be-at-the-price" lens - like my EF-S 55-250mm - it deserves to sell well.
DaGurney: Let us know when Adobe decides to sell software again. Until then, screw it.
And while you're waiting, investigate Inkscape, Gimp, Krita, Blender, Scribus, Libre Office (all for $0.00). That lot can probably do most of what you need for the 'price' of a voluntary donation, often with lightning fast update cycles and direct contact with the developers! Now *that* is the way forward. Adobe's loud marketing and customer-hating practices belong in a museum.
mac: white text on black background... bad idea.
Just like this site! Have to press Ctrl+A to invert the text just to prevent my retinas getting burnt-in scan lines for the next 2 minutes!
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.
The 'scary' bit is that any company that moves to this model immediately becomes less motivated to innovate or serve their customers. They're getting your money, every month, and they hope you'll forget that. You could never, ever, forget when that latest grossly overpriced Adobe 'update' came along - you consciously had to decide to stay with Adobe. Now they'll gain by exploiting customer inertia. They can sit back, reduce the frequency of updates, cut back on R&D, and still not have to care too much, because it's going to be more difficult for you to leave them. All very negative, and stacked in favour of the corporation, not the customer.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but I can't believe Canon would give away anything worthwhile for nothing. And yet again, another Great British rip-off for the paid service: "Oddly, the price for these services is listed on different parts of the site in the same amount for Pounds Sterling and in Euros". Canon, please explain why?
I'm a Canon user, but I won't be using this service.