Looking at the specs and prices, this looks like a direct competitor to the Canon EOS 70D. Is there some killer feature that would make a buyer choose the Olympus over the Canon (or vice versa)? A side by side list would be very useful.
I owned plenty of hideous Cokin A series filters when I used film, all of which were hardly ever used apart from an 80A for tungsten correction. The only detachable Cokin P-filters I own now for my digital SLR are a polariser and a set of ND grads... all of which hardly ever get touched.
There is no future for 'creative' clip-on filters (i.e. destroy your shot for ever) when everything apart from polarising and ND-type exposure adjustment can be done post capture, with no risk.
I've never had a Facebook account, so laugh every time one of these horror stories appears. I simply can't see the point of telling the whole world every time I go for a dump, or 'sharing' a false impression of my wonderful happy life and my overwhelming social standing. If you're stupid enough to give away all your personal details and photos on Facebook, stop whining when it gets used elsewhere.
ABM Barry: Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen repeatedly dodges a question directly asked about Adobe's huge price discrepancies for software in Australia compared to other parts of the world. The person on the video asking the question repeatedly asks why Australians are charged AU$1400 and more for traditional software delivered over the internet than people in the United States.
This is a common complaint by Australian users who have long complained that they are price gouged by major companies such as Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft. In fact, pricing is such a source of contention within Australia that executives from Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple have been summoned to appear before Australian Parliament to answer questions specifically about pricing.
All three of these companies had previously refused to appear before Parliament.
Check out this link, then tell us your thoughts? (after being sick!)
I think it is highly relevant to see Adobe's chief weasel hopelessly trying to spin his message. It gives a very good idea of Adobe's attitude to customers' concerns (ignore them). And who is that pathetic guy wincing in the background every time The Weasel avoids the question? It's hilarious!
What a ridiculous piece of over-design for a card-reader! The announcement should have read: "While Lexar has gained a solid reputation for it's memory cards, we thought we'd try to milk that reputation by selling the card reader too. Your PC's built-in card reader doesn't give us a look-in, so we thought we'd get you to spend all over again on a shiny piano-black device that does the same thing. And of course you need to read four cards at once, even though you can't do anything with four folders of data at the same time."
samhain: In april, the CEO of Adobe sold 225,000 of his shares of adobe. Yesterday he sold 50,000 shares.Yeah... that really inspires confidence in creative cloud & the future of Adobe.
Except their profits are well down on last year, and now they've slashed the price of a prime CashCow offering. Mmmm, desperation?
Charlie boots: Adobe has an almost monopoly at present but this subscription model is not very comforting should adobe falter. Look at blackberry,Nokia, nortel, Microsoft, Polaroid, Kodak, Motorola, All failed or starting to falter. Adobe is profitable and has high market share thus the only way isDown. Competitors will be already working hard to nibble away at this.
Just look at what has recently come to market from dxo and others If adobe does not get this right they may have problems in the future.
Look at what Japan has done to the car industry. Just wait till china or India decide to seriously go into this business.
As already mentioned here, photoshop ect are mature and it would beDifficult to continue to generate sales through only incremental upgradesSo a subscription model may be the only choice for the moment .
"Adobe is profitable"... but becoming much less so. Take a look at their 6-month results ending June last year, compared with this year. Their share price may be soaring due to anticipation of massive guaranteed profits... but it's not actually happening. Their profits are down significantly, probably due to the lacklustre response to CC (despite Adobe's normal hype) and no wave of cash from a new CS release. The reduced pricing is a desperate measure to stimulate new sales.
bronxbombers4: For those who missed, interesting tidbit:"Adobe Cash flows:Net Incomesix Months ending 6/1/2012 $409.085,000six Months ending 5/31/2013 $141,663,000."
What revealing statistics! No wonder they're getting so desperate to snare new suckers into the CashCow program!
David Dahlstrom: They still don't get it. I'm fine with a renting *option*; its actually a nice and cost-effective option to have; but I cannot rent. It has nothing to do with price. It has to do with the fact that this is a revokable license.
When I create images, I need to be able to edit them later. If at some point in the future I need to switch to another product (because Adobe went away, or another product now suits my needs better), I am bound to continue to pay Adobe for the continued right to edit my own images made while I was renting. This is because the moment I stop paying, my license to use the Photoshop version to create those images is revoked. And, of course, if Adobe goes away nobody gets to edit their images anymore--especially if your saved images include any proprietary features of the Photoshop version you created the images in. Pros beware--and don't say you weren't warned.
@ Dave Dahlstrom:Exactly the point, precisely put.
CashCow is also the ultimate formula to allow Adobe to sit back and become ever more lazy and unresponsive to customer's needs (and opinions).
Kinematic Digit: I was doing several overlays of the MTF charts and of course, Canon only publishes theoretical values so this must be taken with a grain of salt.
But based on what I've cross referenced, this lens might actually be a hidden gem.
Wide Open the new lens has better contrast than the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L II and the 70-300L
Tele the 55-250 is about on par with the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L II and almost identical to the 70-300L
This new lens falls off sooner at the edge in the overlay, but if you stretch the overlay to match (to measure the fall off performance at the edges), it actually matches the L glass in optical performance almost identically (some cases better)
I expect what you can produce on full frame with one of the L zooms will be tough to find worse with this one. Almost makes me question my L glass collection.
"This lens might actually be a hidden gem".You're right. I own the previous version of this lens, and spent ages weighing up the pros and cons of getting the 70-200 f4 L IS instead. But the L glass was simply not worth nearly FOUR TIMES the price of the 55-250. This little gem has a massive zoom range, is tiny, light, and turns in a far better performance than it ever should for the price. Yes, it's plasticky and manual focus is horrible, but it makes the overpriced, heavy and bulky L-series glass look very, very silly.
With something like a Canon EOS 700D, he could have changed exposure settings using a smart phone app, I believe.
What a waste of time! A hopeless set of pictures, all fighting impossible exposure conditions, and with zero depth. They mostly look like a load of accidentally vignetted test shots taken during setup for an event. Better luck next time.
Well done Léo. This is a great attempt and deserves praise.
The people below who are laughing about quality have obviously never used 3D design software and have no idea of the difficulty in modelling an object that will 'print' correctly using current 3D printing technology.
This camera took a lot of work to create - it reminds me of the old bulk film backs that could be attached to top-end film SLRs to let the pros take more than 36 shots before reloading ;-)
Gaffman: Estimating $800. Should be music to the ears of APS-C shooters
Except APS-C shooters probably rate practicality quite highly. Yes, f1.8 is nice, but surely that limited zoom range rather defeats the object of being a zoom? For those photographic situations that ever demand f1.8 instead of just upping the ISO, a 50mm f1.8 (at a small fraction of the price) might seem like better value.
Reactive: Had the zoom range been just a bit more practical for day-to-day use... let's say 18-70mm... this would have been the perfect 'always-on' lens. Considering that a 50mm f1.8 is so tiny and light, surely 70mm at f1.8 is possible without the lens becoming too large or expensive? But then I know nothing about the physics of lenses!
OK then, too impractical. But with this limited range, for Canon users the well reviewed EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 will be a much more useful everyday lens - plus a 50mm f1.8 for those who really need low DoF. I suspect both together will be cheaper than this Sigma.
Had the zoom range been just a bit more practical for day-to-day use... let's say 18-70mm... this would have been the perfect 'always-on' lens. Considering that a 50mm f1.8 is so tiny and light, surely 70mm at f1.8 is possible without the lens becoming too large or expensive? But then I know nothing about the physics of lenses!
It is without ANY doubt that "CC" stands for "Cash Cow". The Wikipedia definition is this:
"Cash cow:In business, a cash cow is a product or a business unit that generates unusually high profit margins: so high that it is responsible for a large amount of a company's operating profit. This profit far exceeds the amount necessary to maintain the cash cow business, and the excess is used by the business for other purposes."
I guess the 'other purposes' means, in this case, Adobe paying their executives huge salaries to complain about difficult life is.
markb3699: Hendrickson's responses are typically incomplete and corporate sounding from a corporate hack. Saying that they anticipated the negative response from the hobbyist community is patronizing to say the least. A lot of professionals are upset too. Me for one. Charging $240 per year (after the $120 first year) is highway robbery considering I've upgraded every other version in the last 15 years and probably spent $1,200 during that time. Now I'm expected to pay more than triple that amount over the same time span? I won't pay it even though I can afford it just on principle.
The economic downturn means company accountants everywhere must keep tighter control on their spending, which means upgrading I.T. equipment and software *only* when absolutely necessary, and by making calculated and strategic buying decisions. Adobe's obscene pricing has always made upgrading Adobe applications one of these planned buying decisions. Adobe's subscription idea immediately moves this once fully-controllable I.T. spending decision (and pricing!) entirely into the hands of the supplier. The added consequence that the product they bought actually CEASES TO WORK if payment is not maintained makes it an almost entirely unattractive prospect.
Anyone downloaded GIMP? Give it a try. I bet it does 90% of the jobs that PhotoShop can do for you! Open Source software is usually updated far more often than Adobe's snail's pace, the developers actually LISTEN to your needs and bug reports, and it costs nothing! In other words, all of the things Adobe don't do, despite their obscene prices.
macanon: Do you think $600/year is a lot of money for a subscription? Guess what, in Sweden Adobe charge you 72 % more. That is $1030/year. That is a lot of money. Competitors, hurry up! Offer us some nice alternatives.
GIMP. Inkscape. Blender.... Cost: zero.
UK pricing is equally greedy - and probably will remain so for CC prices, even though there are not even any shipping costs for a download!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review