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.
Reactive: Don't forget to sign the petition (not that the greedy execs at Adobe will ever listen to customers):
Everybody understands the idea of making a profit, and if you don't like a company then don't buy their products. Agreed. So perhaps you missed the point of the petition? Nobody would have cared at all if Adobe had introduced an *option* to rent their products on a monthly basis. If CashCow is so wonderful, it could only have increased the number of happy new Adobe users. What the petition highlights is Adobe's hideous *demand* that they will drill a small hole in your bank account, widen that hole whenever they choose, and as a reward for letting them do that they'll lock all of your work in a vault if you ever stop paying.
Don't forget to sign the petition (not that the greedy execs at Adobe will ever listen to customers):
jkenehan: I'm not so deterred by the downtime - it happens - but I find a far more troubling flaw with CC. It's the diminished incentive for Adobe to develop. With licensed releases, Adobe was greatly motivated to advance the technology to encourage us to buy the latest and greatest. Once we're on subscription, that cookie is far smaller. Why kill yourself sweating development of new features when your customers are rather locked in? They can ease up a bit!
My take is that the subscription model is far worse for Adobe's future than for us as consumers - they have given up a good bit of what makes businesses great - the magic of competition. I think Adobe saw short term green and didn't consider the harmful effect on themselves.
Exactly right. In the extreme, the result of CashCow could mean that Adobe developers could come to work and play poker all day. When reviewers started to notice the total lack of development, they'd do the usual Adobe trick - no bug fixes, one or two pointless new ' features', and of course (where most of the money goes) a wall of loud marketing hype.
Adobe were already glacially slow at doing anything radical to their software - like improving the mess of creaky old functions bolted on over the years - CC just lets them become even fatter and lazier.
David V: I would not be surprised if this camera were contracted out to another manufacturer altogether (including lenses). A quick and lucrative way for Leica to drop a red dot on them and charge the faithful an exorbitant amount of cash, believing that they are getting Leica quality in a smaller, "more affordable" package.
The lenses look like Panasonic m4/3 lenses and are "consumer grade" slow. The sample images that were posted here are overwhelmingly ordinary. I'll keep my Fuji X gear, thank you.
I thought Leica had been thinly disguising Panasonic cameras for some time? I seem to remember camera magazine reviews saying as much. It's sort of a shame that the red dot means nothing any more.
Reactive: I just used this site's own lens comparison and came to an astonishing conclusion: stop down to f4 or smaller and you might as well buy Canon's 50mm f1.8. Try the comparison yourself. Above f4, the figures are near *identical* across the board, with just a slight barrel distortion on the Canon (easily correctable in software). So do I spend £850 on the 815g 100mm long Sigma, or spend £85 (yes 1/10 price) on the 130g 40mm long Canon? What could I do with the spare £765? New camera body? A new high-spec laptop to add a touch of sharpening to my Canon's images?
Fair point, but that also means:
a) You must use the same camera manufacturer for the next 10-20 years, as you can't change the mount.b) Your chosen camera manufacturer stays in business, does not upgrade their mount, or at least allows for backwards compatibility, for the next 10-20 years.c) We'll still be using great big heavy lenses on great big SLRs for the next 10-20 years (unlikely).
I'm delighted (genuinely) that you have so much spare cash to make this seem like a sensible purchase. I'm not so sure that it will really make or break any shot that a much cheaper f1.4 or even f1.8 would take. It is the composition and lighting of a shot that really count, not the pixel-peeping nth degree of sharpness.
Trubbtele: Goding to buy this lens :-) Small money for high quality!
Above f4 it's no better than a Canon 50mm f1.8 at 1/10 price.
ItaiB: Does it mount on a Canon 60D?
And above f4, the even cheaper Canon 50mm f1.8 matches the Sigma's specs, apart from some small barrel distortion that software will remove. And all at 1/10 the price and 1/6 the weight! Makes the Sigma look rather silly really.
I just used this site's own lens comparison and came to an astonishing conclusion: stop down to f4 or smaller and you might as well buy Canon's 50mm f1.8. Try the comparison yourself. Above f4, the figures are near *identical* across the board, with just a slight barrel distortion on the Canon (easily correctable in software). So do I spend £850 on the 815g 100mm long Sigma, or spend £85 (yes 1/10 price) on the 130g 40mm long Canon? What could I do with the spare £765? New camera body? A new high-spec laptop to add a touch of sharpening to my Canon's images?
Reactive: What a great shame that Sigma are getting so greedy, just like Canon.
Oh, I see. How odd that Sigma want to get into such a tiny market niche. I would have thought they'd be battling it out to kill Tamron in the independent lens market, not trying to sway a handful of pros and specialists.
Its 60% heavier then their existing 50mm f1.4, uses almost twice as much glass, and as a result will cost over twice as much as the Canon. Hardly an elegant engineering solution? I'm sure Canon will be delighted that sales of their own f1.4 will hardly be touched, as very few people looking for a discrete 50mm lens will want to spend $1000 on a brick to hang round their neck.
What a great shame that Sigma are getting so greedy, just like Canon.
I use Adobe Technical Communication Suite 3 (TS3), bought 2011.This year TS5 came out, 3 years after TS3. To upgrade to TS5, normal licence, and keep it for 3 years will cost my company £1172. To upgrade to TS5 on the subscription option for 3 years will cost my company £1758.
That's 50% more for monthly payments over 3 years (even if Adobe never raises the subscription price) for software that ceases to operate as soon as we stop paying (forever) a monthly ransom...
Forever is a long time.
Have we wasted decades on digital camera design? The Olympus OM-D xx takes a mechanical spring cable release (like my old OM10), and one of the lenses shown in these tidbits has an amazing new feature... a clicky APERTURE RING on the lens! Woah! Will all the current Canons / Nikons covered in tiny buttons start to look *retro* soon, as we all move back to small, nicely handling cameras like the Olympus OM-D series?
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."