MisterBG: A Wake Up call to all those that think the "Cloud" is invulnerable to disruption.How long before this happens to all those "cloud" archives of images that people have uploaded, think are safe, and have no off-line backup for?The "cloud" unlike it's namesake, is not something that floats around in space, it's just an array of physical hard drives on some server somewhere, and as such, however well protected, is vulnerable to disruption from electrical failure, fire, flood, earthquakes and any number of other external influences.Those that rely on it entirely for their storage are foolish.
All well and true about back up of files/photos. But, and I'll bet you realize this, the problems with Adobe Cloud are much bigger.
Go without cloud access for a month and your software will die on you. (I realize it's more like 90 days for year lease holders.)
Bill T.: I wonder how many of the anti-CC ranters here are merely annoyed because they can no longer pirate the software?
I've never mind paying for good value received, and as far as I'm concerned CC represents fabulous value for the money, especially for those who use multiple applications.
If Adobe went back to old scheme, I couldn't afford to pay for a lot of Adobe programs (and their updates) that I now use. Just think...that would give us a whole new thing to rant about!
For more than a few years now, my high end CAD software has offered the rental option--for a month or a year. And no one really objects, because the licenses are also offered for one time sale at a higher price.
Nothing is stopping Adobe from offering both rental ("great it's cheap for the 30 days I need it.") and also then the license purchase option.
Paul Guba: I have had no issue and continue working.
Same question that I asked Paul above.
DVFL: It really looks like a great upgrade for rx100 . But for owners of RX100ii like me, I think it's not really "must upgrade". Especialy if you're like me who uses rx-100ii mainly for scuba (very compact even in uw housing)with strobes and video lights .Btw good job Sony!
The lens looks to be a huge upgrade to both RX100 and RX100ii. Hundreds of raw samples from various examples needed to confirm of course.
The built-in EVF is also an upgrade.
Though I can see why you'd not use a zoom too much underwater. And of course the EVF wouldn't work.
Framer: Used CC on my laptop and desktop in the past 24 hours with no problems.
No complaints here.
Did your computers connect to the Adobe cloud? Or just use the software?
Walter: Most people who did not read the headline would not have realised there was a problem - the software just kept working. The "cloud " is just a step along the way, horses to automobiles if you like. Someone earlier could not grasp the concept. In the past horses died, more recently computers crashed, of course nobody ever had an external hard drive die with all the files on it ..never to see the light of day again. Cloud backup just gives an additional way to save stuff. I still remember the horror when solicitors stored all their faxes only to return years later to blank pieces of paper.
I personally like the seamless Adobe updates... I use the software everyday and it is more stable than ever... the cost is proportionate to value for money for me. There are all sorts of other software if you want to "own"...hey ho...another storm in a " half full" teacup.
As for the article....? Keep them coming Dpreview it is nice to be updated with what is going on with links to work arounds.
That's why you keep copies of photos on different hard drives. Sometimes a failed external hard drive can be fixed by replacing the case, but not always.
Then you keep clones of the "C" drive running your computer. These clones aren't about backing up files; they're about having exact copies of applications, Win/Mac OS updates, and computer settings that you know work with your system's hardware.
Cloning software for a Windows computer costs something like $40 and an extra hard drive is $100 or less + plus $20 for a case/cable. I believe there's free cloning software for Mac.
You will need to use a screw driver and cloning a "C" drive can take 12 hours--during which time you can't use your computer.
And/or you have another computer that can readily run the software you need to keep working.
Charlie boots: The issue is that Adobe has a contract with subscribers to provide service without any penalties for non compliance whereas if a subscriber does not pay the penalty is disconnection. A very one sided affair with no incentive for Adobe to create a system of extreme reliability.
Many customers surely lost much money due to the inability to access their documents in Adobe's cloud and yet Adobe does not seem to be accepting any responsibility for this.
Once again Adobe takes a high handed approach to customer service.
Who keeps important documents, photos, etc, exclusively on a cloud? Webmail excepted.
(And if someone sends me something important via webmail, example: photos, PDFs, important web links, I keep a copy on my own hard/flash drives.)
The question remains, how many lost the use of the software on their computers because of failure to authenticate?
Above in these comments, Marcin 3M addresses the math of a typical year lease renter.
spitfire31: "And since light field cameras capture 3D data through a single lens, it'd be much easier to shoot 3D films - all of the parallax problems presented by stereoscopic cameras would disappear."This I don't understand. 3D is 3D BECAUSE of parallax, corresponding to roughly the distance between the eyes.
How can a single lens on a static camera provide two different viewpoints necessary for the brain to reconstruct a 3D experience?
Except that's not what the microlens array does. (You can read the PhD or other literature on this subject for confirmation.)
Albeit: The microlens array allows for the capture of enough more information that 3D can be faked.
Vamp898: Is everyone of you really not able to read?
"JPEG Tone Curves / Dynamic Range"
They are testing the Dynamic Range of the JPEG and so in fact testing the JPEG Engine.
They are testing the JPEG Software on the Firmware of the Camera.
This test have absolutely nothing to do with the Dynamic Range of the sensor.
So the D4s have worse JPEG Engine than the OMD-EM1 have, that _doesnt_ mean the D4s have less Dynamic Range at all!
But it should be mentioned that the Toshiba Sensors in Nikon Cameras have less DR than the Sony Sensors have, thats why the D800 have more DR than the D4(s), even if it produces more noise.
More like "better below ISO 200".
Don't quote DXO scores, they're nearly useless. Use raws for making those judgments--and in this case use raws shot with the exact same lens.
It's really easy to see the problems with DR in the D800.
Skipper494: Most of these shots are not even sharp (see the single flower) and have considerable purple fringing. Certainly not up to the standard of DP's own samples with the Fuji S2 Pro, so many years ago.
Okay, but you're commenting on jpegs.
There be raws for download at PhotographyBlog.com--albeit not enough raws. I believe DPNow has some more raws.
Also there's more than one lens for this system and so far we've only seem shots done with the small zoom.
Fringing (or lack thereof) isn't the only way to judge lens optical quality.
Wubslin: Another overblown, overdone, oversized, overweight, overpriced failure from Nikon then?
Time to stick a fork in it.
So you've not used a D3s or D4?
Master Yoda: They're gonna sell a lot of these . . .
What does a tough video camera with a fixed focal length lens and a small sensor have to do with anything here?
In the next 24 hours Starbucks will sell more cups of coffee than Sony will sell RX100m3s, total.
Mike FL: Numbers are talking from Amazon US Site:
Sony DSC-RX100M III: - #1 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital Cameras- #5 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)
Lets see how is the poorly executed Canon G1X-MK2 Doing:- #71 in Camera & Photo > Point-and-Shoot Digital Cameras- #330 in Camera & Photo (See Top 100 in Camera & Photo)
Well executed/done, Sony!
Not that I like the Canon G1Xii's still image quality, but sales/preorder numbers are not the way to judge image quality or other camera features.
JaimeA: This camera is demoralizing the competition.
An $800 Canon being the only P&S competition right now--unless you want to count all of the raw shooting P&S cameras that can be bought for about $350--and those all have much smaller sensors.
spzphoto: I wish that Sony takes advantage of that amazing sensor and makes a camera with interchangeable lenses with it.It would be a piece of cake to make lenses as bright as f1.0 and cheap too.I would love to see a slightly bigger body (easier to hold) with a 35mm equivalent f1.0 lens.Ideally with a m4/3 mount so that we could use the existing m4/3 lenses too.
Regarding your claims about the Aptina sensors, unfortunately I've shot with them, so can confirm that they are indeed the equals of the Sony RX100 sensors (various).
Didn't say a peep about 4/3s sensors versus the Aptina 1 inch sensors, but they're pretty comparable for IQ. You see again here, I've shot raws with the Panasonic GX7 and the Olympus EM1, so have realworld examples to go by instead of DXO scores.
Now the best Panasonic, PanaLeica, and Olympus lenses for the m4/3s system are optically much better than any lens for the Nikon 1 system.
BarnET:No, you are completely wrong about how both filter adapters mount on to the RX100. Both adapters involve gluing a receiving part on the end of the lens barrel. Read the reviews at either Amazon or B+H for either adapter. The bigger problem here is that when challenged you didn’t do some simple online reading.
I’m not talking about NX lenses.
I’m talking about NX-mini lenses. The 17mm f/1.8 is for the NX-mini--not the NX system.
DXO sensor scoring is next to useless, and completely fails to account for lenses, and may also not account for incamera processing–the phrasing on the DXOMark website is ambiguous. Whereas I’m going by raws I’ve shot with the NX-mini, various Nikon 1s, and also the Sony RX100ii and Sony RX10. (No I’ve not yet tried the NX-mini 17mm lens, but good Samsung lenses are optically excellent to extraordinary.)
Please don’t cite DXO scores as anything like final on any subject. It means you’re interested in numbers not image quality.
What Adobe cloud feature do you regularly use?
I never wrote that the Nikon 1 is the same size as the RX100. However the NXmini, Nikon 1 and Sony RX100 all use 1 inch sensors.
And the Aptina sensors are very good and pretty much equal the high ISO performance of that Sony 1 inch sensor. (Samsung looks better than both, but need more samples.)
The Nikon 1 system has fast fixed focal length lenses, not zooms though.
Then Samsung has announced a 17mm f/1.8 lens for the NXmini and there already exists the 9mm lens--slower though.
You keep posting things that are simply wrong or grossly misleading here. Do a little checking before hitting "post".
You were completely wrong about glue and the filter adapters for the RX100. You're wrong about the NXmini lenses. You're wrong about the Aptina sensor image quality.
futile32: Something for the wishlist... would have loved the addition of a recessed 49mm thread on the lens. I got that magnetic polarizer on my RX100, and would prefer to have a screw on.
You keep demonstrating that you're not familiar with the filter adapter one can use on the RX100(s). This Amazon link is to the Sony filter adapter--in this situation "glue", "adhesive" and "double sided tape" are synonymous.
So it is you who keep making stupid comments about the filter system for this Sony.
Anybody basically familiar with the RX100 knows that it did not have a real filter mount.
Also I didn't say anything about glueing the filter on to the RX100, I wrote about gluing the filter adapter. So sloppy reading at the very least on your part.
More ignorance on your part: That magnetic filter adapter has a ring one has to glue to the face of the Sony's lens tube.
Did you even bother to type "RX100 filter adapter" into Amazon"?
You forgot the Samsung NX-mini with the 1" sensor, few lenses right now. But a good sensor.
So that's an entire 1" sensored Samsung system--like the Nikon 1 system.