nycgazelle: Jesus Christ People! I can't believe all the stupid complainers about this. 9.99 is two cups of coffee a month. Life is expensive...THIS most certainly isn't. I like it because for the first time in years..I did buy photoshop at full pop once...I can have current versions and not pirate it. I feel great about giving Adobe 10 bucks a month because its an amount I don't even think about when it auto deducts. This prevents everyone who couldn't plop down X amount of dollars at once for the software to pay a modest fee and feel good about themselves and enjoy a tremendously awesome product.
The main issue is that once people sign up for the "cheap" deal and adobe has moved enough people onto their subscription only deal, they will raise the price as much as they want
How long do you think it will stay 9.99 for?
And what will happen once the majority of people has their photos in their propriety systems?
ThomasSwitzerland: I am still a loyal customer of Nikon. But this uninspiring D4s confirms my move. Step by step I get rid of those old world huge cameras. They seem to me like dinosaurs from the past.
I do not want to bash because I believe in Nikon’s excellent sensors’ computer code and ergonomics. I also had the Canon FF cameras with L-lenses. I sold them at very good prices some time ago. I questioned more and more to hike in the mountains with those “tons” of black cases with a huge backpack limiting moves and fun.
Now I still got the D5200 – pros will smile – and mirrorless; and wait for the next generation of cellphone/integrated cameras to migrate to. It’s like with the stock markets. Buy early and sell into the last waves.
In a couple of years, no one can imagine that we took photos with those huge, heavy, and strange looking cameras.
Sometimes it is decision point to liberate. Less load is more joy. More joy and dedication produce better pictures.
I dont know if those cameras were meant for the guy who walks around with it all day .... For that they make tiny DSLR and mirrorless.
Things like D4s will probably be rather used at sporting events where their size and weight isnt really an issue. Esp. when on a tripod or monopod with a large 300mm + lens ...
Matt: Who are those people who cant do "pure" photography unless some modern controls are stripped away from their camere?
"Oh noz, I cant take good photos because my camera offers all those features that I dont want to use but must use!"
give me a break. If someone is such an accomplished photogrpaher that the pure thought of modern controls ruins their photos, then either give it up or put your D800 rig in M and MF or whatever else.
The ultimate idiocy is the use of a cable release instead of a wireless remote shutter release. if someone is so stuck in the past that they must use a cable remote release and by doing so risk vibrating their camera slightly instead of a RF or IR remote release that would assure the camera isnt shaking then its pretty clear that the retro camera is just a fad to show of that they are some photo master because they dont use any modern gizmos that would distract their superior artistic skills. Those people should give it up
Why would I attach a cable to my camera risking to jerk or vibrate it just for the sake of "Hey look at me, I am so retro and artistic!".
To give up technological benefits just to look retro-hip seems a bit silly to me ...
Its dirt cheap? Great but if you cant foot $20 for an RF remote, maybe buying that cool retro camera was a poor choice to begin with ....A RF remote is small and weighs also almost nothing. If you can lug around a retro hip camera and a tripod (and I am sure we not be using carbon as thats not retro and would take away our artistic skills ;) ) than an RF remote will dogreat it uses no batteries, but your camera does anyways and batteries in IR remotes last years, so thats hardly a concern.it doesnt need fixing until you bugger up the threads or kink it ...You know if you must screw a cable release in your retro styled camera to take really artistic pictures, then great. Whatever helps. For my part I will use all features that help me taking photos.
Who are those people who cant do "pure" photography unless some modern controls are stripped away from their camere?
Can you guys do AF tests with moving subjects? Honestly the differences in static image quality between todays top cameras seem so small that its alsmot not worth pages of review anyways.
"That price will never change"
yeah sure. LOL
falconeyes: I would have been keen to learn about AF consistency using the new 70D's dual pixel live view AF.
I seem to believe that if I ran a review site I would get the camera wherever I have to so that I can have a review first and collect the revenue through web traffic. If I dont get it delivered by Canon, I will go out and buy it as it pretty much wont cost me anything anyways.
But thats just me
@Adrien. I dont want a 70D But if the #1 camera review website can not get in the #1 new camera from the #1 camera manufacturer after it IS IN THE STORES, then someone is not doing their job right.
You can buy the 70D in the stores .... If they dont have one then its incompetence
@ Andy, preview? great but other have REVIEWS out.
You cant get a 70D? Are you for real? Maybe fire the person in charge of procuring products and get someone who can either get it straight from the manufacturer or can get his ass in a store and BUY it!
Are you kidding?
People are buying them in the stores and using them. How can you not have one and have started a review?
Other sites will be lightyears ahead of you
dannyboy5400: Even if Adobe reverses course on this, TRUST is broken and I will never trust them again. I hope competitors jump on this the way Adobe was all over the Final Cut Pro debacle. I am back on FCX now that it is fixed.
I dont think adobe cares and I believe for large commercial customers the leasing model is actually a benefit.
It is not likely that adobe gives a rat's ass about a few lost purchases from hobby photographers or small professionals
(unknown member): Suggest to DPReview what I suggested and let's answer the real question: Of all the users who currently own a legal license to Adobe CS or PS software, will you ever purchase an Adobe product using the CC pricing scheme? Instead of hiding the true results of this decisions in some vague expressions of unhappiness let's see how our feelings are going to hit Adobe's pocket book. A simple yes or no and we'll see how people really feel about this nonsense. If our pocketbooks are going to do the talking, let's give Adobe a little preview. My bet is everyone who dislikes the move is a "no" (95% as of now) and everyone else is the 5% saying "cool with me." Go eat a bag of human male reproductive organs, Adobe (the word I was going for there was what one might use as shorthand for Richard).
Yes I own a legal copy of PS and NO I would NEVER pay for some subscription BS.
It is not even about the money, it is about the hassles that come with that "rental" software.
I like to own what I pay for. Period
Dale Garman: Welcome to the Hotel California -- you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave!!
Yes you can just ease into the subscription model, spend thousands of hours using it and creating images and layers, but if you miss a payment you are like the guests of the Hotel California - stuck somewhere you don't want to be with work that has evaporated in value to you.
as much as the cloud BS sucks, if you miss a payment you can just get another subscription and continue.
I can imagine that professionals, esp. with many seats will prefer a monthly leasing rate as long as they need the seats over a one time cost.
AbrasiveReducer: He's right about one thing. I find myself using Photoshop less and less because Lightroom is quicker and less painful. With thousands of images, who has time for the 22-step tutorials in Photoshop magazine? When Lightroom was released, I thought, here is a program for photographers. Photoshop? Not really. I can live without being able to add type or use spider warp.
for many shots, LR is good enough but if you edit single photos, esp if you do lots of healing or levels or pixel editing then there is little choice other than going into PS for the finishing touches
This is maybe a good time to start giving up .DNG .. just in case Adobe has even funnier plans ...
Wouldn't those cinematographers for high resolution broadcast TV and cinema production use VIDEOCAMERAS rather than using a klutzy DLSR?