clicstudio: I am tired of people complaining about having to pay just about 10 bucks a month for Photoshop CC.Just a few years ago, Photoshop alone cost about $700. At 10 bucks, that's 70 months or 5.8 years of usage. Most software is obsolete within a year or two. So having the latest version updated frequently is a great thing.If you are professional, then you need to use the best professional tool available out there.I've been using it for 21 years, and I still learn something new about it every day.As a full time professional photographer, this is my bread and butter and I can live without it.So, stop complaining and start creating.
Same old apologist rhetoric.
Tom Goodman: Unbelievable self-indulgence. Subscribe or don't, but spare us your bleats and bootless cries.
Who are you talking to?
piXated: Has everyone missed the point about CC. It seems to me the ideas of synchronized and persistent image management across platforms is the goal here. If your world is paper centric some of the grandma complaints have some merit. If your attention span from camera to iPad is about 20 minutes, all the complaining is just that.
No. The point of CC is dicking people over by RENTING them software. And still not fixing the glaring defects that hobble the products year after year.
"persistent image management across platforms," whatever that means, doesn't require rentalware.
I wonder how many of the profound defects that plague this product are also 25 years old.
Like dialogs not remembering settings. The Image Size dialog is a great example. Every time you pull it up, the units of measure are reset. So you have to switch from pixels to percent, for example, over and over.
And Undo, by default, is not multi-level. WTF, this has been standard on other apps for what, 20 years? And when you address this by remapping Ctrl- or Command-Z to be "step backward," you find another bug: "Step backward" inexplicably changes the layer that you selected, in addition to undoing the last action. If you were on a text layer and then switch to a bitmap layer to draw a brush stroke, try pressing Ctrl-Z. Not only is the brush stroke undone, but the text layer is reselected, making it impossible to make a new stroke until you go and reselect the bitmap layer.
Then again, Photoshop is positively throbbing with activity compared to the abandonware that is Illustrator.
Fake (uprezzed) 4K at greater-than-4K prices. WHEE!
DPReview should start hammering Canon on their lack of built-in intervalometers for time-lapse or other sequence shooting. There's no excuse for the lack of this essentially free-to-implement feature on a digital camera at ANY price point.
Then there's the continued use of crap-ass video codecs and no proper downscaling of video to HD (only hideous line-skipping). What does Canon do year after year?
Canon is so far out in the weeds, it's pathetic.
Still no intervalometers in their cameras (a simple, essentially free feature that every modern camera should have). Their lenses still have shitty servo rings instead of real mechanical focusing action.
They don't even have a reasonable 35mm lens. They have two overpriced boondoggles with IS systems in them. At 35mm? Really?
It's as if no one over there knows anything about photography OR video.
faithblinded: Odd that they chose the most crowded consumer frequency range, rather than the traditional VHF/UHF. It seems the chance for interference would be much greater. On a good day in my city, I'm in range of 20-30 wifi networks in the 2.4ghz range no matter where I go. I'd recommend spending the extra $200 for the proven Sennheiser or Sony UHF units.
"If the RC people can use 2.4GHz transmitters (digital) to control expensive flying devices without problems, I think it´s ok for this application."
That's an invalid comparison. Intermittent control signals can't be assumed to require the integrity of a continuous audio stream.
The standard for video is 48k, so this uses 44.1. Brilliant.
And 2.4 GHz is crammed with other crap. So that's what they pick.
And does this handle only one mic? This will be grand for one-man shows.
Does Panasonic really prevent third-party batteries from working with their cameras? If so, no one should vote for this rip-off with their money.
Send a strong message that this anti-customer offense will not stand.
Canon: totally out of ideas, and detached from the world of photography and filmmaking. They're just crapping out one embarrassing product after another now.
What's up with the abysmal resolution of the screen, though?
joe6pack: The iPhone mirror case position is completely awkward. Why would someone not want to look at the screen while taking photo or filming?
Unless of course you don't want people to know what you are doing.
Who said you don't want to look at the screen? That makes no sense.
"In addition to correctly orientating the image"
"Orientating"? Come on, guys. Don't you do any copyeditating?
Still no intervalometer for time lapse. Ridiculous and inexcusable.
Does it finally have legitimate downscaling of the image to video resolution?
Higher bitrate and better codec?
Come on, Canon.
Cy Cheze: 4k video will be available in $300 consumer models, soon enough. People will shout, "Hey, must have!" But then they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs bitrates, a $20k viewing screen, and dermatological enhancements--all for the sake of an image that looks the same at usual viewing distance. 4k video also demands a tripod, or super-duper stabilization, or any advantage is lost. The ability to crop 4k video might be attractive, except that the CPU and rendering time requirements are substantial. Easier to shoot with two mere HD cameras: one long, the other wide.
" they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs"
Perfect lighting? NO. Why would the resolution change the necessary lighting?
Your bitrate comment is on the money, but sadly people will gobble up fraud "4K" at 5 mbps the way they gobble up bullshìt "HD" at the same bitrate.
Antony John: Seems like Canon are still leading the way with video in SLRs.Congrats to them from a Nikon user.Whatever gripes some have it's better for the industry as a whole that some companies keep 'pushing the envelope'.
Canon led the way years ago and then gave up. They still don't have real downscaling of their images for video; after years of development time and complaints, they're still using line-skipping and producing video with hideous aliasing and moire.
And they're still shooting to crappy codecs with decimated color information at laughable bitrates. Canon was the manufacturer that other video-camera makers were worried about. Not any more. They blew it, hard.
Sad Joe: 4k is the future - unlike the poor current 3D systems. Yep - roll on 4k at bargain prices - sure to come just before 4K 3D !!
No, shitty, pathetic-bitrate, compressed-to-hell crap being peddled as "4K" is the future, just as sham "HD" is the norm today.
Take a look at the "HD" on YouTube. You're going to get the exact same garbage blown up to "4K", at the same sorry bitrate.
"SVGA"? "XGA"? What year is this?
State resolutions IN NUMBERS. Not the alphabet soup that died out in the early '90s.