Horshack: "With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture"
I don't see how these two statements are even remotely related or causal. Companies like Apple and Adobe must think people turn off their brains whenever the word 'cloud' is used.
They do. OOoooooo the 'magical' 'cloud' and I put cloud in "' '" too because in many cases what they refer to as distributed computing/storage oops I mean cloud stuff isn't even cloud stuff (although iCloud actually is distributed storage at least). But what the heck on earth does distributed storage space have to do with RAW processing?
It really is a shame that marketing droids and MBAs have ever more and more influence over everything while the engineers get held down in the basement.
Rick Knepper: Like many, I dutifully paid $199 every two years to upgrade thusly: CS2-CS3-CS4-well you get the idea. Since last September, I began paying $10 per month for PS CC & LR plus I have a license to use it on two computers plus I get 20 GB of cloud storage. This costs $240 every two years. That price is good for as long as I am subscribed or until Adobe raises the price of the plan in general. The $199 every two years was never a guaranteed price. You get a lot more with CC.
My price will not increase (nor was it ever supposed to increase) to $20/month after the first year as so many were misinformed. Yes, I checked with Adobe before posting this.
Now there are those folks who only upgraded every other time or only when a must-have feature was released, then I can see the frustration but OTOH, these folks can also be seen as dead weight in terms of the future of PS.
And it is even worse for those who used more than just PS.Plus before, when you stopped paying, the softwre still worked, now even if you pay them $2000 after years and stop paying boom it's gone.
tkbslc: So it's apparent Adobe has alienated the 50+ crowd. Hopefully the $10/mo plan will attract enough young people to make up for it.
As soon as I read this ridiculous comment I knew who the poster had to be. Adobe Fanboy (Astro-turfing paid shill?) #1.
Umm yeah whatever. I'm well under 50 hah and I hate the stupid rental model (and once you get into using more than PS then the price becomes terrible with the new model, never mind the rental nonsense).
D1N0: 9,99 for US 17,60 for europeans.
OTOH we pay more for medical stuff so that Europe can pay less.
still the same old rental garbage
(and the pricing if you do video and other stuff too, is rarely bad above and beyond the horror of the rental model)
Adobe must be desperate to now try to play it as permanent $10.
smafdy: Shorter Adobe: "Here, let me show you a trick — put these handcuffs on . . ."
haha, good one, too true, too true
Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?
How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?
Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?
The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.
@String - why are you comparing services to products?
Had some good points for a while (although he was needlessly vulgar in presentation). He started going off the rails a bit when he started trashing the D800 sensor and contradicting himself and not understanding normalization between resolutions and so on though. Other than at very high ISO, the D800/D600 WERE about better pixels not just more, but somehow that escaped him, although he still made the occasional point.
orion1983: Such a whining about the 800$ here, unbelieveable! In whole Europe, it is 850€, i.e., 1155$!
Is the M3 worth 1155$?...I do not know, yet....
Is it worth 800$? Of course!
...everything is relative! ;)
OTOH, you pay was less for medicines/insurance and we barely get any vacation at all. (heck, some tech companies here these days expect you to be on call 7 days a week AND Christmas Day/Eve and New Years if need be and for the few days a year vacation they do give, you need to work on vacation and keep in touch all day).
flektogon: As I was originally disappointed with Canon G1 X Mark II (just based on other users/testers experience), now I am changing my mind. The IQ of Canon is definitely better. Yes, RX100 is smaller and has built in EVF, but with better IQ and better (longer) zoom lens, Canon is the winner.
Yeah but you can't really stash a G1X into your pocket or not have it get in the way. And once you can't tuck it away easily, what is the point? May was well go for broke and use a DSLR.
So for me, even as a Canon DSLR user, it's the Sony RX all the way for a little carry all the time camera.
Richard Murdey: I don't believe it should be illegal to learn how to pick a lock, or to teach people how to pick a lock. It is sufficient that its illegal to steal a car or break into someone's house.
So ... he did nothing wrong as far as I am concerned.
He told people that it was right to do this.... ####since people rightfully owned all the wedding and graduation photos even without paying for them####. So I think he did do something wrong.
granted this outage won't matter to most, even thsoe using CC, but if you were actually using the one part of it that is cloud bsed, the non-local storage, you are done for or if today was the day your subscription was set to phone home (probably was for about 1 in 30 users) then you are done for until they fix this
I'm still using CS6 versions instead of the rental model CC garbage (and so much for the magic of the 'cloud' allowing for fast bug fixes, they still haven't fixed critical color engine errors in CC that date back to at least the earliest days of CS6).
Time for them to end their obnoxious rental model (and don't even call it a cloud model, to begin with the cloud is just a silly name for distributed computing, a term that has been around for decades, and to finish, CC doesn't use distributed computing anyway, it's just a fake usage of a fancy name).
hotdog321: Unexpected, but I'm dying to see the DxO Lab results on the new 16-35 f/4. If it is truly sharp, I'll be relegating my 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 to backup service. I'm a photojournalist and usually stop down a bit anyway when using the 16-35 and, combined with the IS and the low light capabilities of the 5DIII, this new lens might be a winner. We'll see.
@BarnT - in this case it makes sense though. DxO lens tests ARE a joke and I say that as someone who DOES pay close attention to their sensor charts. Canon sensors are behind badly in some ways and DxO, TRUHTFULLY, shows that up in the data plots. BUT their lens tests are a joke.
Smokymtnhiker: The 16-35mm F4L should be awesome on the A7R. It would be the perfect do-all lens for backpacking trips. I hope Novoflex hurries up with their AF adapter. If so I will forget about getting the Sony 35mm 2.8.
@BarnET - because the Nikon doesn't take Canon lenses, so you are stuck with Nikon lenses and have to commit to a total system swap. Where is their 70-300L? 17 T&S? 24 T&S II? etc. (said said if Canon comes out with yet another generation of sensors behind Nikon.... people may finally give in and switch, lenses be damned and at the least pick up a Sony + adapter for sure).
ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.
But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?
What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)
Because sometimes a tripod is not allowed in some locations.Sometimes a tripod slows you down so much that you'd miss a lot of shots under quickly changing conditions. Sometimes you are with people or on a tour and can't bog down with a tripod non-stop. Sometimes you want to enjoy without bogging down with a tripod and if IS lets you get top quality shots still, then why not?
Ultra-wide are used a lot more for landscape and such than for weddings.
tongki: I keep 17-40mm for extra 5mm reachand don't need stupid IS
if you can not handheld your camera in wide angle,then hire a photographer that can do it
@tongki - you can crop 35mm to 40mm FOV, not ideal, but you can and with 24MP+ it won't be too bad. But if the shot is blurred, you CAN NOT FIX IT!