Neodp: No it's ALL our fault. It's our fault every time we give-in and buy a camera with poor light gathering ability, unbalanced, missing, basic photographic benefits, and at far over inflated prices.
Nikon (alone) has lowered their projection to over 8 MILLION lens [ALONE]. Plus 6 million bodies or kits. Since we are all so versed in how much we can find these things and at that minimum price, learn to add!
No really, add-up (multiply) their MINIMUM gross sales from those numbers. All you need to do that, is there. Just figure the average system camera price that you know, and use the least price. You know it will be far more; but figure conservatively, to be fair.
Now tell me how the poor manufactures can't get it together enough to cover their expenses. I'm telling you.... they are waiting on us to demand real camera quality, comprehensive state-of-the-art benefits and at a reasonable price.
We are LETTING them sell crappy sensors/lens, and unfinished cameras; because they can.
I agree with T3. Modern cameras are amazingly good and people may quite reasonably stick with what they already have.
I think that the main growth potential is in mirrorless, which still have a way to go to catch up with DSLRs, especially with autofocus tracking.
DaytonR: I like his last answer , a full frame Fuji with an X-Trans would be so tempting.....
Fuji won't be doing a FF interchangeable lens camera for several years at least, by which time I suspect sensors will have progressed to the point where FF is redundant for most purposes.
iAPX: Where's innovation after X100 [X100s] and X-Pro 1?There was a multitude of products based on them, but I am awaiting more from Fuji, I would like to see a X-SLR 1 (with thourgh-the-lens viewfinder), and maybe if we are lucky a true range-finder (hybrid naturally), with mechanical manual focus.
This last one would be a no-brainer for me.
Your idea of innovation is apparently to go back to DSLRs. Strange view. Never going to to happen.What Fuji is doing is gradually overcoming the weaknesses of mirrorless relative to DSLRs. That is the future.
Daft Punk: Love what Fuji are doing. Love it. Have an XT1 on preorder.
I have a huge request though - please please please please please embrace the idea of hybrid photo video by adding a 24p and 60p to your cameras. 30p alone is not enough.
Add these simple changes and Fuji becomes the absolutely perfect travel camera when you want to focus on stills but also do a little video as well. 30p sucks in a PAL region because interior lighting can flicker..
60p is already supported on the X-E2 and I presume also on the X-T1. 24p is another matter.
km25: His last commet about FF. Do the lens they make now have focus circle large enough for FF? He said it was after the road map would be done. I just cannot see Fuji being like Sony and dumping a whole line of lens. What ever they do I can only hope they will keep the lens, who wants to buy a new set of lens. I hope they will keep this in mind.
No, the image circle is not large enough for FF. A complete new set of lenses will be required.There won't be any dumping. APS-C cameras will still be made and supported.
Your criticism of the GX7 for the limitations of its in-body stabilisation is ludicrous. No other Panasonic m43 camera has any in-body stabilisation at all and Nikon and Canon don't offer it. Panasonic breaks new ground by offering both types of stabilisation (in-body and in-lens) and for this it is criticised because its first attempt isn't state of the art.
The absurdity of your position is highlighted by the fact that you include the G6 in this comparison and its total lack of in-body stabilisation is not mentioned for criticism. Apparently having something is worse than having nothing in the mind of DP Review. Just ludicrous.
CameraLabTester: Nokia should come out with a separate camera gadget, if their technical specs are that impressive.
People buy phones because they want a phone, not a camera.
You are stuck in the past.
agentul: "The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC products."
has anyone asked Adobe to have cloud-based software? my guess will be "NO". i think this was some committee decision to embrace the latest "cloud computing" and SaaS buzzwords, deciding that what they like is what regular people like, because, hey, "shareholders demand progress". they ended up with another "me too" product line that didn't even work properly (otherwise it wouldn't have been "brutal"), and they decided to stick with it rather than admit they were wrong. again, "shareholders" and "CEO vision". and that's why i will always like small focused companies.
next step: kill the CS suite altogether and live off patent licensing. IBM and Xerox are well ahead on that road.
I should perhaps have said "economically possible" rather than "technically possible". Given sufficient bandwidth and given powerful servers to do the processing, you are right that you could edit on a mobile device (though, as I said, the user interface would be poor and it would be difficult to do high quality editing given the available screen and lighting). The infrastructure to make this all possible would be expensive at present --- the servers would need to have enormous processing power --- though no doubt it will become widely available in time.
At the end of the day, I have to ask who would it benefit. Serious professionals will not want to edit photos in suboptimal conditions away from their 30" calibrated monitors. Amateurs can surely wait to get home before editing their photos --- or if they need a quick and dirty adjustment to contrast or whatever, then something much less capable than Photoshop will suffice.
The vision you describe won't be technically possible for a lot of years and would be fairly useless even if possible.
I use accounting software that runs in your browser. Thus you can use it on any device that can run a browser, including your phone. This makes perfect sense and is very convenient, because accounting software doesn't require much processing power and the user interface is fairly simple.
Photoshop is nothing like that. It requires a huge amount of processing power and any editing you might do on a phone would be a pain in the neck because of the limited user interface. Moreover, the small screen and erratic lighting conditions would make high quality editing all but impossible.
Adobe isn't changing its subscription model for any technical reason. It could sell the same software to everyone and give users the option of a permanent licence or a subscription. Those opting for the former could then have the option of paying for access to Adobe's servers.
Vince P: Working with cloud based apps will make a lot of sense for a lot of people but it needs to be fully integrated to go the next step. So they have some choices to make, have 2 versions of everything or nail their colours to the mast. They have said they will have Lightroom and I presume elements still having 2 versions, also PS6 will extend raw support for new cameras well past it's usual life cycle. I do still hope they do introduce perpetual licences for a version of photoshop.If you are a wedding, sports tog, photo journalist etc. if you can work Wi-Fi tethered to a Smartphone or tablet but the files are editable on that device as well as desktop apps all at the same time by multiple people then that is worth a lot more than the subscription price for the whole suite let alone the promised photographers only suite. But I think it will attract hobbyists as they could well be the ones who want to be a able to use spare time to edit sort catalogue and publish on the go as well.
Cloud-capable software and a subscription model are two separate issues. You can sell the same software to everyone. Those with permanent licenses can then be charged extra for access to Adobe's servers for file storage if they want it. Note that Adobe is not proposing that the program be in the cloud. You still need to download it to your computer and you need a computer powerful enough to run it.
Adobe's argument about the problems of supporting two versions of a software product is complete rubbish. They are simply using that as an excuse to cover their real objective, which is to extract more revenue from consumers.
Maverick_: micro four thirds is ultimately a short term product. as the price of the full frame drops to encapsulate all DSLRs in the next 6 years, there would be no room for mid level sensors. at that time, our phones will shoot as good as today's best point and shoot. at that time why would you want to carry a phone and a small digicam.
However, since Pana is a chip maker, they'll have no problem adjusting to this and they'll most probably create a range of mid-priced FF cameras anyway.
They could give full frame cameras away for free and most people wouldn't use them. They are simply too big.
LaFonte: seems nobody really talk about the actual af speed, only that fuji promises it is faster, but didnt the focusing work on the sample camera?
From the article:
"Enthusiasts will be very interested in the improvements to manual focus but a major feature of the X100S is on-sensor phase-detection AF, which even in the relatively low light of a CES meeting room, works very well and delivers noticeably faster and more positive focus (quickly moving into focus with minor or unnoticeable jitter) than we're used to from the X100."
Jmmg: After all this fuss and madness surrounding the X10, has anyone think about how "Good" the X10 really is? Personally, at 2011 November standard, yes the X10 was a very good camera in many area and for some people as a sentimental reason to love it, but at 2012 May standard, there are many other small compact DC easily beat X10 in all area without even mentioning the "Sensor" issue. Canon G1X, Panasonic GX1, Canon S100, Nikon P310, Olympus XZ1, Pentax Q, Sony Nex-C3, Leica X1, etc.
This is a ridiculous comment. In the first place, you compare the X10 with cameras with much larger sensors, like the Canon G1X and the Panasonic GX1.
In the second place, you claim that situation has changed since November 2011, yet many of the cameras you cite were available well before then, such as the Olympus XZ1, the Pentax Q and the Sony NEX-C3.
Nikonworks: Your following words sound as those of a fan club participant, not as a formal reviewer at DPReview:
" Our first impressions are very positive though, and I hope this article will reassure and encourage anyone that has been watching the X-series and waiting for Fujifilm to 'get it right'."
Your use of the word 'hope' indicates your bias toward Fuji.
Your use of the word 'encourage' confirms the validity of my remarks posted here.
Oh well, what a shame to see DPReview take this road.
What nonsense you speak.
People who care about photography are always hoping that every camera maker produces something brilliant. Fuji has been showing potential of late, but falling down somewhat when it comes to quality control and detailed implementation. Accordingly, lot of people have been approaching this camera with a mixture of hope and fear. Amadou is suggesting that Fuji has done a pretty good job, which is good news for every camera lover.
Good work. Having just bought my first decent phone one week ago, I'm very pleased to see this happening.
Bernd M: What became of the new "Sharpening Tool" Adobe was working on? I was hoping it would be integrated in PS CS6.
Mssimo: Lose the slow big zooms and give us more fast primes!
How many do you want? 3 already available and another 3 to come. Maybe you should get a zoom or two so you don't need so many primes.
If you want to see a really spectacular example, look at the orb on the windscreen of the car in the center of the shot here:
(the full-size version is best).
kyud0: Really like what Fujifilm is doing with their premium cameras... if I'm correct this is first superzoom with such big sensor...
Fuji's S100fs had a 2/3 sensor. It was a 14x zoom.
Excellent innovation. I bought a printer last year and, while researching it, I was disappointed at the lack of coverage of printers by photography sites in general. I look forward to more coverage in future.
I ended up buying a Canon, so I get some comfort from the fact that a Canon got the Gold Award this time.