Erik Magnuson

They don't want the costs of selling it you, i.e. having to both create new versions and security updates to current versions. Not to mention updating ACR to work/not work. They also want a reliable cash flow. This provides both. While the cash flow stops if you stop, they've gotten more cash over the lifetime.

Even worse, if they jack up the price 50% you either pay up or get shut out. You have no equity no matter how much you've given them. "What have you done for me lately works" all Adobe's way.

Most likely, integration with other CC capabilities.

Not exactly the same: you would still lose access to the existing installation at the end of the period (unlike the previous model) and you could not resell your license (legal in some countries).. If the price was $5/month, how many would still object on principle vs. how many would rationalize that they essentially are paying a similar amount just over time.

Hmm, what if Adobe had a software vestment policy: after N years or X hundred/thousand dollars, you could stop at any time and be frozen at that version. This option could cost more per month than the simple rental/subscription. Adobe would then keep you hooked by adding new features just often enough that you are never tempted to settle for what you have but you would have the insurance of knowing you could. Alas, it's a complication that has it's own costs to implement but what if?

Unfortunately, at least three of these choices are pretty tightly coupled: if the price were low enough and you could trust Adobe to maintain the price, then you could "buy" N years of use which would be the effective lifetime of the product - paid in one go or via installment would be relatively insignificant. Outages due to lack of connectivity will be rare but always come at the worst possible time - I've seen this happen already with plugins and other products.

Same sensor? No, it has more on-sensor PDAF points. But it's the same fab process using essentially the same pixel & ADC design so any performance differences would be minimal.

> The selling points of the Ricoh and Nikon are a faster lens ...

Faster than what? The comparable lenses for a NEX would be either the Sony 16mm or 20mm f/2.8 pancake or Sigma 19mm f/2.8 primes.

> I would say the 5% at the edge. Here's my reasoning.

You need to account for the following in your reasoning: DPR's test is for a medium/close distance at f/2.8. If your favorite subject is brick walls in the shade at 3 paces then GR will be superior. Of the shots you composed w/something in the corner, how many were f/2.8 and how many had both the corner and the subject at medium/short distance?

You define "news" as an accidental leak of a promotional video about an upcoming product where DPR is probably under NDA?

Why on earth would Canon make a body for Lumix and Olympus lenses? What do you like so much about Canon's bodies over Olympus and Panasonic that makes this desirable? Wouldn't your hopes be more realistically directed towards Olympus and Panasonic making the needed changes to their bodies to fix your perceived deficiencies?

Doesn't look anything like a Minox spy camera of the 50's -- or any other decade -- which resembled a pack of gum or a lighter. Instead it resembles a 50's modest-spec Japanese fixed lens RF like the Yamato Pax M3 (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pax_M3). They both even have a decorative red dot.

Not just suggest how to do better, but you need to actually deliver better. Reliably under deadline pressure and real world conditions.

Modern editors have adapted to the times. They may not want to see a complete dump of every image, but they want choices and they've learned how to scan through images quickly. There was an article on SI's review station for Superbowl images a few years back. You feed too much junk to an editor and you're fired. If you don't feed the editor the type of choice shots that others regularly get, you're fired. It takes both skill and gear to compete.

HCB was not a news photographer - he got to choose what "decisive moment" he published. If he missed it, then no one would ever know or care Besides anyone who is noted for saying "Your first 10,000 images are your worst" does not support your argument.

Some things can be anticipated but others cannot. The runner who trips for example. When you are shooting you don't know which image tells the story: the initial trip or hitting the ground. An editor will decide that later but he wants both options. If you are out there with manual focus and manual advance, you'll get some shots but you will miss plenty more. The market is too competitive -- if you've missed it, someone else will have gotten it. If this happens too many times, you're out in the cold. The gear does not compensate for skill but there will be others out there with *both* the gear and the skills.

Sony NEX has also has a 17mm register distance yet there are 3 different 18-200mm lenses for it. It's less a technical issue than a marketing one: Fuji currently targets the enthusiast market. As they only have premium priced bodies and more limited distribution, this makes sense and helps establish it as a premium band.

The number of times you can make "profits" by selling assets is quite limited. How long will the owners accept the other divisions subsidizing camera sales? Could the money losing camera division be spun or sold off (ala Pentax - twice?) Olympus the corporation will survive. Olympus the camera maker may also survive but in what form?

I've read quite a bit and still never come across this equivalency. I'm willing to learn so a link would be nice.

Nope. That story is outdated (Nov 2012) and this is about the latest numbers. Even in that story "The company said its $100 million half-year profit was partly due to the sale of subsidiaries unrelated to its core business, while the key medical systems unit posted an operating profit. But it added that it lost money in its camera business because of the strong yen."

Exactly how does the NEX mount restrict the lens design?