Everyone, flag gw5815's spam posts. Obvious Adobe employee is obvious...
CFynn: Seems like they are imitating the marketing tactics of the narcotics and tobacco industries. Get users completely dependent on a regular, time limited, fix of their product and they have a steady income stream.
Once users are hooked they can also jack up the prices whenever they like.
Nah it's the Comcast model! And the cellphone company model!
Smokeypossum: Aahh I love major life changing times of choosing between this system or another system. having been a long time user of Photoshop I will be moving to another platform for my life work after my current 5.5 becomes too obsolete. By then the "bleeding edge of technology" will have become the established front and I am more than happy to let others who think they "need" the latest find out how to solve someone elses problems. Like many of you I don't accept that I have to store my work on their machine in the cloud, only be able to access it when I have internet access. I've always paid for my software so have no problem with piracy. Some people thought they could get away with it! LOL
GW you are an obvious Adobe plant, I am flagging all your posts as spam. You keep spamming the same URL to Adobe as if we can't go there ourselves, and you are lying (there is nothing inherently faster about updates to subscription-based software).
Horshack: It's kind of comical how Adobe refers to their CS offering as "the cloud", even though it's no different than their existing distribution model. The software is still downloaded once and executed locally, same as existing digital distribution; the only difference is Adobe gains an excuse to implement DRM/piracy controls, controls that would be unacceptable for stand-alone software. And they can charge more and earn their income on a more predictable basis. Adobe has become the vampire squid of the creative software world.
Amen Micheal. GW obviously works for Adobe.
qwertyasdf: How can I edit my polar bear shots taken in North Pole?
How many months? I have a machine in Costa Rica that's been out of internet service for two years.
If I buy software, I want to own it, period. It is insane to think that anyone other than total suckers will pay you money to "get" to use the software for a limited time. If you made it much cheaper than the actual owned version, then I might perk up, but no, you make it the same price (over time). Actually more, really.
Companies either innovate, or they invent rape. This is the latter.
CFynn: With the current model you get to choose whether what's onoffer is a compelling upgrade. Moving to a subscription model seemsto be resignation to the fact that the vendor really has nothing new to offer in the future - so they have to shut down or find a new revenue stream.
If Adobe follow their current pricing practices, the cost of renting your app will inflate by 50-100% by the time your cloud data crosses the Atlantic and arrives in the EU.
BS, GW. Your argument about updates is invalid. Many companies with standard, ownership-based licensing models issue updates far too often; moving to a subscription model in no way improves product-release times for new features. Adobe uses a cloud-based update system for the standard CS6 already. No, this is purely about control, and greed: forcing people to buy updates they might not need or want.
I have been using Photoshop since 1993. I am a long term customer, but I will NEVER! EVER! subscribe to ANY! software. It is the reprehensible, blatant removal of ownership of a purchased product away from the buyer, and ought in my opinion to be simply illegal.
5DMkIII Shooter: The only option is that no-one registers / sign up to make use of the service. All just stick to what they are using now. The creative "Genius" at Adobe who came up with this utterly brilliant "stab your users in the back" idea would then soon realise that photographers own their gear and that gear also includes their software. No Adobe, NO!
Amen... my studio Mac has never been online and will never be. How do they protect against Class X5 solar flares frying all your work and prefs, etc.? What if the cloud is down, like happened to our AWS servers twice recently?
d2f: Camera technology issues aside, it will be interesting to see how end users this device will interface with the local laws of privacy, especially with businesses where video and still photography of their interior is prohibited. Here in the united states where the number of teen driver deaths are on the rise, due to distractions like their operating their cell phones while driving, I wonder how many teens will lose their lives to this device, before law makers pass a law prohibiting its use while driving. That has to be a morale booster for Google engineers where their motto is, do no evil.
Why do you think Google is making a car that can drive itself??
Some people just don't get it.
xlynx9: This device will be excellent for getting combat footage from soldiers.
And getting combat footage on the streets of Portland when people attack idiots who wear these for filming girl's asses.
If I see anyone point that Google camera at me, I'm going to ask them to remove it. If they don't then I will shine my 1-watt laser in their face and melt its lens!
Don't blame the marketer, blame the market.
Folks, they already have all the molds and equipment to start up a production line making something based on the E-5, E-30, and E-6xx series bodies, if they so desire. The E-5 body is perhaps the very finest compact DSLR body frame ever made, in terms of build quality and ergonomics.
The problem is how can you make an E-7 in this chassis that's an SLR yet somehow allows compatibility with all the new micro 4/3 lenses? :D
dark goob: Please don't say this lens is "equivalent" to a 34mm lens. It's not. It has much greater depth of field than a 34mm lens, and substantially different distortion characteristics. Simply put it's a 17mm lens. It's equivalent to a 17mm lens, having been cropped by 50% on 135-format, or by 31% on 6x4.5 120-format, etc.
It gives a 53.9-degree horizontal angle. Why not just say that instead of making false equivalencies? Buck convention and "standard practice." They're stupid and just plain factually wrong!
Please can we move on from the year, 2002? We aren't 135-format film camera owners searching for their first DSLR anymore. Drop the "equivalency" mentions finally, it really feels anachronistic and tacky at this point. Not to mention being wrong.
I should have said "cropped to 31%" not "by 31%." See? Self-correction. We must admit when we're wrong and change our ways.
Please don't say this lens is "equivalent" to a 34mm lens. It's not. It has much greater depth of field than a 34mm lens, and substantially different distortion characteristics. Simply put it's a 17mm lens. It's equivalent to a 17mm lens, having been cropped by 50% on 135-format, or by 31% on 6x4.5 120-format, etc.
It sets a terrible precedent to have this review as part of DPReview Connect instead of standard DPReview. ALL cameras in the future will have WiFi built-in, along with some form of an operating system (whether it be Android or something else).
You should review this with other digital cameras in the main site. IT'S A CAMERA.
Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.
The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.
Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)
A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.
However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500
What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.
A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.
You people are all acting like morons.
m4/3 is a full-frame format because the lenses that are made for it are engineered to be full-frame relative to its native sensor size.
WHO CARES what it's "equivalent to" on some other, bigger or smaller format!?
I mean we could remind you that it's about a 138mm f/5.6 on a 6x4.5 on 120-format, but what difference does it make? Nobody cares anymore about 120-format, just like nobody cares anymore about 135-format. It's largely irrelevant to the marketplace. Less than 5% of all cameras sold are 135-format. GET OVER IT.
Because at the end of the day a 1.2 lens will ALWAYS have the SAME light intensity per unit area no matter what format it's on, meaning you'll get to use a lower ISO. And no, ISO is not related to sensor size purely, it's related to sensor size over time. Every year it gets cleaner and cleaner, such that a 135-format camera from 2008 gets outperformed by a m43 camera from 2012.
A brighter lens is always brighter. These arguments about frames being full are just bull. m43 does not crop its lenses, it's full frame by the precise and original meaning of that term, before marketing idiots got ahold of it and ruined it, creating legions of ditto-heads who parrot jargon terms without even knowing what it means.
AliRoust: You 'll get killed by vignetting wide open and you won't get the background blur cause a 1.2 is really a 2.8 on m 4/3. I had a real bad experience with the Panasonic leica 50 m 1.4. Plus it looks cheap.
LOL at people who think 135-format is king of bokeh.
Now back to my Hasselblad.
dark goob: Anyone who says the OM-D is not full frame is retarded. It is full frame, by definition.
retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress
Let me say that your understanding of the industry is retarded if you think "full frame" is a relevant term. And yes, there are formats that are smaller than Micro Four Thirds. Note: Nikon 1 series, Pentax Q.
Technically it would be possible to adapt a Four Thirds lens to a Nikon 1 body, in which case, the field of view of the Four Thirds lens would be cropped. However if the Four Thirds lens is on a Four Thirds body, this is a full frame relationship.
You are all idiots.
Actually, 135 format is the proper name for 135 format. Calling it "full frame" no longer serves a relevant purpose. If you cannot revise your use of language to reflect reality then you are indeed retarded, intellectually. That's not meant to insult people who are actually mentally handicapped. It's just meant to state a fact, using language in the way it is meant to be used: in accordance with the actual meaning of the words, instead of speaking in colloquialisms, slang, and jargon, as you would that we do.