tkbslc: I might finally cave.
That's about 5 years of $10 a month to add up to the retail cost of buying the software retail before.
You are getting lightroom in there too, though, and now you don't have to skip releases. 30% extra seems like not too bad a tradeoff for that.
TylerQ: Still not signing up. Monthly fees for software? No thanks.
It's a hard adjustment, but just do the math. Photoshop and Lightroom bought retail would have cost the equivalent of 5-6 years of paying $10 a month. And this way you get free updates.
I still don't like the idea, but the math is looking better for us photographers now.
Richard Schumer: Question: If one (me) subscribes and sends some RAW files to the Adobe cloud suite for use with their rental software, can I download the TIFFs/JPEGS to my local hard disk when done? Or are they trapped in Adobeland?
I'm thinking of trying Adobe's suite for the first time....so excuse the apparently dumb question.
Adobe is misleading with the "Cloud" title. Nothing runs online. You download the software and run it on your own computer. So you can save your own images to your own hard drives.
I might finally cave.
limlh: With four aspherical lenses and two ED glass lenses, this zoom has some serious stuff inside its barrel. Together with 5 stops OIS and weather resistant, Fujifilm is downright serious about this.
"OR" being the key operator there. If they had made it a 16-85 f3.5-5.6, that's more exciting because it hits 24mm equivalent on the wide end. If they'd have made it 17-50mm f2.8, that's more exciting because I can shoot in low light. As is, it's not wide, not very long, not very fast and not very affordable.
Seems like you are trying really hard to misinterpret my words.
Shadowww: For those who are curious about focal length/aperture equivalents yet are too lazy to calculate: it's 88-320mm f/7.2-10 equivalent.
I think people should really make m4/3 to APS-C comparisons, because that's the real alternative and competitor.
The FF comparisons are hilarious because how often are people really saying, "Well if I don't get the EM-5, I'll get a D800E..."
Jan Luursema: If only they would make DPP faster. I bought a new computer just to make DPP work faster, but it's still almost as slow to use as on my old PC! Only the batch processing is faster, but making edits in the program is annoyingly slow.Maybe they need to hire someone from Adobe.
Major bummer if this is a "pro" only update that is included only with the FF models.
Damo83: High-end optical performance, eh?
22mm f2 is better than the Sony CZ 24mm f1.8 for 1/4th the price MSRP and 1/12 the price on the used market.
The EF-M 18-55 is slightly better optically than the Fuji 18-55, even when we stop down the Fuji to same apertures.
Rooru S: No longer listed in Canon USA huh? Interesting...
strange, because they list the M as discontinued and never offered the M2. So they still have lenses offered for a camera they don't sell?
You can still order them from Canada or Asia pretty easily. Plenty of US EOS-M owners imported the 11-18 so I imagine this lens won't be too hard to get.
Can you point me to where I said they should have made a faster 18-135? Because I don't think I did.
I really like Canon DPP a lot. This looks like the first major update in 10 years.
I was just thinking they had added support for 10-18mm lens corrections when I saw the headlines. (hope that's in there, too)
Okay, lets keep arguing about the definition of significant. Your turn.
Sannaborjeson: High-end? 6.3? Well-well...
I saw about 50 people tell me in the comments that the f5.6 fuji announced yesterday was worth the $900.
dpr4bb: Is a switch of the Rebel DSLR series to mirror-less imminent?
No. Canon USA doesn't acknowledge the M system anymore.
The other M lenses were optically excellent. Especially the 22mm. I wouldn't be surprised if this is outstanding.
Do people really worry about FF equivalents for APS-C lenses?
EOS M itself is no longer a Canon USA product
steelhead3: If Canon can't produce good sensors, they will give you an small upgrade on their software to keep the troops happy.
Not currently the best does not equal not good.
MisoL: When we can expect Linux version? Canon, please wake up! The only RAW processor choice, Linux users have is Corel AftershotPro and it takes them many months to support new cameras (lost sales for you in Linux users). Free software like Darktable and RawTherapee is faster in supporting new cameras, but it's usability is not as mature yet.
Linux Desktop users account for 1% of the market. How many of those 1% shoot Canon DSLR cameras? I don't think it is worth their time. They give this software away as a free bonus anyway.
Well I don't consider adding a few menu options to software that looks and operates identically to be a major update, but let's just agree this new update looks promising, however major or minor we personally feel it is.
hotdog321: I'm hoping DPP will improve its clunky interface enough that I can eventually stop using my standalone CS6 before it becomes too outdated. I won't use Adobe Cloud.
@Joe, DPP is a full feature RAW developer. I wouldn't compare it to a $40 printer. More like a single purpose tool that does its job very well. I still prefer the output of DPP to anything else, and I've tried about everything.