MostlyHarmless: 1. We need to stop taking this personally.2. We need to get a sense of proportion (we are not starving or in fear of our lives).3. Adobe are just doing what companies do.4. Limited functionality after you stop paying shouldn't change anything - it just means you can do what you should do *after* you stop paying instead of just before (migrate).5. Always have an exit strategy - no system is around forever.6. Mike Ronesia below has the right attitude:-)
Well, I am one of those customers who took this personally. I have been using a very old version of Bridge and PSE and decided to upgrade a couple of months ago. Lightroom was the most appealing path to take. But along came the subscription model for CC. Though LR was still excluded from this extremely customer-unfriendly subscription-scheme, I didn't trust Adobe to keep LR a normal piece of software. And right I was. My money went to DXO...Ad "no system is around forever": true, but no system is around shorter than a subscription system that ends abruptly when YOUR money stops flowing out to the company.
KAllen: So my 100,000 raw files will upload to iCloud. **ck you.
@KAllen: You have been cited online in the renowned German magazine "Spiegel"! Congrats! The only change: "Spiegel" decided to forego the "**".;-)
"'Ich habe über 100.000 Raw-Dateien. Werden sie die alle in der iCloud speichern? Idioten', schreibt ein Fotograf im Dpreview-Forum."
AbrasiveReducer: This is classic DPR. Your RX100 may exhibit some soft corners or a soft edge but heck, blame it on the 20 megapixels. And besides, we can point to lots of compact cameras that aren't any better.
This translates roughly, to "It's the best you're gonna get in this size body but if you care enough about image quality to spend $800, and you insist on a zoom lens in a camera this size, don't expect miracles."
@everlast66:its not about sensor size, its about image quality. as i have stated above, a handful of cameras less than half the price do an *almost* equal job: pentax mx1 and the oly zx which both come with lenses superior to the various sony rx iterations. as pertains to the sensor: yes, it is bigger, so what. if the lens doesn't do the job the camera output just won't be what it could be. especially when the sensor - although double in size - is packed with almost double as many pixels making sensor size differences more or less obsolete in real live). mobiles and tablets: come on, do you want to insult me? as i said before: do a side by side comparison on the "studio comparison" page just two clicks behind the "conclusions" page of this review. you will be astonished at how miniscule the differences are when it comes to iq, and how the pentax and oly exel especially in overall sharpness and detail for a fraction of the price.
Roughly EUR 260/GBP 220 will buy you the Pentax MX-1. Corner-2-corner sharpness is better than on the RX and IQ is hardly distinguishable (o.k. if you are a pixel peeper you will notice some very minor differences in favour of the Sony, and yes, the Sony's sensor has more pixels...). Potential buyers of a compact should check out the "Studio Comparison" for a side-by-side comparison. I wouldn't dish out 800,- for this compact, especially because I prefer sharp lenses and crisp images (something the Pentax or an Oly ZX can do for less than half the price). If the price of the RX were appr. half, things might be different though.
Ooops, I expected more... Just studio-compared it to the Pentax MX-1 (costs a fraction of the Sony). Sure, the Sony is slightly better in the larger part of images (esp. high ISO). But the difference is miniscule (something for pixel peepers), corner softness with the Sony... (o.k., the lens is the strong part of the MX-1).
Biowizard: Apart from the niggling ongoing fees, the problem with CLOUD computing of ANY kind (not just Adobe, but let's include Facebook as an example) is that YOU, the USER, lose control of your environment.
For example, FB routinely "updates" its user experience. YOU, the USER have no say whether you want to take the update, or stick with what workds for you.
Again, Cloud services can go "down", whether for maintenance or system failure: not much help if YOU, the USER, is on a tight deadline and need cloud access to locate your work or re-authorise your software.
Then, as in the case of Adobe recently, a cloud service might suffer a successful hacking attempt, severely compromising YOUR, the USER'S security, IP and possibly financial details.
The WHOLE reason I (the USER) want the DESKTOP model is that I (...) can control my versions, I (...) can make sure I am secure.
Sorry, but CLOUD means that you CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING and HAVE NO CONTROL. Give me BLUE SKY ANY TIME: my DESKTOP.
@Just a Photographer :I think you are mixing things up... We all don't mind subscribing to *services* (phone, cable tv, newspapers...); but PS isn't a service. Its a stand-alone piece of software that would run perfectly without any subscription. Compare PS to any other tool - subscribing to PS is just as insane as subscribing to a screw driver or a drill. You buy these tools and use them as long as you desire, and upgrade to higher quality/newer tools when YOU feel the necessity to do so.
stern: The rip-offs at Adobe made me move to DXO last year. Was looking for decent and professional software for my RAW workflow (Apple is currently doing nothing ...), and Adobe's products were No. 1 on my list... but then - I was just about to make the move to their Creative Suite - came along this highway-robbery-like scheme and after some extra evaluation made me move to DXO. I am probably not the only one who said farewell to Adobe.
Its the bad example that Adobe and the like set (Office 365 for iPad: EUR 100,-/year!); that is what we are complaining about. If require a hammer to hammer a nail into a wall, I will buy the hammer and not subscribe to it (ending up paying a monthly fee for that tool). PS, Office etc. are tools for which subscriptions add no value (its completely different with photo hosting sites, video streaming, news sites etc. - I will gladly subscribe to those, but I won't pay a monthly fee for a hammer...).
The rip-offs at Adobe made me move to DXO last year. Was looking for decent and professional software for my RAW workflow (Apple is currently doing nothing ...), and Adobe's products were No. 1 on my list... but then - I was just about to make the move to their Creative Suite - came along this highway-robbery-like scheme and after some extra evaluation made me move to DXO. I am probably not the only one who said farewell to Adobe.
"The lens is the big selling point of the RX100 III. With a maximum aperture of F1.8-2.8 and a focal range of 24-70mm equiv, you won't find anything as impressive on a compact camera."
The Pentax MX-1 comes with the same focal range with an aperture of 1.8-2.5.That is even more impressing than the RXIII. IMHO the image quality of the MX-1 beats that of the RXI and II due to the superior lens. Don't know about the RXIII though. The RXIII is the first of the RX series that makes me curious...
jackf00: you can do a side-by-side comparison of images taken with the original RX 100 and the Pentax MX-1 on this site (under "full reviews" -> samples). The sensor sizes may differ, but so do pixel-count and lenses. The RX 100 I and II don't deliver the edge-to-edge sharpness of the MX-1 and the Oly XZ (comes with the same lens as the Pentax). RX 100 III might be a game-changer though.
String: So half the names on here bitching about Adobe have no issue giving Canikon $2000 plus every time a new camera comes out but balk at subscribing to the most powerful/useful software out there at $10/month?
Look, I paid 99,- for DXO Optics. My first choice would have been LR, but due to the (obviously) upcoming subscription model I looked elsewhere, Why should I pay 300,- in 3 years, 400,- in 4 years and so on when I can have a similarily powerful tool for 99,- for as long as I want to use it? DXO is even more powerful in some respects than LR; and lags behind in other fileds, i.e. image organizer; but hey, what does an image organizer cost? Some of the best are freeware or shareware...). I am still using Adobe Bridge to manage my image library (must be some 5 years old or even older, still works for me WITHOUT monthly payments).
rickpoole: Right now I spend a average of $40/yr on photo software. Switching to CC would more than triple that amount. More than I'd care to spend but not outrageous. But, with the prospect that if I choose to end my subscription my software will stop working rather than just stop updating it is and always will be a no go - regardless of the price.
"are you complaining?"- I am complaining (and I hope many others too) to make these companies understand that they are doing something wrong. Besides, complaining about subscription schemes for ordinary software (highway robbery that is) might stop others heading downhill to a place called customer harrasment.
Oh, yet another Adobe subscription app that calls home every week or month plus a dear USD 100,- per year... You may count me out. NO, THANKYOU.
travel companion? why would i choose an ILC for travel? My travel camera is the pentax mx-1. compact, rugged plus incredible IQ. IMHO IQ of the mx-1 is on par or better than the Sony RX, which is probably due to the mx's better lens (sharp!). travel = compact.
Slynky: As an infrequent user of photo-processing software, I can't afford to be put on the rotating rental model (greedy) Adobe has migrated to. How many other people are in this same "boat"? Hopefully enough to leave a dent in their profit.
I am in the same boat. Recently decided against LR because I am not sure where LR is heading (I suppose it will become a rental software soon - I prefer ownership). Thats why I didn't buy LR and decided to get my software from DXO (Optics pro). Its about the same initial price, but it belongs to you - after purchase no more costs incur.
Yearly licence??Never ever.A couple of months ago, I had to make my choice which software to buy for RAW processing. LR was high on the list, and although it is (still) a stand alone no-cloud, no-rent application, I decided against Adobe because I am not sure they will keep LR that way. This iOS version of LR seems to indicate the way LR (full version) is heading. Well, DXO has a happy customer more now and Adobe one less.
D1N0: Get the MX-1 it's les than $300, by far the cheapest.
And the image quality of the MX-1 is hard to beat. Even DPR admits this "strong IQ". Compared side by side to the output of the RX100 in the in depth review, the MX-1's images just look overall "better" than the Sony's. And its IQ what it all boils down to.
abortabort: Now the wait is on for a Pentax MX-1 restyled Stylus 1 to hit...
Anyhow... the Pentax MX-1 is prettier than the Casio.;-)
Kurt_K: I think people are forgetting (or simply never knew) how good 1/1.7 sensors can be at ISO 100-400, which is usually all you need anyway due to the fast, high quality lenses that these types of cameras come with. Frankly, I think it's comical how quickly everyone jumped on the 1" sensor bandwagon after the release of the RX100.
Agree. In fact, comparing the 2 cameras side-by-side (RX100 and MX-1), I prefer the looks of the MX-1's images more (sharper, obviously higher IQ due to the better glass on the Pentax).
Cloud... suuure! I'm currently in the process of switching to DXO Optics pro. Adobe asked for it.