tornwald: To give you an idea, this is the Adobe CEO:
As you can see, he is a money hungry robot who does not care for one bit about his customers. With this attitude towards customers, I think Adobe is finished.
Basically, his answer was, "We don't care what the customer thinks. It's our way or no way, and we'll gouge you in any way we like. So turn around, bend over and take it."
Regarding piracy, I think the best way to decrease piracy is to *decrease* the price of your product, rather than *increasing* it. It's like music. Now that music is only 99 cents a song, people buy songs all the time now. Make it easy and cheap, and people will buy. Sure beats paying $18 at the music store for a whole CD album just to have a couple songs that you actually like. The cost of buying CDs were so high, people opted to pirate songs. Likewise, if Adobe didn't charge such an exorbitant amount for Photoshop, more people would be able to afford it, and fewer people would resort to piracy. But Adobe just doesn't get it. Now with this cloud strategy, it's just going to drive more people way, but this time it'll drive them towards other competing products.
photosen: That was unavoidable, there are way too many people willing to pay a couple of thousand dollars for a shiny Mac but zero for their illegal Photoshop. If it's too expensive don't buy it.
I own my Mac. I'm not leasing it. I also want to own my software, not lease it.
This is a great opportunity for a competitor. Adobe isn't the only show in town.
Giants can fall. Adobe and Microsoft, you guys are stumbling and slipping. You think your users are captive and will never go elsewhere. Well, customers can and do leave. I left Microsoft for Apple less than two years ago, with no intention of ever going back. I can do the same with Adobe, too.
For those of you who want an EVF on the cheap, consider that the Oly VF-3 is only $99 right now. (The higher-spec VF-2 is also pretty darn cheap, selling for as low as $169 right now, at B&H.) It may not be the state of the art in terms of EVF technology, but I've been using my VF-3 for the last year and I have no complaints. It does the job quite nicely, especially for the price. Sure, if you do a direct comparison with the newest and best EVF's, you'll see a difference in quality and resolution. But for day-to-day casual shooting, I don't think it's that big of a deal. It does what it's supposed to do, and I have plenty of great images to prove it. And the nice thing about a separate EVF is that you can upgrade it later, independent of the body.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: So many dismissive comments for the lack of an integrated viewfinder... is it me or, if it had a viewfinder, people would find something else to criticise? Sensor area, perhaps...? Not having phase detection AF?As they say, "haters gonna hate". Want an integrated viewfinder? You have the E-M5. This one is for people who do well without an EVF.
The nice thing about a separate EVF is that A) you can remove it, B) you can transfer it to other Pen bodies, and C) you can upgrade it independently of the the body.
I have the Oly VF3. It may not be the state of the art in terms of EVF technology, but it only costs $99 right now! It does the job for me. And I can always upgrade to a newer version later.
VividExposures: Or you could just use a nice windows tablet and call it a day ;)
Windows tablet? Ugh! Terrible battery life.
paulbysea: Why bother with apple it is losing market share hand over foot, Android is the tablet OS of the future.
Too bad most of the Android market is made up of bargain smartphones, cheapo junky tablets, and the Amazon Kindle Fire. Plus, iOS is the mobile OS where its users actually buy apps!
HowaboutRAW: And of course, if you want to transfer say 8gigs of raw photos from say an SD card, you'll need a specialized card reader that can plug into the iPad's Apple only port.
Will Adobe be supplying these special card readers or some kind of dock? Why not just stick with a Mac Air or good Windows tablet, or small Windows laptop? (I know that this small laptop/capable tablet point has already been made elsewhere in these comments.)
And no, I don't want to read the preposterous assertion that it's simple and quick to transfer several gigs of data over wifi--perhaps in 20 years, but then photo files will be even bigger.
For CF card users, you need "these special card readers" to offload your CF cards to a Mac Air or Windows laptop too! Laptops with built-in CF card slots aren't exactly ubiquitous.
wayfarers: Interestingly Olympus will be releasing TWO new models, the other one is E-PL6. Today the E-P5 is hardly a secret, but all we know about E-PL6 is that it is "improved E-PL5". I am really curious to see what will be omitted in the E-PL6, and the price difference.
(I feel a bit like Cartman waiting for the Nintendo Wii to come out...)
E-PL6 with a built-in flash would be nice. I don't like having to choose between using using the EVF or using the add-on flash on the hotshoe.
Peter KT Lim: Today if Zeiss are Sogoood, than they no need to be a third party lens maker, where is their proud Contax Camera? Clearly show their product is not competitive in today environment.
It is a laugh that today still got some great lenses discovery master post their so call expert experience on site telling Z is good and C is not so good.
Making a camera today is very different than it was back in the film days of Contax cameras. Back in the film days, all you really had to do was make the body to hold the film. These days, with digital cameras, it's a lot more complicated and the investment in developing cameras is many, many, many times higher because it's not just a matter of sticking a roll of film inside the camera. Now, cameras have very sophisticated electronics (sensors, processors, etc.) that are responsible for capturing the image...much more complicated than just loading film. That's why a company like Zeiss is sticking with making lenses in the digital age.
Tom Goodman: I'd like to amend the now famous maxim that "the best camera you own is the one you have with you" to read "the best camera...except those built into cellphones."
Tom, I'll say it again: it's about the photos. I could care less about what someone uses to create a photo. I use Canon FF and APS-C DSLR bodies, an Oly m4/3, various compact P&S cameras, and yes, a smartphone camera, too. Doesn't matter, I've gotten wonderful, memorable, cherished photos from all of them. Like I said, it's about the photos, not the device. Open up your mind. Sadly, narrow minds have narrow ideas, hence your comment that I am a cellphone camera "zealot"! Haha. Yes, someone who says that it's about the photos, not the device, is a cellphone camera "zealot". Hahaha! Absurd.
I stand by my assertion that "the best camera is the one you have with you" still holds truer than ever. But only a device "zealot" would say something like "...except those built into cellphones"...especially in the face of evidence to the contrary:
The pictures say it all.
@Tom Goodman, you're not convinced because you're probably one of those crazy pixel peepers who can't enjoy a photo unless you're scrutinizing it at 100% magnification in Photoshop! Hahaha. Well, hate to break it to you, but out in the REAL world, people don't look at photos that way. Ultimately, today more than ever, the actual image is far more important than the device you used to capture the image. That's what photography is really about-- the photo, not the device. But alas, there are people like you who just don't get it, and think photography is more about the equipment than the actual photo.
wootpile: Totally off-topic:If that is how they shoot, I can tell which one gets sharper shots while the other has motion blur.. can you?
No, you really can't tell just by the photo. The reality is that it still depends on how steady your supporting hand is. A moment ago I was emulating both holding techniques shown in the photo, and I was getting absolutely no difference in camera shake. It just depends on what you're comfortable with and what works best for you. Not everyone is comfortable putting their palm (near the wrist) flat up against the body and lens because it puts the wrist at a sharper angle. And it doesn't necessarily result in more stability, especially if that wrist angle is less comfortable. Ultimately, the answer is that it depends on the person.
Maybe you just drink too much caffeine!!
BTW, an electronically/mechanically stabilized lens will still usually give you a bigger advantage than most "human" efforts of stabilization!
moimoi: 18 is not wide enough on APS-C. But Sigma is clearly putting an interesting new set of lenses.
@moimoi - While "f/1.8 is actually equivalent to f/2.7 on a full frame" in terms of DOF, this f/1.8 zoom will still put more light onto the sensor than an f/2.8 FF zoom. So you still get an advantage in light speed.
photog4u: What a boat anchor! I would no sooner lug that mess around as I would an anvil.
Gorgeous models though...
An anvil won't get you photos at f/1.8.
Plenty of people are taking great pictures with phone cameras these days. The maxim still holds true. Just take a look at the various Flickr iPhone photo galleries:
I've seen far worse photography done with much more advanced DSLRs.
You're probably one of those people who wants a 14-100 f/1.8 zoom. LOL. Well, considering that this lens is the only f/1.8 zoom available (!), it's amazing that there are people who still complain. If you can find a wider and broader-range f/1.8 zoom, then buy it. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of people who will manage with this lens.
I can understand people saying that 28mm is "not wide enough on APS-C", but 18mm on APS-C is equivalent to 28mm on FF, which has been sufficiently wide for FF zooms for quite some time.
Tom Caldwell: Just shows that people don't mind big lenses on little cameras. Used to be a lot of fuss over the idea that if you make a small EVIL-type camera then you can only fit small lenses to it.
I would hardly call this a "big" lens. Just put it next to a DSLR lens of comparable effective focal length specs, and you'll see that it really isn't that "big".
kimchiflower: Good grief! That's a disproportionately large chunk of glass on that camera.
Apparently, you've never seen a big DSLR lens on a DSLR body. Various DSLR lens and body combos can also be very disproportionate, too.