 |
Marcos Villaroman
Lives in
San Jose, CA, United States
Works as a
Software Systems Engineer
Joined on
Oct 31, 2003
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
HubertChen: Opportunity for DSLR manufacturers:
Support plain DNG will become a competitive advantage!
Total Cost of DSLR with new RAW format:
700 USD DSLR with new RAW
960 USD = 20 USD / month PS CC * 12 month / year * 4 year
----
1660 USD for using my cool new DSLR for 4 years using RAW files
Now compare this with a camera that supports plain DNG:
700 USD DSLR with DNG format
----
700 USD for using my cool new DSLR for 4 years using DNG RAW files ( or longer even )
Finally we are getting one file format for RAW ? Eureka!
Background:
There seems to be a consensus here: Adobe CS6 is here to stay, but expected that in a year or so it is useless in case you buy a new camera with a new RAW format. So the only way to get the new ACR supporting the new RAW format would be to subscribe to Adobe Photoshop Cloud. Or a smart DSLR maker sees the opportunity and delivers every new camera with the very same DNG file format. Maybe Adobe shot themselves into the leg ?
Adobe has been upgrading the DNG format specification from time to time. As RAW file format capabilities and DNG format capabilities advance, the RAW to DNG converters has to be upgraded. Eventually I can see a time when the latest DNG file will be incompatible with CS6 because Adobe eventually won't spend the money to ensure that it works in this manner.
Falconest174: Over 4200 total comments on this story in two days. Some kind of a record?
From what I have read almost all negative comments except for a few trolls toeing the Adobe line. This kind of crap might work for entertainment software or online gaming but not for business or graphic software. An abysmally conceived idea, doomed to kill the company, 's a shame too. Looks good initially but when the 'net is down and you have a deadline and can't get the stuff to work to finish a project, a pro is out of his business as well. I Always buy a back up disk when I buy D/L software for this very reason.
Well said, 40daystogo.
The thing about the 80%: we're still here on the internet. We should become evangelist for non-Adobe options as well as speak out against other companies who decide to force subscription only on their entire user base.
Competition is good, but, you have to be willing to jump to the competition before the big boys squeeze the competition out and there is no competition to prevent them from jacking up the prices.
jkoch2: While neither an Adobe employee or investor, I think the change to a subscription model is the only way a software company can continue to make money.
Ladies and gents, it's time to grow up! Gone are the days when, every two years, there were enough changes in PCs, cameras, or software to compell people to buy new versions or upgrades. Meanwhile, the subscription model works fine for utilities, transportation, medical insurance, media delivery, and all kinds of public services. Many people obtain autos on lease or with borrowed (rented) money. Most homes are mortgaged or rented. Most employees work for wages, not a one-time bounty. Photographers charge by the job, not by a lifetime retainer. The queerest thing, in retrospect, is how long people bought $500 or $1,000 upgrades of editing products that offer more tools than most people have time to master, and that offer little ostensible commercial advantage over a $100 consumer version.
Photographers actually charge by usage too, not, just the job. Look at image resales.
Adobe had other options. For example: 1) Make CC a better value proposition so that the base they are after jumps to that model; 2) make the conditions for CS such that tech support is removed after a year and that upgrades to support new OS is not guarented. A lot of us hate the option Adobe picked because it reinforced how little they value our business and economic situation.
Adobe just reminded us all that if you are reliant on their products, you will pay. That's not a comfortable feeling.
Adobe is more into leveraging their current high popularity to get enough people into the business model they think works best for Adobe. If you are correct and Adobe can't innovate fast enough to get people to upgrade every 18 months, then the competition may the chance to catch up. If Adobe sticks to its plans, we should move on to other solutions in the next few years.
Jude McDowell: Found a link to this blog in another site; one person's experience after signing up to Creative Cloud...
https://www.halfslide.com/review-of-adobe-creative-cloud-its-the-worst/comment-page-1/
Thanks for posting this. Unfortunately the reviewer's experience matches what I feared would be wrong with Creative Cloud. Adobe products have indeed been very buggy and that 72 hour delay between deactivating and activating a license is unacceptable for individual users who rely on the software enough to pony up $50/month.
I find very bad customer service interaction really motivates me to find alternative solutions, even if it costs me a lot more time and money to implement the alternatives.
Hopefully Adobe reconsiders their strategy. If they stick to their guns on this, I figure I'll try something else within a year and be completely Adobe free in two years. Photoshop is very familiar and very powerful with lots of available training videos. Hopefully some third party recognizes the opportunity here and tries to position their products to become acceptable alternatives.
Adobe in its quest for high amounts of steady revenue has jumped the shark in forcing everyone to go with the subscription model. They want more of your money, no matter how little you use their software, forever, with no performance guarantees in timely bug fixes, camera supports, and feature updates.
It is amazing how much I have to spend on monthly tech bills already: cell phone with data; broadband; cable TV; now software that I don't use that often?
I don't trust Adobe to provide value for my money given my usage pattern. As for DNG: It is not a format that lasts forever. Adobe still has to write RAW converters for every new camera. If Adobe is gone, who is going to write a proprietary RAW converter to DNG RAW for your new camera and guarantee it is correct if your camera manufacture doesn't?
Too expensive for me. I would want both lens and the flash to start with and at that price point, the Olympus OMD is *very* tempting.
At least with the OMD, I got in-body stabilization and an EVF. With this first generation EOS-M I'd be expecting to replace it with the "pro" version within a year or so.
And what is it with the name of this camera body??? I thought "EOS-M" was the name of the new lens mount.
If the formal testing on the production model continues to show this sort of low-light/high ISO performance and the AF delivers, I would have sufficient justification to buy a 5D3 and use my 5D2 as a second body.
The only hope to protect my bank account is to learn how to get more out of my 5D2 than I already have. I am so motivated to out and shoot today. :-)
Whew! I'm glad the MSRP is high enough that I am not at all tempted to buy one in the next year so. At that price range, I'd be very interested in the lens selection. That will take quite some time to develop to the point I would be willing to invest big bucks in such a system.
Maybe Canon will jump in the mirrorless interchangeable lens world by then...
From the endgadget video, these cameras are supposed to have insanely fast AF and the ability capture lots of frames in a short period of time. The idea of 10 shots a second and the best 5 are selected is intriguing. I look forward to the reviews.
Otherwise, I'm disappointed that the announced lens are all slow.