toni2

Joined on Jul 4, 2012

Comments

Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)

Rishi is a very confortable reviewer. I still remember when I told him that EVERY DSLR must have microAF focus. It's a thing really obvious nowdays.

Now, it's the same. It's obvious that the cloud is the future, and every program must have cloud modules (Facebook...). But Adobe is not talking about future, they are only looking for how to make more money.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 10:13 UTC as 98th comment

AMD brought us 64 bits. Now, AMD brings us more cores.

Intel is doing nothing in innovation. They only move if another company moves before.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

tm8: Great... No incentive for them to fix the numerous bugs and optimize the code base when they are making so much profit.

With CC they don't need to make better products because you are renting them, so you are paying for them every month!!
Before CC, Adobe needed to make better products every release because if they don't do that, people don't buy that release. (They lost a lot of money!!).
So now, Adobe will release better products when they think that rivals get better, not before.
So, it was a lie when they said that CC will bring more innovation; it only gives them more money.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 05:52 UTC

So, CC is really good for Adobe to make money.
And CC is really bad for innovation because with CC, Adobe doesn't compete with themselves.

I explain it: Before CC they need to improve every release fo force you to buy that release; now, they don't need to improve it because you are renting, so you are always paying every month to use it. Obviously they make some cosmetics changes but nothing really important.
When will an Adobe CC product get better? When the rivals get better, Adobe will need to improve that product, not before.
So, it was a lie when they said that CC will bring more innovation; it only gives them more money.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 05:41 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

toni2: You question it's very simple: try some EF and EF-S lenses on a Canon M5. You will see if AF is quick or there are some problems, and you can compare it with some other mirrorless only system.

A thing it's very clear: DSLR will die, as 99.9% of films died. People will have to do something with it's lens...

In fact, Canon and Nikon will sell DSLR until people stop buying it. But I think that nowadays DSLRs are outdated for a lot of people (for amateur people, I think).

It will be an interest thing to compare a Canon 6d mk2 and a Canon 6d mk2-mirrorless (same body, same mount, without mirror and with EVF, with face detection...) sales. What camera would have more buyers? At what price?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: You question it's very simple: try some EF and EF-S lenses on a Canon M5. You will see if AF is quick or there are some problems, and you can compare it with some other mirrorless only system.

A thing it's very clear: DSLR will die, as 99.9% of films died. People will have to do something with it's lens...

@NicoPPC
You said "dslr will continue at least 15 years..."
I really think that DSLRs will be a marginal product within 5 years. I think it will be like the switch from analog to digital. Once it's really started, it will blow.

I agree that mirrorless must have great handling and confort. Mirrorless is not about that (that's a misunderstanding, to have bad ergonomics); mirrorless is about to remove the mirror and to have an EVF, and a lot of new software improvements.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: You question it's very simple: try some EF and EF-S lenses on a Canon M5. You will see if AF is quick or there are some problems, and you can compare it with some other mirrorless only system.

A thing it's very clear: DSLR will die, as 99.9% of films died. People will have to do something with it's lens...

#NicoPPC
Mirrorless will kill DSLRs. It's only question of time...

Mirrorless will offer a lot of better things: no need of microAF, live changes (as realtime histogram), eye focus, smaller and lightweight lens (on new native lens)...

If mirrorless has not killed DSLR yet it's because manufacturers prefer sell you now a DSLR and sell you a mirrorless in the future. It's only a marketing interest.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 10:46 UTC

You question it's very simple: try some EF and EF-S lenses on a Canon M5. You will see if AF is quick or there are some problems, and you can compare it with some other mirrorless only system.

A thing it's very clear: DSLR will die, as 99.9% of films died. People will have to do something with it's lens...

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 13:00 UTC as 160th comment | 7 replies
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

toni2: It has microAF? Not? So, you are saying that it's not professional, so it can have focus problems that are not present in any smartphone or in any mirrorless system?

A DSLR without microAF is an outdated system. Point.

@NicoPPC Or miss focus with a DSLR in full day light (if you have microAF problems)...

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (291 comments in total)

It has microAF? Not? So, you are saying that it's not professional, so it can have focus problems that are not present in any smartphone or in any mirrorless system?

A DSLR without microAF is an outdated system. Point.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 06:55 UTC as 39th comment | 7 replies
On article Canon EOS 77D / 9000D sample gallery (147 comments in total)

Another DSLR without microAF? Another toy? It's time that Canon and Nikon know what are they selling...

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 12:47 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Mariusz of PL: Still no DEHAZE mode in stand-alone version.

@hikerdoc 'flexibility'? Call it force you to buy the CC version.
Speak clearly, not as you were a marketing man.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

@TheDman Renting is cheaper but you don't get the same. Price is not the only value.
That doesn't make sense is talk with a marketing man. You only know to cheat.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

@TheDman Hahaha. It could be cheaper if you buyed a new PS version each 3 years, it could be cheaper if it was the same (buts not the same, it's renting vs buying).
Admit that you don't know more how to cheat people.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

@TheDman "So, it's cheaper, but you don't get the same."
Just read ALL the phrase until the end point.
There you go. I knew you could learn something.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

@TheDman Yes, it's easier to pay 10 every month than 500 one time. But the counterpart is that you can't stop paying every month.
So, it's cheaper, but you don't get the same.

It's not like a store where you can buy and download a song, it's more like a audio streaming service.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

@TheDman Hei! You are a good marketing man!!

Let's see money for Adobe:
10*500=5000
100*100*3=30000

Let's see bad assumptions:

1) Down price by 40% and you get a 1000% increase in customers? Very hard to believe. Even with Adobe dirty policy to force people to get PS CC blocking CR releases for PS CS6.
2) How much people doesn't need more than PS CS6? Whats is cheaper for them, spend one time 500$ or 100$ every year?

I hate marketing men; you add nothing to the market, only speculation and overprices. Nothing about good products. You're destroying innovation and people. Go away.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 18:22 UTC

There are people that still think that suscription (a rent) is cheaper than purchase.

Anyone can think that a company like Adobe, will sell you a thing cheaper if they can sell it more expensive?! Think a little, please...

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 13:52 UTC as 10th comment | 11 replies
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: It's a plot by a corporation to make money.

@JaredTarzan I think that this is a great business decision for Adobe. But for users, it is not a great option. They will be renting a software for life, and it really don't improves a lot.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 12:44 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: It's a plot by a corporation to make money.

Not. It's a plot by a corporation to make you to use their cloud, and rent you a software for the rest of your life.

Of the supposed CC great improvements, nothing. Only small improvements as when you buy their software.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 20:07 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »