Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 403, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@sirhawkeye64
Yup - the grass isn't necessarily greener. One relatively obvious alternative to LR is C1Pro - it has a prescribed method for moving your catalog over. They're pretty big and likely to stay around a while. The software also isn't cheap, so may not be what people choose if they object to subscription pricing. And there's no guarantee they won't move to a subscription model. It seems like more and more companies are trying to take advantage of anti-subscription sentiment, but to me, they feel like early mirrorless - lots of promise, most of the way there, but not ready for prime time. And then, if they don't go subscription, what happens when they're not making money. Especially if Adobe keeps all the people were willing to pony up for updates, and these companies attract all the cheapskates !
I can object for now, but I'm not "all in" on it ... I can see the shades of gray in it and could very well end up subscribing, myself, down the road.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@sirhawkeye64
But ... I'm on dpreview, not financialservicesreview. At least I'm whining about something photographic that affects photographers and not bitching about what other people choose to talk about (which affects nobody).
It's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't buy it" (I can just as easily say "if you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it" ... just rolls of the fingers) but if a few people complaining about the downsides of a subscription model (as many have explained, it's more than cost) cause a few more people to be aware of something they weren't, and they warn a few others away, then we'll have a small impact. And maybe it's all the complaining that's driving competitors to intentionally advertise "No subscription fees ever" ... maybe if it weren't for the complaining, they wouldn't see the opportunity. Things get better when people make each other aware of problems, not when they passively accept everything. Worst case, I'm shouting into the wind.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@blurredvision
You might want to go back and reread the conversation. (Put on your glasses if your vision is blurred). As you yourself pointed out, I wrote three paragraphs in reply to Reilly. You chose one sentence that you didn't like. And you kind of missed the part of YOUR participation where you called the photography online community a bunch of whiny, entitled <expletives> for their opinions.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

gurgeh: Before the subscription model, Adobe had to invest a lot of money developing new versions in order to get people to buy an upgrade. Now they have a stable revenue stream, so their incentive is simply to minimise costs in order to increase their profit, and their products are stagnating. LR still has appalling performance, and we haven't seen any innovation in PS or LR in a long time.

Now this might work for Adobe in the short and medium term, because the competition is still far behind, but it is catching up. Meanwhile the customers are getting more and more fed up for paying more money than before and getting nothing in return. The damage Adobe are doing to their brand will be hard to fix. Me and a lot of people I speak to are simply waiting for another product that does what we need, and then we will say good bye to Adobe for good.

@miksto
You're right ... in fact, the only reason I own a PS license is because the first copy was bundled with a scanner for less that the price of a full license, then I upgraded a couple times after that. I never needed the full capabilities of PS and could not have justified ... was it something like $700 ? Now, LR does all I need and when I do go into PS to do something, there are plenty of other software packages that could do the same. If I did develop a need to use PS, suddenly, $10/month for both products seems like a good deal. (My objection to the subscription model is independent of the pricing).
Adobe was most definitely smart to do this. And clearly, not enough people object for Adobe to be concerned. Maybe it ends up being a win-win for everyone except those of us who are amateurs (no business relying on the software) and who upgrade infrequently because we don't need new features.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@blurredvision
Help me figure this out.
If I dislike corporate greed at the expense of the consumer and object to an industry trend toward something that supports corporate greed at the expense of the consumer, I'm a whiny, entitled <expletive> for choosing to share my opinions in a discussion on the topic.
But if you dislike what other people say and your sole contribution to a discussion it to insult them for saying it, you're somehow NOT a whiny <expletive> ?
I expect that not all people will agree with my opinions. I respect them for arguing their point of view.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

It would be, if Adobe weren't so entrenched; if we didn't have extensive Lightroom catalogs that make "don't subscribe" a big endeavor. And if the alternatives were better. In fact, LR 6 is still available to buy, so it's not even an immediate concern, but a future one.
But Adobe is a big company and when they make record profits by demanding payment in advance (rather than wait to see if they develop something you're willing to pay for) then other companies will follow. This is a disturbing trend. And, like everything else, worth talking about. If whiners never whined, we'd be in much sorrier shape than we are now.
It's rare that "record profits" is good for consumers. Maybe you're a shareholder ?

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: Imagine your gear needs subscription to work

@miksto
With licensing, you vote with your wallet by simply saying no to the version X upgrade. (And even then, if you say no to too many upgrades, a future upgrade eventually becomes more expensive). But at least you keep using the product you enjoy without paying for the fact that the company just spent a year and a half on features that provide you with no benefit.
Voting with your wallet now means giving up on the product entirely (despite the fact that you may be perfectly happy with what they released 3 years ago).
And yes, LR is still relevant. That doesn't mean it's worth the subscription. The subscription pays for ongoing development, none of which provides me with any value. Dehaze and panorama support are at least enhancements related to photography, though I wouldn't pay for them, and the rest is aimed at people who need to edit on mobile devices. They can take your money and use it to develop features intended to attract even more new users.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

gurgeh: Before the subscription model, Adobe had to invest a lot of money developing new versions in order to get people to buy an upgrade. Now they have a stable revenue stream, so their incentive is simply to minimise costs in order to increase their profit, and their products are stagnating. LR still has appalling performance, and we haven't seen any innovation in PS or LR in a long time.

Now this might work for Adobe in the short and medium term, because the competition is still far behind, but it is catching up. Meanwhile the customers are getting more and more fed up for paying more money than before and getting nothing in return. The damage Adobe are doing to their brand will be hard to fix. Me and a lot of people I speak to are simply waiting for another product that does what we need, and then we will say good bye to Adobe for good.

Three people I work with (who are not dpreview members) use alternative software specifically because of the licensing model. Not because $10/mo is expensive, but because of the principle of it. They're all computer savvy and have plenty of experience buying and upgrading software over the years. None of them are "power users". One switched from PS to gimp, the others are looking at alternatives to Lightroom. I'm on LR 6 at least until I need an upgrade for a future camera and then I'll have to decide whether principles outweigh $10/mo and the time it will take to migrate my LR catalog to something else.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: Imagine your gear needs subscription to work

@miksto

It is not a simple matter of going somewhere else. Lots of people have lots of time invested in their Lightroom catalogs (not to mention skill in using Photoshop) and there simply isn't a compelling alternative. Under the license model, at least those users could vote with their wallets if Adobe chooses to spend all its time implementing features designed to attract more new users, rather than enhance the product for their use.
And apparently, it doesn't simply mean a steadier revenue stream, it means a lot more revenue. Because people were choosing not to upgrade to boring upgrades that offered little value over the previous version of a mature product.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

erik12345: Now put some of that money into rewriting Lightroom for performance. Lightroom has only seen incremental improvements since the subscription model was introduced. We need a complete overhaul.

It would also be nice to see some new tools to better compete with Capture One.

Yeah, but just think of all they've done so you can edit your photos on your phone ... (nice you know your subscription fees are paying for something).

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Now that's what I would call a Zeica.

And the spyware that Kaspersky puts in it will be known as ... the Zeica Virus !

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

Pixnat2: A system that works with FF lenses and with APS-C lenses in crop mode would make everybody happy ;-)

Like a V-8 that can shut down 4 cylinders makes everybody happy ?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Shinigami84: So Nikon mirrorless will be "aimed at professionals" product with a very high price and very expensive lenses? Thanks but no thanks. I'll keep using my non-professional A6000.

I have an A6500 and a D7000 (with a 70-200/2.8). I've held off on switching completely to Sony because of that 70-200 and because I'm thinking about getting a long tele like the 200-500, planning to use them on a future mirrorless. But if Nikon is going to double down on their neglect of APS-C (and focus on pros) with this, I might end up moving completely to Sony or another brand. I'm in no rush to do anything rash on the basis of rumors & speculation - we'll see what 2018 brings.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 01:03 UTC
In reply to:

sts2: Very nice to see this comparison... this thread is probably quickly going to fill up with "natural light photographers" VERSUS "flash photographers"... but true photographers use whatever they need to create what they want to achieve.

He does hit the nail on the head on these basic, important points: natural light is easier but can be limiting depending on circumstances. Use of flash CAN get you better results, but it's more cumbersome and also easier to screw up.

OK, natural light photographer checking in :) I like the flash shot in one of the three comparisons and the natural light shot better in the other two. But that's beside the point. I agree 100% that natural light is easier, but can be limiting. I like the easier part; I live with the limitation. I shoot for fun and don't have enough time to do it as it is. But I won't claim that natural light is (always) better. (I've seen Joe McNally work magic in a crowded convention hall, where I'm not sure there was any hope for natural light).

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 18:38 UTC
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)

Could be just lenses for smartphones ...

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 15:42 UTC as 121st comment
In reply to:

panther fan: Could somebody do a comparison with the new Sigma?

The Tamron offers an optional tripod mount.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

ojos azules: Do US buyers ever buy anything?
Or is everything always over priced?

US customers think they are the market.
But that was yesterday.

Asian market is way bigger, and goes for the clever stuff without being confused by legacy technology.

This is a brilliant camera in its class.
Read the specs.
Don't get it?
Read again.

How silly of some people to have a different opinion from you. Had they had the wisdom to consult you first, it would have been obvious that they were wrong, because yours can be the only correct view.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

CanonKen: I'd argue this would be the perfect camera for most who are starting out and don't want to fuss. This seems to be close to a do-all camera for almost anything.

$1700 for a camera that can't do shallow DOF candids and might be frustratingly slow to zoom for some uses ? It's a potentially great product, but not for everyone and a little pricey for people just starting out.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Why?

Why on earth would anyone buy a $1700 two and a half pound beast with a one 1" sensor just to avoid ever having to change lenses?

This behemoth makes a six year old Nikon D5100 with a couple of kit lenses look like a size, weight, image quality and value champion.

@Kharan, nice combo - maybe throw in an RX1 for some low light work and/or shallow DOF :) And then an RX0 ... I like what Sony is doing with the RX line in terms of capabilities and the interoperability of a "family" of cameras (I just don't like the ever-increasing prices to get new technology).

The D5100 comparison is kind of irrelevant ... a DSLR is going to be a better choice for a lot of people (a budget kit is cheaper; you get shallow DOF options, better macro options, etc) and an RX10-IV offers continuous zooming from 24 to 600 equivalent (wider and longer than a 2-lens DSLR kit, no lens changes, and continuous zooming for video), electronic zoom, silent shutter, 4k video with a high res EVF, 24fps, up to 960fps slow motion ... if you don't value that stuff, it's pointless and if you do, the D5100 is pointless.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Why?

Why on earth would anyone buy a $1700 two and a half pound beast with a one 1" sensor just to avoid ever having to change lenses?

This behemoth makes a six year old Nikon D5100 with a couple of kit lenses look like a size, weight, image quality and value champion.

I'd love to own one ... this thing and an RX100-IV would be great travel cameras. But I'd (almost certainly) never spend $1700 on it - the value proposition isn't there for me. Fast AF or not, it won't replace my DSLR, and I don't do video. (I bet it sells to more videographers than still photographers).

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
Total: 403, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »