raztec

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Nov 13, 2005
About me:

Traveling and paragliding is what I used to love.
But now it's my boy.

Comments

Total: 276, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty (125 comments in total)

I can't understand why the Drone manufacturers, instead of including their own camera, which too often has a very small sensor, don't just make a drone that has the ability to carry any small, compact point & shoot or action cam in a cargo bay. That way we can use our own cameras and get much better quality photos and they can reduce the costs and complexity of the drone.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies

I would have preferred an LX100 replacement with tilting LCD screen or LX10 replacement with a viewfinder.

Personally, MFT cameras of this size are no use to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:30 UTC as 110th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Michael Stubbs: OK, I've got to ask... what is this weird thing going on with some people gleefully predicting Nikon's downfall and obsessing over mirrorless? Is this like a new version of the film vs digital where digital equipment obsessives prattled on (and continue to prattle on) about the downfall of film? And suddenly everyone knows better than Nikon how to make Nikon successful (Nikon being one of the oldest and most successful camera and lens manufacturer around).

@ Iloveaircraftnoise
...So said the passengers of the Titanic "That was just a speed bump. Don't second guess the Captain. Have YOU ever commanded a ship of this size?"

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Stubbs: OK, I've got to ask... what is this weird thing going on with some people gleefully predicting Nikon's downfall and obsessing over mirrorless? Is this like a new version of the film vs digital where digital equipment obsessives prattled on (and continue to prattle on) about the downfall of film? And suddenly everyone knows better than Nikon how to make Nikon successful (Nikon being one of the oldest and most successful camera and lens manufacturer around).

Nikon have failed on many occasions (DL , Nikon 1) because they are shifting their strategy to bank on their name and are trying to cater to high volume DSLR sales in the consumer market. They have refused to offer a genuine mirrorless camera with a largish sensor because...(who knows?)

It's almost too late for them. Xing fingers that they fire their marketing team and get back to doing what they've always done best: making cameras for photographers.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

taktak91: Good move for Nikon.
One of the reasons why Nikon 1 series never took off was because they had 'Made in China' on them. If they were made in Japan, or maybe even Thailand, pricing may have been justified.

The reason the Nikon 1 died is because they marketed it to the smart phone crowd instead of photographers. The design and lack of manual controls weren't what real photographers wanted. Look at all the panasonic and Sony cameras that have a 1" sensor and still sell well.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 03:40 UTC

The ONLY thing about smart phones that's better than a traditional camera is the ability to connect to wifi and post your photos immediately on social media.

If camera manufacturers were smart and enabled all their cameras to have easy wifi access, I'm sure most photographers would much prefer using them over smart phones any day.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 03:35 UTC as 69th comment | 4 replies
On article Canon EOS M100 review (773 comments in total)

I refuse to buy gear from companies that deliberately make it more inconvenient and expensive for photographers to get spare parts (cables) etc. just for a miserly increase in their profits. Go Canon go...down the rabbithole of greed!

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 02:24 UTC as 146th comment | 8 replies

.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 02:18 UTC as 6th comment

Adobe, just be gone already!
As far as I'm concerned, you're history.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 01:18 UTC as 35th comment

I don't care what new software Adobe comes up with, after their LR saga I'm never giving a dime of my money to them again!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 21:24 UTC as 51st comment
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

Well, you must live in the US. Here in Canada the electricity company is gov owned.

I actually agree with you that free markets (if they are truly free and not subject to collusion, which is most often the case and difficult to prove) is actually a very good thing.

But my beef isn't with free markets. It's with the deception and greed that Adobe has shown through this move to a subscription based model. They indicated 3 years ago that they would continue to offer and support the stand alone version of LR. They reneged on that promise because of profit and greed. Therefore I don't trust that they won't continue to hold profit king and suddenly double their rates.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 00:43 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

Regulations are there when market forces would be too inefficient to act quickly enough to give consumers options. They are useful in certain sectors of society such as electricity because changing from one power company to another isn't always feasible, particularly when one company has a monopoly on the cables and other infrastructure.

If you were to apply the subscription based model of Adobe CC to an electricity company, they could theoretically double your rates overnight. Now how many people could suddenly change from one electricity company to another easily? Same goes even for simple cell phone service providers. Once you agree to their rate, they can't change it overnight on you.

That's not the case with the Adobe. They got you by the balls and can charge you whatever amount they want. The longer you're in their fold, the harder it will be to jump ship. But I know that some people actually enjoy having their balls squeezed.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 00:08 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeRan: To me this type of model stifles innovation somewhat. Previously, if I bought Version 4 for instance, version 5 or version 6 would have to offer something more compelling to get me to part with the upgrade cost or I wouldn’t part with my money.

With the subscription model, I don’t have to make substantial improvements to keep my customers paying. I just have to keep ahead of the alternatives.

If you ask me, it’s a little bit of a lazy strategy. They’re moving from an “active income” model to more of a “passive income” model. (But not completely.)

Exactly! Laziness and greed usually go hand and hand.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:45 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

"So you are naive thinking regulation is anything more but inconvenience."

You're really not making sense. Regulation is there to protect the consumer. You've got no protection if you jump on the Adobe wagon with the subscription based model.

But that's how these big companies make tons of money. From the naivety of people like yourself.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

Actually you are pretty naive about how utility bills work. Utility rates are also regulated. They can't suddenly be doubled.

That's not the case with the subscription based model of LR. You are completely beholden to Adobe. And after reneging on their promise to continue to develop and support the stand alone version, how can you ever trust them?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

The analogy is akin to renting a house vs owning a house. When you rent, you are never certain that you can continue to live in that house indefinitely. That's understandable and most people take that risk because of their financial situation.

However, even when you rent there are laws that prevent the owner from doubling the rent suddenly from one month to the next. You usually sign a lease that guarantees you'll be able to live in that house for a specific length of time at an agreed upon monthly rate which can't be suddenly increased. And most places have some sort of rent control where the owner cannot increase your rent from one year to the next by more than say 5%.

With this subscription based model there are no such guarantees that Adobe won't increase the monthly rent suddenly to whatever they want. Once they got you by the balls, you are at their mercy.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 15:37 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)

And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:00 UTC as 116th comment | 18 replies
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)

Adobe just gave the middle finger to all their loyal customers.
Well, F U 2 Adobe! I'm gone and never coming back.

You've doubled your profits in the last year. How much money do you need to make? It will never be enough as greed has no bounds!

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 07:45 UTC as 380th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

raztec: Greed has no bounds.

Thanks for the clarification. Still I don't trust that they will not make that a requirement for the future. They can do what they want and you have no say.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

raztec: Greed has no bounds.

It means that the primary reason they are doing this is greed. You are essentially imprisoned into their system. If they suddenly change their subscription rate to $19.99/mo or more you have to pay that in order to access your photos.

There is absolutely no reason to do this other than pure profit.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:44 UTC
Total: 276, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »