Weekly Nikon news flash #237

→ After extensive testing Roger Cicala from Lensrentals confirms that the Nikon D610 doesn't have the dust/oil spots issues found in the D600.

→ Adobe released Lightroom 5.3 and Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (CC | CS6) release candidates with support for the following Nikon cameras and compatible lenses:

  • Nikon 1 AW1
  • Nikon Coolpix P7800
  • Nikon D610
  • Nikon D5300
  • Nikon 1 NIKKOR AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6
  • Nikon 1 NIKKOR AW 10mm f/2.8
  • Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
  • Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM A013 (Nikon mount)

→ In Japan you can engrave your Nikon Df camera.

→ There will be a special Nikon Df event in Tokyo next weekend (November 16th and 17th). If you are going to attend and have some interesting information/photos to share, please let me know.

→ Think Big Screen - Digital Show 2013 (new video form Nikon Australia):

Taking pictures with your fingers instead of a lens:

DxO Optics Pro v9.0.1
→ DxO Optics Pro v9.0.1 released with support for Nikon D610 and Coolpix P7800.

The first Nikon D610 book is out.

This entry was posted in Nikon Df, Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • SonyMonster

    Me thinks that engraving my penis would be a better return on investment.

    • Spy Black

      Engraving the camera may be helpful if it gets stolen. If your engraved penis gets stolen, no one’s going to go look for it…

    • Sandy Bartlett

      If they charge by the letter should be pretty inexpensive.

      • brownskie

        Maybe they can squeeze in the word big?

    • Kif

      Engraving your name would definitely affect the resale value but more importantly, you are losing your right to return it for a refund. Even if the camera arrived faulty, the only option would be to send it back for repair which would probably take several weeks.

      • Kif

        If referring to the camera, not your penis BTW.

        • Spy Black

          What’s the typical resale value of a non-engraved penis? I bet there’s a good market out there…

  • drpeters

    Who needs kit lenses when you have manophotography? Body only, baby!

    • banzaii

      Years of lens technology down the drain. What you save on lenses goes to sensor/mirror cleaning…

      • Global

        Hate to be elitist — but I will only use fingers that have a GOLD RING on them… lol.. 😀

  • Mike

    Maybe one day I’ll own Suzuki Taro’s Df. Actually I do like the bare black metal on that dial vs the textured one that the rest of the body has.

  • Nice video from Nikon Australia. They quickly mention some of the issues behind shooting video with a DSLR.

    I think what we really need is a DSLR that shoots RAW video. There are a few dedicated video cameras that already do this. Perhaps Nikon can get something going in the 4K world to take on Sony.

    • Spy Black

      What we need is a video camera that shoots video. Shooting video with DSLR is the dumbness-àss shìt ever.

      • brownskie

        I know right. You want to shoot video? by a god damn video camera!

        • Zeke

          A DSLR _is_ a video camera. With a few electronic tweaks it could be a great video camera.

          What’s the dumbness-ass shit ever is schlepping around a photographic instrument that includes every single component required to shoot spectacular video but having that functionality disabled to satisfy someone’s prejudices.

          • mikeswitz

            Agreed, shlepping around a camera that doesn’t shoot video to shoot video is about the stupidest thing a still photographer could do.

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              Before the day when video was available in a DSLR did we really feel the “need for it”? No, not really. If we were serious about shooting stills we shot stills, if we wanted to move across to video we went seriously into video. WHO begged the still photo industry to put video in their cameras? WHO? And more importantly how many begged? Did they ask all of the photographers? No. They sure as hell did ask me. Did they ask you?

              So, now we have access to video in our cameras and for those of us who choose not to bother with it are called morons for NOT using it. Just because it is there doesn’t mean I wanted it, or intended to use it. Just because it is there does it mean I NEED it?

              Video is NOT my hobby, still photography is. No one should tell you what your selected hobby should be, as in the case of the camera makers and also in the case of those who embrace the video aspect of their camera. As if video was the fricking holy grail of photography, it isn’t. I suppose those who get stuck shooting weddings will use video, maybe it is good for them. Maybe they feel they can do the job of both a videographer and a traditional still wedding photographer, but honestly wouldn’t it be wiser to stop trying to be a jack of all trades and concentrate on what you are best at and let someone else do the other half? Then you can both concentrate on your craft 100%??

              Video is here, we aren’t going to really get rid of it, video will be in almost all of our cameras weather we like it or not, and, we are going to pay for something we don’t use … I get that. I have it in my D800’s, I would have it in my Canon “whatever” if I had Canon, but I still don’t use it, need it or want it. I didn’t buy the D800 and D800e for video. WANT is the key word here right?

              All I can say is “thank god it hasn’t added a butt load of weight’, it is really something I don’t want or need and yet adds only a few extra grams to my STILL camera. I can deal with that and the extra dollars charged for it. SOMEDAY and I mean maybe in the distant future, sometime before the sun explodes, I MIGHT decide to shoot video … I will give it a try on the DSLR and if I like the idea, at that point I will put down the DSLR that gave me a taste of something and go get a Red Digital or whatever I need to do serious work at that point. But I suck at stills I will most likely suck at video! I can cook though!!!

              The DF doesn’t have video, cool. I still am not going to buy one. I most likely would not buy one if I were shopping for a camera anyway.

            • mikeswitz

              Absofuckinlutey right.

            • Zeke

              The only people I hear being called names are those who want video in our DSLRs, not the other way around.

              Prior to the video-capable DSLR your only options were giant motion picture rigs, cumbersome, low-resolution TV ENG cameras and pricey (to own and operate) 16mm cameras. With the video DSLR were are able to take advantage of our cine-quality optics and sensors to moving images of the same subjects we’re _already_ covering with stills.

              The video capability takes nothing away from the camera, adds no weight, and if you don’t want it, you don’t have to use it.

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              That is true, the video takes nothing away from the camera at all. And true prior to VCDSLR there were few options, however today even without VCDSLR there are better options dedicated to that craft.

            • Aldo

              the better options may come at a higher price… for many who learn how to shoot video with their dslr and get optimal results, not much more is needed/required for their projects.

            • Michael Sloan

              I just wish Nikon would have made a regular D4 for stills and a D4C for the cine crowd. I didn’t like the 20% price hike of the D4 just to get the video features I won’t use. Many will argue that video was a free feature, I call BS.

            • Zeke

              The unit cost is nearly zero and the R&D pays for itself by increasing sales of the D4. Or else Nikon wouldn’t have done it.

              If anything, the cine crowd is subsidizing the stills-only shooters, the same way sales to hobbyists made cameras like the F3 cheaper for pros.

            • Michael Sloan

              I doubt very seriously the unit cost of adding video is near zero. The ports, the design considerations, and expanding the processor’s capabilities to process ever demanding video, certainly adds to the cost. By how much is unknown, but it is definitely more than “near zero”. Canon did a cine only 1DC, (albeit 4K video) I don’t see why Nikon couldn’t have done the same. I suspect Nikon was more interested in increasing their profits per unit by charging a premium for the video features you may or may not use. Over time, I’m sure they amortize their R&D costs by putting the same features in the lower models. The price hike of $800 (retail) over the D3S can probably be attributed directly to the video features and Nikon’s greed, in what proportions in only known by Nikon. 🙂

            • KnightPhoto

              Absapositively. The non-video crowd can’t seem to understand that reduced sales of videoless cameras would put Nikon at a significant competitive disadvantage, reduce overall sales, and increase prices across the Nikon lineup.

              Since this is the 700th time we’ve made this same point with them, I expect to be ignored yet again and next week we’ll see this same “I’d like a cheaper Nikon camera without video” drivel.

              I used my CX format video on my D4 on Saturday night in a paid shoot. Very nice…

            • Aldo

              I’m not gonna read your entire essay, but compare the amateur/semi-pro videos of the era in which video wasn’t available on dslr and the ones today (Ignore the resolution differences). You will see the benefits.

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              I read your entire answer.

            • Aldo

              thank you?

            • Dirck Halstead with the Platypus movement was pushing the idea for photojournalists. The problem was having enough to sell news organizations, and video combined with stills added to revenue streams for photojournalists. Halstead was not the only photojournalist pushing this idea, though he documented the conversion better than most.

              Wedding photographers also looked for additional revenue streams. So DSLR video met that need. If anything, the wedding shooters probably use video on DSLRs more than photojournalists do. I’m more of a corporate stills shooter, so I will preface this idea based upon what some wedding specialists have told me.

              The biggest downside I have seen in this, and why I am opposed to the more recent usage trends, is that many of these DSLR video guys are undercutting revenue streams for the properly equipped video production crews. Lower the cost, through lowering barriers, only serves to lower revenues for everyone. Beyond the technical issues, doing low budget video is not a viable long term business.

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              Thanks Gordon!

            • zoetmb

              So don’t turn on the video. While I primarily only shoot stills as well, I really like having video in my still body and I find myself using it more and more, even though I swore I’d never use it. And as you say, if you were a journalist, then video might be cool. I can assure you that the Nikon D800 makes far better video, in spite of its faults, than a smartphone can.

              You know, those digital photographers who brag about making 5000 to 10000 images a day are in essence, shooting video. When you put your camera on a high frame rate and just snap away instead of choosing a precise moment as most film photographers did, that’s a video technique.

              Take away the “motor drive” from these so-called photographers and I bet their resulting images suck.

            • mikeswitz

              I don’t think that is what Sundra Tanaka is saying. There are quite a few pros and hobbyists who really don’t give a shit about video. That obviously doesn’t include wedding photographers, paparazzi and many others who see a way of increasing their viability. See Aldo below. But that doesn’t mean that Nikon must put video in every camra they make. If it save say $40 for those not interested in video… hey, it’s better than a kick in the head. There are so many many cameras out there that have good video capabilities why would anyone think the Df is for them.

            • KnightPhoto

              “Before the day when video was available in a DSLR did we really feel the “need for it”? ”

              Absolutely – I was counting the days until my DSLRs could do video and having a blast with it since 😉

      • Aldo

        ha! I must disagree with you on this one… Although dslr video isn’t for all videographers… being able to shoot with all the available lenses in a cinema-style fashion is only a huge plus (not to mention affordability)… especially for those working on indie films and tv shows. Just because you hate it doesn’t mean is “dumbness-azz sheet ever” =]

        • mikeswitz

          I do work on movies and TV shows (IMDB Michael Switzer) and I think Spy Glass is right. Very few shows (I can only think of a couple) use DSLRs. And there is a reason for that. Its called using the right tools for the job. By the time you add all the accessories that you need to make the DSLR useable for a professional job you might as well rent any number of relatively inexpensive HD pro digital cameras. Besides shooting both stills and video by yourself at any event, one of those two is going to suffer. On the other hand if your going to shoot your cat and dog twerking then the D5200 is just fine.

          • Zeke

            And likewise, no professional magazine studio shoot is done with just a D4 and a lens. That type of work also requires tons of additional equipment and personnel (and as often as not will be done with an medium-format camera).

            A DSLR is a camera designed for use by a single operator in the field. It is compromised for the sake of compactness and portability. The analogous video application is _not_ a feature film or television show – it’s more cinéma vérité documentary.

            There are numerous still-shooting situations where it would _also_ be fantastic to shoot high-quality video other than shooting your “cat or dog twerking.” This functionality belongs in a pro DSLR which is why every manufacturer does it.

            • mikeswitz

              And it is also in numerous enthusiast and basic dslr and mirrorless cameras and you won’t get professional results from them either. Manufacturers are putting video in most of their cameras to sell more cameras and make non-cinematographers think they are going to get pro results. In LA everyone that buys a script writing program says they are a writer, everyone who goes to lots of movies says the can be a director and now everyone who has a camera is a “videographer”. Shooting pro stills and shooting pro video are vastly different crafts, not that one person can’t be both. It just takes time and experience.

            • Zeke

              The world of “pro” video is a lot bigger than scripted productions with big crews. Pro DSLRs are for photojournalism, whose subjects often lend themselves to coverage through still photography _and_ video.

              There aren’t focus pullers, dollies or craft services to be found during political revolutions, mountaineering expeditions, war zones, natural disasters, etc., or anyplace you want to document unobtrusively and spontaneously. In those situations, the video-equipped DSLR is absolutely the right tool for the job, not some gimmick to be disparaged.

            • Aldo

              “the world of “pro video is a lot bigger than scripted productions with big crews” This is what I tried telling Mike above… there is a huge market in between the big production companies and the guy recording his cat.

            • mikeswitz

              Are you a documentary, war zone, or news cameraman. I think not. Maybe, maybe in an emergency or situation where the still guy needs to get some story or incident on video, sure, a Nikon or Canon still camera can be used. But we’re not talking about focus pullers or craft service we are talking about professional cameramen, ie. not wedding/bar mitzvah photographers doing professional video work. No one is disparaging anyone. I know plenty of documentary and political ad cameramen who wouldn’t touch a DSLR unless they absolutely have to. You sound like you may be a film student. A DSLR if fine for that as well.

            • Zeke

              “No one is disparaging anyone.” I’ll leave that one to the judgement of everybody reading.

              Video DSLRs have great potential to make media that is, by and large, _not getting made_ right now by anyone you know. That video DSLRs can _also_ be used to shoot features and TV shows at all, just a few years into their existence, is very impressive.

              If these instruments are merely toys for pet owners, minor-league bar mitzvah photographers, wanna-be film students and other riffraff, then don’t worry – Nikon and Canon will never be players in professional video production and you won’t have to worry about it. I personally would caution anyone against taking that bet.

            • mikeswitz

              I’m getting tired of this conversation so here goes with my last comment:

              1. You have know no idea who I know or don’t know. I have former students making music videos with DSLRs and they are pretty damn good. Would they use a dedicated HD digital film camera instead? Maybe, but that is not the point I was trying to make.

              2. No one has ever said that DSLRs won’t be viable professional video cameras. Who knows what technology will bring. That they are not yet well suited for the task is hardly debatable. They are a very good tool for long time still photographers to learn videography.

              3. I have disparaged no one except you for making possibly the dumbest post on NR Rumors ever; “What’s the dumbness-ass shit ever is schlepping around a photographic instrument that includes every single component required to shoot spectacular video but having that functionality disabled to satisfy someone’s prejudices”. Only you said wedding photographers and wanna-be students (what-ever that is) are riffraff! Ask Aldo, who is a wedding photographer or Spy Black who I gather does some wedding work, if I have ever disparaged what they do.

              3. This whole thread has really been about people like you crying that the Df was “crippled” because technically Nikon could easily have included video and no pro with any brains would buy this camera because we all know that all still photographers must have video if they are going to professional work. And to that I say, disparagingly, HORSESHIT.

            • Zeke

              The most constructive thing I can say in response is that there are people who are genuinely unaware of how condescending they are, and you may be one of them. If so, maybe there’s an opportunity for self-improvement here.

              Also, I used the term “riffraff” satirically, as everyone who read my post is well aware.

            • mikeswitz

              Charlie Chaplin once said “It takes a lot of courage to make a fool of yourself” I have to say you, “Zeke”, are very courageous.

              Condescending enough ;=(

            • mikeswitz

              And did you see that giant rig that cameraman was shooting with in the Australian video. That was not your fathers D800.

            • It’s possible, though even using a Nikon V1 with a proper set-up creates a big rig. I would prefer an Ikonoscop over this set-up – http://cinema.nikonusa.com/sean-kennedy-santos-on-the-making-of-larrikin/

              DSLRs lack timecode, which kills workflow. The question my reply brings up, is that I hoped this would lead to a discussion of future products from Nikon. I like the optical viewfinder of a DSLR, so it would be a good start for a dedicated 4K video camera, despite there is a limited market for that. It would be more of a prestige product, than something that would sell millions of units.

              Sony has a Broadcast division, so why not Nikon? What is stopping Nikon from moving into dedicated 4K rigs?

              My experience in motion imaging was through editing on an AVID, some documentary work, lighting and electrical on a couple productions (in which I learned a ton of great things). I got away from all that due to a lack of budgets with those I was working with on projects. I have zero interest in using existing Nikon products for video, and used mostly Sony, Ikegami, and Canon video gear in the past. I do have a mic set-up for my V1, but it’s only to document my stills photography work, or used for training assistants.

            • MrSkelter

              This is flat wrong. Tons of magazine work is done with a single camera, single shooter. Even if you’re billing $50K a day. It entirely depends on the photographer and their chosen style. As they’ve been hired for what they can produce no-one care how they get there.

              Terry Richardson shoots compacts and does very high profile work.

              James Bond movies were shot (by a friend of mine) on 35mm with a handheld Leica until recently. Now he does the same work with an 18MP Canon. Every official image of James Bond for Skyfall? 16MP.

            • Zeke

              I was responding to the claim that a video DSLR requires a bunch of accessories to do its job making a movie. So does a DSLR used on a studio shoot: strobes and lightboxes and backdrops not to mention the props and the facility itself, plus assistants.

              Did your photographer friend hire his own Aston Martin while Daniel Craig put on his own makeup? No. Those official images required a big production in order to happen.

            • MrSkelter

              You’re making some assumptions. Not every shooter works so heavy. Many do but there are shoots which are nothing more than a girl, a photographer, a driver and a car.

              As for your comment about Bond – actually much of the time those shoots happen during production. Thus it’s all there already.

              Much of what people assume is photography is digital now. Backdrops? Not useful when you’re shooting an actress and Godzilla.

              Everything you say is true to an extent but it’s not universal. Your statement – there’s no shoots done with just a D4 and a lens – isn’t true. Some are exactly that.

              (They’re never scheduled that way. Booked jobs aways involved more. However the shots used are often more candid and shot without fuss ‘off hours’. Dave Naz shoots that way almost exclusively, as does Terry Richardson)

            • Zeke

              I don’t think there’s any disagreement here, just a mutual misunderstanding.

              My original statement was that “no professional magazine STUDIO shoot” is done with just a D4 and a lens. Now I suppose there are folks who have in fact gone in their studio and shot a magazine assignment using only available light without reflectors, backdrops, props, camera support, or any other assistance, but that’s not really what studios are for.

              The whole point of my post was to illustrate that there’s a double-standard being applied here. A DSLR is not expected to include every accessory required for an elaborate still-photography production, but it _is_ being taken to task for being an incomplete video recording instrument for a TV show or feature film.

          • Aldo

            The show that comes to mind in which they used a few d800s is dexter (of which I’m a fan btw). I’d like to think that the use of the camera came with some benefits other than some nikon advertisement.

            Where I see your point about how expensive a professional rig can get, this is exactly the same reason why the dslr is so versatile. You can go very big or small… you can’t do the same thing with the more expensive cameras. I also know that the 5d mark 2 (which gained a lot of ground for the dslr video industry) was very successful in the video department for the same reasons. The dslr also gave enthusiasts the opportunity to practice filming techniques, (particularly the effects you can achieve with a full frame sensor and different lenses) which were harder (if not impossible) to produce with cheap video cameras. Renting for such purpose is rather unpractical and expensive.

            There are far more people in between the next hit-award-winning television show and the owner of the cat, who can benefit from dslr video. They simply don’t need/require a hollywood rig for their projects. Yet they may come close to the more professional works, only thanks to the dslr.

            • mikeswitz

              I have a very good friend who was the production designer on Dexter. From what I remember (I’ve forgotten who the DP was but you can he was a Nikon shooter as well) they did it because they could. Nikon gave them everything they needed so they could convince people that Nikon could be used in place of dedicated HD digital cameras. And maybe they can but not without a large learning curve and a slower workflow. The Red Camera is best not used for still work, where a D800 is great. I think your Nikon can be a great learning tool for shooting video as long as you have the editing software. And I don’t mean iMovie. But to charge clients for video and stills if you are the one doing both would not not be in eithers best interest. Like I said earlier the D800 is great for still photographers learning a new craft.

            • Aldo

              I wouldn’t be surprised if nikon did that…. but perhaps the d800 was a bad example as canon seems to have the upper hand in the video department.

            • MrSkelter

              Agreed but RED’s are used for magazine cover still shoots all the time. My friend has shot a Wired cover with a Red and a few for Esquire (the first ever in fact).

              Here’s what amateurs don’t know and it blow minds. Professionals don’t care about gear quality. They don’t care about pixel peeping either. It’s about feel and the image.

              If you create an amazing photo with an iPhone it can go on a magazine cover no problem. They’ll treat any huge flaws in post and leave the rest as the image will be ‘great’ in part because of them.

              The idea that you have to shoot medium format for billboards or fashion is ridiculous. The only fields which care about that stuff are stock photography (where half the submissions are upsized anyway) and things like food which are less creative and more technical. If you shoot computers for Apple you need the best gear. If you shoot models, actors, movies, news, events, portraits etc it’s the image that’s important.

              No image library on earth is deleting 12 MP images shot a couple of years ago for insufficient quality.

            • mikeswitz

              That what I love about NR rumors. I didn’t know the Red has been used for magazine covers. Why? what was the up-side? I agree that pros don’t care about gear quality. They do care about function for the job and workflow. The output of DSLRs is amazing the function and workflow not so much.

            • MrSkelter

              The advantage is convergence. Esquire publishes videos now online. Shoot the RED and you get a photo set and a video out of the same period of time without any extra time. Important with a celebrity. Actors are often happier acting scenes too.

              On top of that, there’s no ‘decisive moment’ crap. You pick the frames that look best and thus the sets tend to have more quality than those shot with a camera where you need poses held.

              I’m not saying RED is as good as DSLR. IT’s just good enough.

          • Ronan

            A lot of movies use DSLR’s as secondary and third camera’s. You see it all the time in behind the scenes.

            Heck, some commercials and indie movies are only shot with them and they work great.

            You just need to be aware of the limits/work around’s.

            • mikeswitz

              And a lot of music videos. The primary reason DSLRs are used for digital filmmaking is cost and young cinematographers own them. That they are used for commercial applications was not my point. Functionality and workflow for professional “videography” is what I was posting about. It simply is not the best way to go if cost is not an issue. In the future all that may change, but this whole thread started with people whining about the Df having no video.

            • Zeke

              No it didn’t. This thread started with a friendly suggestion that Nikon offer a camera that could shoot 4K RAW video, to which Spy Black replied “shooting video with DSLR is the dumbness-àss shìt ever,” to which you replied “I think Spy Glass is right.” I don’t think anybody even mentioned the Df at all.

            • Now that’s how to use a quote properly!

          • Shows maybe so, but I’ve seen some sick footage done by a bunch of US expat skaters on Yokohama seafront this summer. They were using a D7000 with a Samyang fisheye on a handheld rig. These kids were like 12 or 13 and they had some rather pro looking Sony 3CCD video cameras with them. When I asked them about it, they just said “Lenses, dude, cheap lenses.”
            They even talked like skaters. 😉

        • this_isnt_real

          it’s funny, i work at red carpet events and all of the kids who don’t know what they’re doing use dslr’s and all of the video pros use real video cameras. go figure.

          • Marc W.

            I bet it’s also funny the budget those pros have compared to the “kids”.

        • Spy Black

          I understand where you’re coming from, and it’s certainly nice to be able to shoot limited video with a DSLR, but a video camera is designed from the ground up to make motion imagery, the way you hold it, the eyepiece, the controls, it’s all a design that as evolved over time.

          DSLR shooting is a hack. Imagine shooting stills for a wedding with a video camera, and you can see where I’m coming from. Granted, an entire industry has sprung around it to make it somewhat more functional, but it’s really one hack on top of another to make it relatively functional.

          Some people have warmed up to it nicely. If you’re comfortable with it, great. It’s not like I rule it out, I do enough of it because it is an economical alternative, but it’s a dysfunctional one. I’ll take an instrument engineered from the ground up to do a job over a hack anytime though.

      • Actually, when I was in front of video for an interview, the camcorders used were a RED and this Sony: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/product-HVRZ7U/

        • Spy Black

          Right, but they’re both designed from the ground up to do video. That’s why they use those cameras for your video interview. 😉

          • Yes, and not the consumer video item you pointed to in your link. 😉

            Just to play devil’s advocate in this thread, what keeps Nikon from making a more video capable camera?

            • Spy Black

              Top brass, I would imagine.

  • PapaZerg

    Wow, this Nikon even is just 10 min away from me.

  • Tired with Adobe

    when will adobe stop the “CC subscription only” nonsense? And resume regular disc sale, for regular folks?

    • BernhardAS

      In the year 2525

      • Arthur

        Just in time for the D400 🙂

        • Eugeniu Sofroni

          Ba haha

    • photoroto

      Possibly when we stop the buying-into-it nonsense. Just convert over to Manography. Adobe is scared, very scared.

      • brownskie

        Hopefully people will smarten up after the hack on adobe servers.

        • Spy Black

          Already done.

      • RC

        What’s that?

    • One More Thought

      Adobe will not stop it because it is working. Their latest earnings report:

      Impressive growth for its Creative Cloud subscription service.

      More importantly, though, Adobe also today reported that Creative Cloud now has passed 1 million subscribers. Earlier this year, Adobe said that it expected to have 1.25 million paid subscribers (both individuals and team).

      “We exceeded one million subscriptions during Q3, demonstrating that the transition to Creative Cloud is happening sooner than expected,” said Shantanu Narayen, Adobe’s president and CEO in a statement today.

      Adobe is trading short term profits for long term subscription income, and the market is rewarding Adobe. Their are some vocal critics on the internet, but the strategy is working for Adobe. It’s important to be aware of that, and not in any way assume that Adobe has any incentive to turn back the clock.

      • Andrew

        I have the Adobe Creative Suite 6 DVDs and I plan to hold back from the Creative Cloud as long as I can. Creative Cloud is a policy of forced adoption. Microsoft has been taking steps in that direction with Office but Adobe will be more successful since their software is more unique than Office. It is easier to find alternatives to Office than Creative Suite.

      • Johnny Q.

        The market reward is BS. Always. C’mon, they own the market.

        • One More Thought

          Regardless of why it is happening, the reward is not BS, because it is real money. These are real customers, real subscriptions, and Wall Street is rewarding Adobe as well with higher stock prices.

          Sure Adobe benefits from its very unique position in its market…but my point is that the reward to Adobe is very very real.

          • MrSkelter

            Adobe lost my credit card information. It’s more secure to download a cracked copy of CC – which is very easy – than to trust them with your details. It’s cheaper and your computer never has to check in with their servers. It’s also free.

            You can’t stop piracy by giving paying customers a worse experience than people who aren’t paying you. The CC experiment can only penalize people who join in and reward with better product the pirates.

            To paraphrase Steve Jobs – “Why join the Navy when you can be a pirate?”

          • Guest

            The farther out Adobe places their earnings target the greater the opportunity for a competitor to grab future (Adobe product) customers. Doesn’t matter how big you are. Look what happened to Quark. Quark; remember them? At some point Adobe will shift to a proprietary file format to keep you working within their product stack. Sort of like financial programs that will let you import your foreign-formatted data but not export it. Concurrence is not causation.

    • Sundra Tanakoh

      Not gonna happen. It is the wave of the future, it works for them and it works for game companies. Keep in mind that the “regular disc” or any disc, may not be around for as long as you think.

    • robert

      why even bother. just torrent and be done with it. Im on cs4 and happy, but if I need to make the change. I wont give them money for a temporary use of their software, fuck that.

      • Joe

        What a great attitude, dude!

        Why buy any artwork from you when I can download and steal the images from your portfolio website. I won’t give you money for an image that I’ll probably replace next year.

        • robert

          you get what you give. and when you shit on your loyal fans thats been with you for years because of greed then fuck them, they deserve to go down.

          It was no accident they got hacked. they deserve it.
          their CC software was hacked the next day they launched the software.

          I personally dont need another copy. I also love using acdsee pro 6 for speed and to edit an event where I dont need heavy editing, its just great. better by far than LR or picassa.

          but for anyone that does, just torrent it.

          At least im not a hypocrite Joe. there isnt a single person who hasnt downloaded pirated software at one time. music, program, video, apps, whatever. so dont bs me.

          btw, you can download my images if you want. wont bother me. if youre a shitty photog who cant create his own art then you shouldnt be a photog. its flattering if someone would steal my software. the part id have an issue with is of you put it on your site or used the photo to make money then I want my share. we can do 50/50 😉 im not greedy.

          • Joe

            So it’s not okay if I build my business by putting my name on your photos and sell them, but it is okay, to build my business on the great image enhancing algorithms developed by Adobe that turn my okay-but-not-so-exciting images into art? Instead Adobe should feel flattered if I use their software pirated? 😉

            Btw: My Mac contains no pirated software. And I’ll sit on my PS CS6 as long as it works because I don’t like their CC-licensing, too.

            • robert

              If youre profiting from my images then thats not OK. If you want, download it for your own personal use. not for commercial. I bought every software I use for commercial use. I download and have downloaded movies, music and apps. Im open and honest about it. they are not sued in a commercial manner. I dont use it to gain money. photo editing software, payed for.

              I personally dont mind you download my pictures, but if you (not you but the downloader) sucks and cant create his own art, then thats pathetic.

              I also would feel bad with myself if I had to download someones photos to get business from it. thats also deceiving your clients.

              and you know why I do agree to people downloading pirated media? when you buy a dvd, why do I have to go through the tons of FBO messages tons of teaser clips of new movies. tons of different menus to see a movie I payed for? thos who download pirated movies can just click and play.

              I dont play games anymore. I broke too many keyboards already because im too competetive, but after GTA4 I will no longer pay for a game. fuck that. they ask for way too much money. the games are shorter, buggier than ever and I dont have to go through the pain the ass process of authorizing my copy.

              I had to drive to an interent cafe to authorize GTA4 when my internet was not yet connected. it was a pain the ass experience I will not do. those who dl pirated games dont have to deal with that.

              so those that pay are punished and those who DL have it easy.

              but Joe, you can say what you want whether you have pirate or legit software on your pc. but dont you for a second defend buying media when everyone, without a doubt have dl illegally. everyone has one time or another. EVERYONE! you are no different and dont be a hypocrite. if you did, and now dont, you are guilty. then just hush and dont say anything. you are the same as everyone. I myself just tell the truth. im not afraid to say as many are scared. I dont care. I download what I want when I want. without guilt. youre just playing it off like the nice person. I dont believe you for a millisecond that you dont dl. I dont know whats on your computer. and everyone has some soft of porn on their pc and thats illegal to download as well. so?

            • Joe

              “If youre profiting from my images then thats not OK. If you want, download it for your own personal use. not for commercial.”

              But on the other hand you say that everybody should pirate Photoshop (even for commercial work). What’s the difference between your images and Adobe’s algorithms?

            • robert

              a lot.

            • RC

              I hope that they come up with as much technology as possible to deter people like you from stealing. I would be willing to be inconvenienced by this technology so that you cannot steal. What you’re doing is making honest people pay more than they should. I’m here paying money for the movies I watch, while you just download them for free. In what world is this fair? I hope you have an enlightening experience someday and change your ways.

        • groucher

          I’d hardly call Photo$hop CS a work of art – It’s a money-spinning pile of crap with an antiquated toolset and can’t even overlay images accurately when stacking or stitching. The amount of money that Adobe wanted for the trivial upgrade from CS3 (which I bought for a thankfully small amount) to CS4 for example, was nothing less than obscene. If I was so inclined, I couldn’t even be bothered to steal Photo$hop CS, let alone pay for their lousy upgrades or subscription – there’s far better software out there at reasonable prices.
          So Joe, get off your high horse – Photo$hop isn’t worth defending.

          • Joe

            If there is other software that is suitable for you at a lower price or even for free, please get and use it. I’d even encourage everyone to to buy from other software vendors to support competitive products!

            I’m just against this lame attitude of “I don’t like the product/hate their pricing policy, therefore I find it justified to pirate it”.

            “I find the new Nikon Df’s resolution too low, therefore I prefer to steal it from my local store”?

            If you don’t like it, buy something else, please!

            • Joe… I agree… I was a cretin and copied PS for years after CS2 (i.e. 3, 4 ~ 5.5) due to big pricing for incremental differences. But when they announced CC, I saw the writing on the wall and decided to buy CS6. CS6 is one of the most functional bits of software, certainly expensive and photography is not my prime income, but it’s a real pleasure to use and it has ironed out all that I didn’t like from CS2. I just can’t see the CC licensing being worthwhile for me, to be honest. I only use PS, AI and ID… that’s a big monthly investment for what in the future may well become ransomware.

        • MrSkelter

          Images are taken all the time and photographers and artists still eat.

          The point isn’t to force everyone to pay. It doesn’t work and inconveniences your customers. The aim is to make paying attractive enough to make the theft manageable.

          Everyone from Apple, to Exxon, to Tiffany do this.

          Adobe are doing the equivalent of selling you a Macbook with a fingerprint lock that means no one in your family can use it without paying for it again.

          Also you can’t steal digital goods in the classic sense because your ‘taking’ them doesn’t deny the owner the ability to use or sell them. It’s not like stealing a CD or a car.

          • Ronan

            Agreed and the solution is go to the competitor, not pirate it/steal it.

          • RC

            Is that how you sleep at night? Stealing is stealing. On the surface, you may think you have something but in reality, it’s all the same. You’re basically stealing money. That money could have been used for something but since you have it, they can’t use it. Also, just because other people do it, doesn’t mean it’s right.

            • MrSkelter

              Adobe lost my credit card info. How do you think that happened? Please read my comments before you pile on.

              For the record I stand by what I said. Pirating software isn’t akin to stealing goods. It may be wrong but it’s foolish to call it the same. Armed robbery and overstaying a parking meter are both crimes but one is more serious than the other.

              “Stealing is stealing”. Is that all you need to know before you pass judgement? Even within software piracy there’s a difference between copying software for your spouse, or downloading a copy because you’ve lost your disks, or can’t buy it from your region, and selling thousands of copies packaged as the real thing for profit.

              In your world that’s just ‘stealing’ and everyone should be treated the same…? Moron.

            • RC

              I never said it was the same or that everyone should be treated the same but stealing is stealing. Our society has assigned different penalties depending on how it views the crime but that is another matter. Once you steal, you’ve stolen. The degree to which you’ve stolen is irrelevant unless you feel that it is ok to steal to a certain level.

            • MrSkelter

              I disagree. Theft is a concept. Record companies claim that I’m ‘stealing’ music if it plays in the background of a video of my family I post online. I do not. ‘Total ownership’ is a new idea facilitated by technology. The concept that any use of any thing should be paid for and authorized is entirely new. If we had these concepts in play libraries would never have been built.

              My local libraries are free. They have music, books and films. All of which I’d otherwise be asked to pay for. What if they had software too?

              So no – you can use things without payment and without permission. What is ‘theft’ is something for debate which evolves over time.

            • — Record companies claim that I’m ‘stealing’ music if it plays in the background of a video of my family I post online.

              Sorry, but there is such a thing as wilful intent. If the music was unintentionally played in the background of the video, they would be less likely to bang on your door than if the music was clearly edited into the piece.

              Moreover, I think “total ownership” was a new idea a long time before “technology,” unless you’re including “home defence” weapons as technology.

              –The concept that any use of any thing should be paid for and authorized is entirely new.


              “The injury I suffered was out of proportion to my intended theft… I mean, I was just going to steal a spoon for Heaven’s sake,” probably wouldn’t cut it if you were shot and injured having broken into someone’s house.

            • MrSkelter

              You are again quoting legal positions as if they’re some sort of fundamental truth. 50 years ago black and white people couldn’t legally marry in the US. Who cares what the law says in a debate about what’s right and just?

              So putting that aside you comment about theft and guns, aside from telling me a lot about your world view, is also easy to refute.

              (NB. Many of us don’t think scared homeowners should shoot burglars. Countries without armed populations still suffer burglary and guess what – burglars aren’t rapists.)

              Before recorded music was possible musicians made their money performing and selling scores. Though people paid to attend concerts no effort was made to prevent people standing on the street from hearing the music. Similarly many performances took place in public space.

              Galleries were open to all for free and artists made their money from selling paintings to patrons.

              The idea that a company can only profit if everything it does is sold to everyone who experiences it is false.

              The idea that all unauthorized use is theft is also false.

              You sound like a shill for the RIAA.

              I can hear any music I want on YouTube, right now, for free. Musicians are still making money and people are still buying music. The same was true of radio and the same is true of software.

              If Adobe want to make more, make better software and price it reasonably. That’s your free market. You’re arguing for fiscal protectionism backed up by the jackboot of a bought and paid-for legal system,

              It’s fascistic.

            • Sorry, you’ve derailed. You are conflating law and morality

              You start with the gold standard

              This particular law sucks: therefore all laws sucks and we should be able to ignore the immoral ones.

              Are you now an arbitrator of morality?

              In Japan and many central asian countries, any girl over the age of 13 was game for marriage until recent financial dependancy on the west /post war reconstruction came with conditions of morality and law attached.
              ”Sick yellow paedophiles,” I hear the conservative right WASPs all shout. “Glad they changed the law.”

              Well in some Islamic states and Sikh countries, for example, they believe certain displays of hair in public are obscene, or at least very distasteful.

              People might even get a swift whipping for it.

              “Those nasty, prudish, uptight ○○○○ists,” I hear those same upstanding members of the community whinge. “It’s just hair!”

              One group are too lax, the other too uptight. But we, oh we, are the chosen ones and we are just right.

              Then when a company puts out software in good faith with a sign that says “if you want to use this, please pay for it.”
              You tell them to go fuck themselves…
              And heaven forbid if the same country’s law protects their rights.

            • MrSkelter

              > Are you now an arbitrator of morality?

              Yes. We all are unless you believe in some magical ‘God’ who makes those decisions for you. I do not.

              Your statements about morality are misguided. It’s at best colonial and at worst racist to suggest that post war reconstruction ‘fixed’ some ‘backward’ nations. In the UK debtors prisons were commonplace and child rape legal until 150 years ago. England was the world’s superpower until the start of WW2 and had no compunction about punishing much more sophisticated societies it dominated militarily.

              >Then when a company puts out software in good faith with a sign that says “if you want to use this, please pay for it.”
              You tell them to go fuck themselves…

              No I do not. I simply say that unauthorized use isn’t necessarily theft. That’s it. Piracy isn’t de-facto theft, or theft by definition. Piracy is in many case good for business, should often be allowed and cannot be cast as evil.

              >And heaven forbid if the same country’s law protects their rights.

              The law is an ass. If you start from the view of obeying the law you’re advocating for facism. The law should be considered and challenged as appropriate. In most of the US gay people can’t get married. Fuck that law. I’ll happily violate it on behalf of anyone who wants to get married and hang the consequence. Similarly if the penalty for stealing a car is life without parole as it is under ‘three strikes’ in California – fuck that law too. The law means nothing unless it’s sane, fair and justly administered.

              There were plenty of laws under Apartheid in South Africa. How many of those should we have respected?

            • RC

              “Piracy isn’t de-facto theft, or theft by definition. Piracy is in many
              case good for business, should often be allowed and cannot be cast as

              You have got to be kidding me. You have very conflicting beliefs. Some things you say make you look like you advocate fairness, and others, the total opposite. You live as if you have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. You pick and choose what you feel like following. Well let me tell you we don’t live in a world like that, and none of your arguments would fly with any rational person. It’s a good thing we have a legal system to deal with nonsense like this.

              Let me offer an ethical guideline for you to consider. If it isn’t ok for everyone else to do it, then it isn’t ethical. If everyone downloaded free software, the company would go bankrupt in no time and produce no more software. So you say morons are still paying. Well, is it fair that these people are paying for your free software?

            • MrSkelter

              You seem to be capable only of binary thought. Good or bad. Right or wrong. It’s childlike and it’s not the way the world works.

              1. Charging people for every experience of a work – simply because you can – is not “fair”. It’s an artifact of technology and an entirely new idea.

              2. Of course I pick and choose the rules I follow. If I didn’t I’d be an unthinking moron. Are you? Do you assume every rule is just and appropriate? You’re happy to put Gypsy’s in camps as they do in Italy, or stop women from driving as they do in the middle east? I guess it’s fine to lock up consenting homosexuals for a decade too?

              3. Your slippery slope argument is idiotic and easy to disprove. Piracy has made unauthorized use of software easy for the past decade. Are Adobe out of business? Have they announced no new updates because of massive layoffs? Has Apple suffered with no DRM on its software at all?

              4. Fair isn’t the right concept. It’s irrelevant. Many people who pirate software can’t pay for it. They’re kids, poor people, students or those with no legal access. Their actions don’t effect the bottom line. They were never going to buy. If and when they pirate they get a taste of the software and many of them, in future, buy it. Do you know how startups get their Photoshop? It’s not 21 year olds spending a grand I can tell you. Microsoft even has a formal system for licensing pirated copies when companies reach a certain size.

              Piracy is often good for business. If you don’t understand that sorry. I expect it simply offends your childlike “philosophy”, I’m guessing… Who is John Galt right?

              So, so, dumb…

            • RC

              Poor people can’t afford it so they should steal it? That is a ridiculous argument. Why are there organizations devoted to help the poor? Should we do away with them, and just steal everything for the poor?

              I know piracy can help but just because it can help, doesn’t mean it’s right. Imagine if everyone pirated. Who’s going to pay? The people you call morons?

            • MrSkelter

              I didn’t make that argument. I pointed out that a copy pirated by someone who can’t afford to pay is not a lost sale.

              You can’t argue ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from an absolutist position without seeming silly. Context matters. Acts mean little in isolation. You’re saying piracy is theft. That’s only true sometimes.

            • RC

              Piracy by definition is theft.

            • RC

              You’re free to pick and choose which rules to follow. That’s the beauty of freedom. You’re also bound by the consequences of your actions, and if you willingly choose to break the law, you will be punished accordingly.

            • RC

              Tell me this. Would you produce anything if you knew someone was just going to digitally distribute it to everyone in the world? Would you spend $100,000,000 to produce a feature film, if you knew everyone could download it for free from the internet?

            • MrSkelter

              Not only would I. I do. That’s my business. Making movies. Guess what – the most pirated movies are the most profitable. It doesn’t matter. Every filmmaker knows this and we’re all still making films. I’m on location right now and it’s my second feature this year.

            • RC

              That’s only a temporary artifact of the digital transition. If everything is online for free, no one will pay. Your idea is unsustainable.

            • MrSkelter

              “My idea”? If you haven’t noticed, everything is online for free and people still make money selling it. You assume everyone would rather not pay than pay. I go out of my way to pay for the things I value. Often more than I need to.

              Your stand against piracy seems to be based on a personal position wherein you only pay for things if you’re forced to.

              I pay for things because I want to. I don’t buy many things because I don’t agree with the ethics of their production, or the stances of the companies that make them. There are many people like me.

            • RC

              So take out the FBI warning then. State that piracy helps, so please pirate this movie. Upload the movie to all the file sharing sites.

            • RC

              The library may be free but you certainly aren’t allowed to copy the CDs or DVDs you borrow. If you do, you are stealing.

            • MrSkelter

              Your attitude is simplistic in the extreme. I work in music and film. You can technically be stealing if you play a CD to a room full of people. I.e. in a restaurant. That’s also ridiculous and doubtless something you support.

              Congratulations. You are the RIAA and you’re why the business is dying on the vine.

            • RC

              These are complicated matters that require much discussion. I personally haven’t given much thought to that specifically, but I would guess that it has little impact on the music industry, and thus would be on the back burner.

              What you mention brings DJs to mind. Should DJs be allowed to make a profit playing other people’s music? If DJs require some sort of license, it wouldn’t be fair that only big companies are required to pay for this license, while someone just DJs off of their ipod full of pirated music.

            • MrSkelter

              You’re making my point. Most piracy has zero effect on business. People pirating would go without if they weren’t pirating. They wouldn’t go and pay.

              DJ’s should, and do, make money paying music without license authority to groups of people. It works because people who like the music often go on to buy it. Just as websites offering MP3’s help musicians. Why do you think every major artist posts their music to YouTube for free? It’s because it helps sales.

              You have to let go of the idea that distribution of bits is theft. Theft is much more complicated and you can’t make someone a thief by claiming complete control of the bits you create. It’s ridiculous.

            • RC

              But you’re saying that it’s up to the public to decide what’s theft. Try that explanation with the jury to see if it’ll fly.

            • RC

              Also, I don’t know why you would say I’m the reason the business is dying. When I like music, I buy it. How is that causing the death of the music industry?

              Would you rather I just download your music from the internet and not pay for it?

            • MrSkelter

              You’re being binary again. It’s good for music that you buy it. If you had your way, and eliminated ‘piracy’ it would be very bad for music. We need kids with no money to spend to love music and love bands. We need 12 year olds to pirate the entire Beatles back catalogue and obsess over it. Some of them will be the bands of the future. Many of them will be the adults spending thousands on music and gigs down the line.

              To deny them, because they have no money, or are poor, is to kill your own market out of short-term, misplaced, greed.

              Let the kids download what they want. They’re tomorrows customers and they will pay for things they like, to support people they like, if it’s easy to do.

              That’s why the biggest pirates are the biggest spenders. Piracy breeds fandom. It doesn’t kill commerce.

            • RC

              So in your world, there are no rules. Everyone is free to do as they please. Just don’t complain when it somehow affects you negatively. If piracy is good, then they should just give it away for free to everyone, so no one has to break the law. Somehow I don’t think artists are in it to give their work away for free.

            • “Stealing is stealing”. Is that all you need to know before you pass judgement?

              Yep, you said it yourself.
              A man steals your $50,000 Jaguar so you burn down his $50,000 house. Is what you did right?

              Fair enough, you might say.

              But what if you then got your $50,000 Jag back undamaged? Do you build him a new house?

              It could be argued that if you suffer no direct financial loss from your credit card info loss, then whether they actually lost it or not is “immaterial” (see what I did there) and you are in actual fact just a plain old thief.

              Moreover, if you do suffer financial damage and are thus (quite likely) reimbursed by your credit card agency, would you declare the cost of the software you “appropriated” in compensation.

              I’m not a lawyer, but if you didn’t, I’d imaging that would be technically fraud, too.

          • >> ‘taking’ [digital goods] doesn’t deny the owner the ability to use or sell them…

            Sorry, I’m going to have to stop you right there, since it does.

            You see, there is this little economic principle -you may have heard of it, actually – it’s called supply versus demand. If someone (let’s just call him Phill Thiswine) supplies a competing product (of the blue, let’s just say… your product) to a market segment (oh, I don’t know – for argument’s sake, why not just make it the same market segment your particular product was initially aimed at). Then they have increased the competition in your market by supplying a similar (identical) product while also reducing the demand (for your product) which itself incurs lost sale or reduces revenue. i.e. theft.

            –Note that this simplified explanation is taking into consideration a non-ideal, constrained marketplace of finite demand… which about sums up every market for artwork in existence.–

            So while I agree with your second paragraph re. inconveniencing customers, I fear that your concept of theft is bedded somewhat too firmly in the physical world to still be applicable today.

            • MrSkelter

              You’re wrong.

              Firstly the economic theories you cite don’t hold up. The best economists on the planet can’t predict next week – let alone next year. Your espousing philosophy not science. Economics is the vaguest, softest attempt to understand systems which has almost zero bearing on reality.

              Secondly even if you were right in theory you’d be wrong in practice. Supply and demand assumes a free market. No such market exists for Adobe. They are a defacto monopoly. There are no real alternatives to their products if you intend to work within the graphics community. Their pricing is therefore arbitrary and has no connection to real demand. That’s how they remain profitable in the face of massive piracy. Every customer pays for 100 pirates.

              My understanding of theft is entirely modern. It’s you who seek to claim that bits are ‘real’ and that moving them is ‘stealing’ them.

            • Mr. Skelter. I understand where you’re coming from and I’ve heard the “economics isn’t real science” argument before.

              This “can’t predict one week let alone next month” stance is borderline fatuous, since the moment you decided to download and not break out the credit card is the point at which material loss is actually suffered, not one month in the future…

              >Supply and demand assumes a free market. No such market exists for Adobe. They are a defacto monopoly. There are no real alternatives to their products if you intend to work within the graphics community.

              So, what you are saying is that, because Adobe is a monopoly and no alternative exists, stealing is actually *directly reducing their product sales* (i.e. stealing from them) because no alternative exists to buy… This is a curious way to support your viewpoint.

              Yet stealing from Adobe is OK because _you’ve_ decided that they are cretins.


              And finally, bits aren’t real? Of course bits are real. They’re as real as the photons and quantum states that comprise them. They’re as real as the thoughts in your head made manifest and digital.. Next you’ll be saying that there’s no such thing as consciousness.

              As an aside…

              Among my peers, since the App Store model appeared, more people I know are actually purchasing software than ever before since it is even more convenient than bit torrent, less risky and has no morality issues attached.

              This goes along with the rather flaccid argument that Bit Torrent is solely there to fill in where the digital download suppliers have failed to address the nascent market.

              In my case, I readily confess that I have from time to time torrented stuff unavailable in the Japan store and one can argue that I am not depriving those artists of their revenue because one can’t download it in Japan.

              But actually, this is just self justification of the act of theft. For, in actuality, I could have quite legally purchased the physical product from Amazon, and in some cases I “had to” when no suitable bit torrent was available.

              Thus – in my case, I have deprived several producers of at least one licence worth of revenue.

              Moreover, I have in my chequered past installed one or two pieces of rather ubiquitous (but not so much on the Mac) Microsoft software whose forced licensing policy – by way of Parallels Virtual Machines – has been rendered somewhat ineffective.

              As someone (you? I can’t remember) stated earlier, rectifying this situation does not delete what I did, but morally speaking I believe I am trying to break even by purchasing those items I previously downloaded or (in the case of said microsoft products, deleting).

              In one case I paid by paypal to an author that didn’t service Asia Pacific for a previously downloaded software. Interestingly, he was finally very grateful for my having stolen his software and eventually paying for it. But I digress.

            • MrSkelter

              > I’ve heard the “economics isn’t real science” argument before.

              That’s because it’s correct. Economics is only science if you define it strictly as study. It’s unable to derive principles that can be used to make verifiable predictions. It’s rules and laws cannot be falsified. It’s not science.

              >This “can’t predict one week let alone next month” stance is borderline fatuous, since the moment you decided to download and not break out the credit card is the point at which material loss is actually suffered, not one month in the future…

              There’s no material loss. It’s bits. There’s no loss at all if the person moving the bits wasn’t ever going to purchase the product. Again – stealing bread to eat and downloading software are not the same.

              >So, what you are saying is that, because Adobe is a monopoly and no alternative exists, stealing is actually *directly reducing their product sales* (i.e. stealing from them) because no alternative exists to buy… This is a curious way to support your viewpoint.

              No. That’s not what I said. I said that as a monopoly their pricing isn’t tied to supply and demand. Their supply of bits is infinite. The demand is finite. Their competition nil. Downloading their software doesn’t impact their sales in any way that’s simple to define. That they give their software away to students is proof of this.

              >And finally, bits aren’t real? Of course bits are real. They’re as real as the photons and quantum states that comprise them. They’re as real as the thoughts in your head made manifest and digital.. Next you’ll be saying that there’s no such thing as consciousness.

              My degree is Applied Physics. Bits aren’t ‘real’. If you think they are you have a Newtonian understanding of the physical world as is common for non-Physicists.

              When you download a piece of software Adobe’s servers are not piping ‘things’ to you via copper, glass and satellite. Your computer is working exactly as a radio does. Decoding information imposed on a carrier wave and then interpreting that data.

              If you believe bits are real you’re in effect saying the longer you leave your radio on, the heavier it gets. Does your radio have a bit spout on it for when it fills up?

              >This goes along with the rather flaccid argument that Bit Torrent is solely there to fill in where the digital download suppliers have failed to address the nascent market.

              No one makes this argument. It’s a straw man.

              Yes, Bittorrent makes not paying easy. It also makes access easy for those who don’t have stores, or credit cards, they can use. Both are true.

              >But actually, this is just self justification of the act of theft. For, in actuality, I could have quite legally purchased the physical product from Amazon, and in some cases I “had to” when no suitable bit torrent was available.

              Not everyone can do as you describe. Often stores simply limit sales.

              >Thus – in my case, I have deprived several producers of at least one licence worth of revenue.

              You contradict yourself. Your taste for this material was in part fostered by your piracy. You then decide to spend money to support that interest. This is borne out in every study. The more you pirate the more you spend.

              I grew up taping songs from the radio. I now own over 4,000 CD’s and records. I have never purchased from the app store (I want physical goods) and stopped pirating music when Napster died in the early 2,000s.

              Denying a ‘pirate’ is actually likely to deny you more revenue than the transaction is worth in the short term.

              >Interestingly, he was finally very grateful for my having stolen his software and eventually paying for it. But I digress.

              He gets it. This is not black and white. Some use is theft, some is not. Some theft is justified, some is not. Nothing is binary. There are thieves in gaol today I would happily let go free. There are bankers who should be in prison. Context is everything. Saying ‘piracy is theft’ is simplistic to the point of inanity and meaninglessness. It only serves corporate greed in the short term.

              Apple don’t copy protect their software and are the most profitable company in tech. They know people pirate it and are not stupid. They allow piracy because net-net it makes them money.

            • Mr. Mamiya

              Interesting. So you always publish every output of your work as public domain or Creative Commons, I guess, because your image files or physics research docs are only bits?

              But why insist on pirating Photoshop, when there are free tools that support your vision of bits that are free for everyone?

            • MrSkelter

              I posted here that Adobe lost my credit card details in their CC leak. I pay for it. However I don’t think that piracy is necessarily theft. Those aren’t hard concepts to understand.

              My work is paid for AND it’s used without my permission. Some non-authorized use I try to stop, others I let slide as it does no harm and, better yet, does some good in terms of promotion and ‘sampling’.

              I don’t know why people who claim to be intelligent find handling anything but a binary idea complicated.

              A metaphor.

              I can own a shop and not work to prevent low levels of shoplifting because doing so would do more to harm my paying customers than to hinder low-level thieves. Of course I still lock the doors at night as I don’t want to loose everything.

              I can own a gallery and not mind if people take photos of the exhibits. Of course I don’t allow someone to set up a scanning camera and do repro work.

              It’s a matter of context and degree. Much piracy is totally harmless.

            • MrSkelter

              I don’t pirate PhotoShop. I pay or it. I think that many of the people who pirate it should be left alone.

              I sell my work online. Much of what I do is used without my permission. It’s not a problem in most cases.

            • RC

              Why do you pay for Photoshop then? You said it’s ok to pirate software.

      • Ronan

        Torrent software is illegal… but not much of an issue for individuals.

        The big BIG problem is if you do that and use it for your business. That’s why our studio had legit software and legit music.

        • robert

          didnt know torrents are illegal;) but everyone against pirating software is a hypocrite. every single person here has downloaded something illegally. so cut the bs. if you downloaded a video from youtube thats illegal and many do that all the time. dont be hypocrites. even if you did it a long time ago but no longer do it, or your view has changed and dont believe in it you stole.

          like the smokers who stop smoking and then find it disgusting to be around other smokers. fuck, you polluted the air, dmamaged other peoples lungs with 2nd hand smoke, now, you find it disgusting to see others smoke?

          or the murderer who killed someone years ago and has chnaged his ways. you killed someone you cant change that.

          just be open and honest about the fact that you stole one time or another in your life.

          stealing from adobe is a pleasure though. they are scum. asshole company. with an asshole ceo. they deserve anything they get

        • Ronan, technically, breaking the licence agreement, copyright and DMCA etc is the illegal bit. The torrents themselves are just vessels.

    • Hope adobe is like flash

      Adobe may release CC as a downloadable disc in a year or two.

      Per adobe’s wall street presentation, current market = 10% hobbyist, 20% academic, 25% small business… if all three sit tight with CS6 or CS5… they will have to sell a non-subscription version, because their widely broad casted 1 million subscribers – are “professionals” … early adopters who are (1) not a fast growing segment (2) would have bought disc or subscription without thinking twice… because at their 6 figure contracts, 69 bucks a month is like buying team breakfast for a meeting. So, getting their top customers to signup for subscription was easy and not that much extra revenue for adobe anyways.

      The stubborn donkey will be us. In summary: up yours adobe!

    • Jeff Shapiro

      Once every criminal has ruined everyone’s CREDIT from the Hack – maybe they will have a change of heart?

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    I think ‘TheInconvenientRuth’ might not fit on that little dial T__T

    • BroncoBro

      Probably need a Sinar with triple extension bellows.

  • BernhardAS

    You can get any camera engraved at any engraving shop or jeweler?

  • Rad Alzyoud

    Admin, I know you would’ve posted if you knew, but do you have any idea when is Nikon going to support Mac Mavericks for D800E? Thanks

  • Saffron Blaze

    “the mechanical dial that provides pleasure to manipulate”

    Translation 🙂

  • Tony Mateus
    • zoetmb

      That was announced on October 16th

  • rhlpetrus

    Admin, has DNG converter also been updated for the new cameras?

  • John Havord

    Bit sad having to report a Nikon camera is spot / oil dust free 🙁
    Your’s truly, one disgruntled, Nikon D600 owner!

  • T53

    What about the Df?

  • aarif

    The Df is suppose to be shipping in another 17 says where are all
    the image samples and reviews from all the sites???

    • stormwatch

      Lot’s changed since it’s been introduced. Even Nikon isn’t sure what it is, and now they invented another photo purist feature – khmmm (with the deeep rough voice)….camera even has your name engraved on it!

      • saywhatuwill

        Soon the we’ll be able pick the color of the leather that wraps around the camera. A meticulously hand crafted piece of wood will be offered for the hand grip. Oh wait, it’s not a Hasselblad.

  • fjfjjj

    In 50 years, the D600 will be the contemporary Holga or Diana. “Wow look at the oil stains in this picture! How did you do that?! With a D600?”

    • Johnny Q.

      Hahaha! That’s not in 20 years, some analyst are saiyng Nikon hace just 5 years of life.

      • MrSkelter

        Analysts are in the business of pushing stock prices and getting things wrong. Read Apple analysts – perpetually wrong. If you want to know what’s going to happen, look to the better informed bloggers and the products.

        Nikon will not be the Nikon of today in 5 years – it can’t be. It will likely survive though.

        Here’s a glimpse of the future as I see it.

        At the low end (below $1,000) camera companies will become accessory makers for phones, tablets and computers. Nikon webcams and accessory phone cams (Nikon have just started this). Don’t like your phone cam and are happy to carry a little extra? Clip on a Nikon and shoot with that. They’ll cost from $100-$1000 and the premium will be for sensor size and features. If Apple standardize a communications protocol the software can be written by third parties.

        At the mid-range? Trouble. Most of the prosumer cameras will be eclipsed by cameras and portable devices. There’ll be little left aside from enthusiast oriented photo and video cameras. I.e. Nex 7 and D7100 type cameras. No compacts or cheap ILCs for most people. Bodies like the DF which scream “I am a camera” not I’m a gadget.

        At the top end I see a move to bigger formats and new mounts. I think the last companies to move in that direction will die first. Rumors are strong than Canon’s moving into MF and they’ll eat that market if they do. Most competitors are overpriced and under-specc’d. Nikon need to move past F-mount and work for the future. Bodies like the Leica S – compact, larger format sensors, with high-quality glass will make professional cameras clearly better than anything in the lower range without making them unwieldy and clumsy.

        • zoetmb

          While I agree things will change, I disagree with your analysis.
          I don’t think smartphone accessories are going to sell all that well because the native cameras are getting better and better for their intended purpose and Sony has beat Nikon to that market anyway. Should Nikon go there? Probably, but it’s not going to make up for the loss in P&S sales.

          I think they’ll be two types of cameras in the midrange: small body and large body. Since it’s now possible to get a DX and even FX (a la Sony A7) into a small, lightweight body, I think we’ll see Four-thirds and small sensors (like the Nikon 1) line disappear over the next five years and be replaced by small body APS-C and full frame sensors. Or maybe the four-thirds and cameras like the Nikon 1 become the low-end line and the DX/FX becomes the high end small body line.

          At the higher end, I don’t see all that much changing, with the exception that if Nikon can put out F-mount competition to the Sony A7 (I don’t think the Df takes it far enough), I can see many enthusiasts opting for this as a “walk-around” option. Pros will still want to use standard DSLRs for the foreseeable future. Sales are going to slow because the bodies last a long time and while I think sensor quality will continue to improve, I don’t see big resolution jumps in the short term.

          I don’t see a return to MF. Unless you’re creating billboards, it’s simply not necessary and the size of the market is simply too small for a company like Nikon to address.

          Nikon will be a smaller company – I don’t see any way around losing the P&S market. It’s going to be a bit more like it was before the digital age where there was a mature photography market and consumer interests were elsewhere (like video and disposable cameras). The Nikon D70 took Nikon by surprise and sold more units that the Nikon F did in its entire life.

          Leica makes beautiful products for the “money is no object” people. AFAIK, it rarely makes money. Nikon doesn’t want to be Leica – it’s too niche.

          • MrSkelter

            I would say the following.

            1. Physics dictates how good a phone cam can be. There’s a point where the only solution is more glass. Even with technology inventing some ‘magical’ workaround it’ll cost enough in chips and power that it doesn’t make sense to make everyone pay the cost.

            Sony sells chips, I’m talking about accessory lenses (not the huge QX thing, subtler stuff).

            2. I think APS-C is going to have a hard time. The tradtional buyers for that ‘tweener’ size will go to phones. There’s a niche to be had for very beautiful, very compact, very good small cameras. The question is why not make it full-frame. The A7 is small enough. Once you’ve decided to carry a separate camera then the size is less an issue. The market for tiny cams exists today for people who don’t want to carry a camera but feel they have to for image quality.

            The ‘this is a ‘real’ camera people will be well served by cheap full-frame bodies. We never ‘chose’ APS-C – it was all we could manufacture and afford for a long time. People have forgotten that. We weren’t clamoring for smaller frames.

            3. I don’t think the A7 is a miracle camera. It’s small. That’s it. The sensors aren’t pushing anything forward, there are no native lenses for them and they’re slow. Barely useable for many purposes. Once you’ve put a massive lens on it the size advantage is gone. If you’re down to manual focus you’re looking at landscape shooters and architecture work. It’s not the Leica competitor people want it to be because Sony weren’t smart enough to make it work perfectly with Lecia glass. Were that the case they’d have a serious hit on their hands. As it is it’ll fade just as the fervor for the RX1 has.

            4. Medium format isn’t about resolution. You can beat that on 35mm digital easy. It’s about lenses and noise. You can’t beat a larger lens with a smaller one. Look at Leica – the worlds best lenses and their MF S line cost less than the M lenses people lust after! The S lenses performance is close to perfect (check the MTF charts and weep). Why? Big beats small. In Leica’s case big isn’t even that big as they use expensive glass which allows for smaller elements.

            Compare the D800 with a fantastic Sony chip to the Leica S with a middling, old, Kodak chip. The S produces better files. The reason? Less noise at low ISO’s and more light on a bigger sensor.

            Medium format as I describe it doesn’t mean Hassy’s and big bodies. It means a bigger than 35mm sensor in a D800 size or smaller body. The Leica S has 50% more sensor in a body smaller than a D4 or 1DX. It’s fully weather sealed too.

            Nikon and Canon can do this and the market will demand it.

            Leica are kicking ass in MF and you better believe their profitable. Nikon and Canon have to learn how to be like Leica. They’re a company who lose their traditional market and had to reinvent. The days of everyone with a family having a DSLR to get ‘good’ pictures are over. No company shrinks and stops. You shrink and die or you change what you’re doing.

            • Zeke

              Everything is shrinking. FX is sort of the new MF, and MF is the new large format. Large format has become an endangered species.

              A D800 with the latest glass puts out better files than what you could get from an RB67 and a drum scanner ten years ago.

              At this point, I think FX offers sufficient quality for such a great percentage of professional assignments that Nikon would be better off making the rest of the system work better – I’m thinking stuff like radio slave integration, seamless tethering, much better software, etc.

            • MrSkelter

              I agree that things are shrinking. If standards stayed the same we would see ultimately smaller kit. However there will always be a high end and soon enough screens will exceed the resolution of normal print.

              I think FX needs real improvement and f-mount is a choke point. I expect to see changes in that area.

            • nobody cares

              real improvement for what? There’s a huge difference between the person who buys an FX camera and one who spends 22 Grand on a Leica (and then another 15 grand to get 3 primes).

              That’s not the future of the market. FX is already a niche market and the MKIII and D800 are at least in the top 20 on Amazon. Leica is down around 93,000.

              I can do a lot of things with a current gen FX SLR that I cannot do with a phone (see almost anything shot at night). There’s probably nothing I can do with the Leica that would look better (but I know others are more capable and shoot in different conditions). I’d have to be a very successful pro to justify the delta.

              There’s a market for the Leica, but it’s a very small market. There’s no way Nikon will make more on that than FX/DX unless the cost of Medium format falls to current FX levels. As it is, FX is too pricey for almost every potential camera buyer.

        • Ronan

          Of course Nikon will survive… they are doing great.

          The hit in P&S is affecting everyone anyway, Nikon will adapt and survive, why do you think they have so many DSLR’s for sale now?

          Heck, they even have a big brother to help them, Mitsubishi Group.

    • Guest

      No, I used the D600 soft slider in my Leica M(680).

  • Johnny Q.

    Nikon doing absolutly nothing about the f***up with the D600 dust issue just tell me that they are no better than HP on computers, and i mean it!

    • groucher

      I’m not surprised your computer is all spotty if you pour sauce all over it.

  • 8811 Designs

    Sure, I will be happy to go to Shinagawa for you and take photos of the Nikon Df hands-on talkie-talk. For a change I’m actually not underway while some event is going on over here. Is there any specific wants?

    • MrSkelter


      Thank you. My requests.

      1. Can you compare the AF system to the 610. I understand it’s a different unit and it’s been suggested the AF points are in a circle, not a grid. Any information on that would be great.

      2. As everyone else, I’m curious about the viewfinder. Any chance to test a 1.4 lens wide-open, at close range, for focus would be great. Though some bemoan the missing split prism it’s possible with a matte screen the performance is significantly better than the D800’s VF which is pretty useless outside AF.

      3. Could you look into the mount and see how the focusing screen is secured? A clip? Screws? How modifiable will it be?

      4. Can you check for any lag on the top-plate controls. They’re wired to a computer obviously, the camera isn’t mechanical. Does the camera respond instantly to changes? If you rack through ISO, or shutter speeds does the camera beep, or pause, or do anything other than immediately respond?

      You’re a gent.

      • 8811 Designs

        Idk anything about the 610 but if I get the chance to look through one I’ll try to take a photo through the viewfinder as well. Idk what you mean by the split prism and matte screen unless you’re talking about old school cameras where the top and bottom in the viewfinder would align once you had focus like a pentax me super. Idk know anything about the D800. I’ll take a photo off whatever guts I can or a video with the camera phone. And I can check the lag with adjusting settings if I get hands on.

    • Thanks eighty-eight ‘leven.

      I would like to know how quiet is the Q mode.
      D7000 quiet or D800 (not).

      Also curious about the focusing system.

      Lots of people have been asking if the “OK” button zooms automatically to 100% during image playback.

      • 8811 Designs

        Idk anything about Q mode, but I guess I’ll find out. I don’t own nor have I used a D7000 or D800. I can check out the focussing and the “OK” button if I get a chances to get hands on.

        • Just compare the difference between normal exposure and Q (quiet) mode.

          If you feel “wow, that’s quiet” then it’s like a D7000. If you say “what’s the difference?” then it’s like the D800.

    • Might see you there… Saturday or Sunday? I’m going to try for saturday mid day and Sunday morning. Got a photoshoot on Sunday afternoon… Still, if I have time, I’ll take my iPhone and get some quality footage…” LOL.

  • Carlos

    It’s a shame for Nikon did not fit the D600 spot issue and launch the D610. They should make a recall in all D600 cameras sold. It is a crime.

    • JohnMcClane

      If you bought a D600 through one of Nikon’s approved resellers, they will fix it for FREE. It is your choice to utilize that service or not. Either way, Nikon has offered a solution. Get over it.

      • desmo

        Nikon politely and promptly repaired my D600 when i submitted it to them(i was actually late submitting it and the warranty had technically expired a week earlier).
        The repair was to replace the shutter and clean the sensor.
        Why did i wait so long to send it in?
        The spots don’t show up when the camera is used under normal shooting conditions.
        I had to intentionally shoot the sky at small aperatures and look hard to find the oil.
        In the end Nikon stood behind the camera, no questions asked

      • anon

        Did they publicly admit that some(probably most) of the D600 mirror/shutter were problematic? If they haven’t than still shame on them.

        • JohnMcClane

          They issued a service notice. Just because it wasn’t smeared across newspaper headlines, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. This is a faulty shutter mechanism – not in the same league as a stuck accelerator (Toyota)

      • Thonmy

        Not true. Nikon’s office in each country has different policy about D600’s dust. Some offers only cleaning service. Some offer permanent fixing for free.

        • JohnMcClane

          Point taken. I wasn’t aware that the service facilities in different countries would have different policies. I’ve only dealt in the U.S. Interesting to know – Thanks!

  • nawab

    ‘Spots’ on D600 is news
    Again, ‘No-spots’ on D610 is news

  • saywhatuwill

    Soon we’ll be able pick the color and animal of the leather that wraps around
    the camera. Also meticulously hand crafted piece of wood in the type of wood you’ll enjoy holding will be offered
    for the hand grip. Oh wait, the Df isn’t a Hasselblad or Leica….yet.

  • nostraDAMNus

    Nikon DF is history. What’s the next thing on the horizon?

    • Andrew71

      Yeah its time we get back to some real discussion like the D3300. Any rumors yet?

    • broxibear

    • Henrik

      I’m told by my gear pusher, that the D4X is next, due in December. That’s why the D3X prize is lowered right now.
      I preordered it right away, a nice christmas gift for myself 🙂

      • robert

        with the D4X price looks like nikon will be pushing something else 😉 maybe it comes with a jar of lube so the price doesnt hurt so badly haha JK

        D3X is overpriced IMO.

        • LOL. Then don’t buy one… I know you are a Nikon fan, but why the hell are you talking about KY gel and Nikon in the same sentence? Strange images come to mind… 😉

          • robert

            HAHA. I wish I could afford one. we just know the price will be high. Im waiting for the 3ds to come down in price though. then wait for the D4 to come down. Im not saying tis not worth it, just its a huge price tag. I do believe all the D3/D3S/D4 are elite cameras..

  • kassim
    • kassim

      Nikkor 58mm Vs 50mm f/1.4 G by Roger Cicala.

      • robert

        Thank you for the link. this clearly shows the 58mm is ripoff any way you look at it. $1800!! fuck off nikon you greedy pieces of shit. Im glad this quarterly revenue was crap and I hope we can make it three in a row.

      • MrSkelter

        Thanks for that reasoned response. It’s good to have you here.

        • robert

          haha..I say it like I see it. my friends say I need to learn how to round off the edges when I speak, but I think the only way to say something is the way you feel about it. I think theyre ripping people off, no way about it. a plastic 50mm thats only SLIGHTLY better than the 50 1.4g thats $1400 more. if anyone here can see a reason to pay that much for basically the same performance, I would love to hear a reasonable opinion. but how I see it, its just a plastic 50 1.4 thats way overpriced for what it does. no other way to see it in my eyes.

          • MrSkelter

            I will buy this lens because of its spectacular performance. It’s just not performance you care about. It’s better and its resistance to coma unparalleled. For the few of us who want to shoot wide open at night that’s huge. It’s niche and expensive to implement though – hence the confusion.

            I hate the push-back on products like this. Without them Nikon would be Panasonic. It’s lenses like the 58mm that show they’re interested in pleasing professionals.

            As for the coma control – there’s a reason NASA shoot Nikon.

            • Well said. Not everything can be quantified and enumerated in a way that makes sense from an artistic standpoint… If that makes sense 😉
              I feel there’s a definite career out there for someone who can measure beauty absolutely and objectively on a numerical chart.

            • robert

              its your money. Im just a very realistic person. i want to get my moneys worth and for that money, I want a metal body and I want significantly better performance for that cash. this lens doesnt deliver on any of them.check out the lensrentals link and see the new link up on top and Davids post a little while back. all say the same. “slightly” better performance , if that.

              and fuck coma, it seems nikon is in one at the moment.

            • MrSkelter

              I hear your pain.

              If you want a metal barrel you can’t look at modern Nikon. They’re not doing it to be cheap – the lens is solid metal inside. It’s for weight and cold-weather handling.

              I read the lens rental stuff. It’s a very shallow review as he points out. He tested it one way – that skis against the lens – and ignored what it was designed for.

              It’s like testing a 400mm’s macro capability and then saying it’s overpriced relative to a macro lens.

              Speaking of which, the best Nikon for sharpness in that range is the 60mm macro. An astonishing lens that is ignored by those who don’t know. It craps all over the 50 1.4G and is the real ‘value’ choose for the normal range.

            • robert

              I sold my 60 AFD micro a few months ago. Not so needed for weddings. I have the 105VR. great lens. not a useful lens for me. I like to shoot from further away.

    • Thanks for the link!

  • DL

    cool. engrave the part that is most often lost second only to the hot shoe cover

  • droll

    Wow, engraving your name on the camera so someone will identify who you are if you suffer from amnesia. Is this Nikon’s latest technology to compete against Canon’s dual AF capability? Fascinating!

  • There, fixed it for you.

  • Wills

    I like Df a lot but won’t buy it at this high price. I’m thinking if Df’s orders are not good, Nikon may lower its price. Is it possible?

  • One More Thought

    It’s so funny because people complained so much about the 1/4000 max shutter speed of the Df, but now there is an entire thread on the dpreview.com nikon FX forum re the max shutter speed of 1/4000 on the D610. The overwhelming conclusion is that 1/4000 is more than adequate for most users and scenarios.

  • Lorraine Jacobs

    I really don’t know how to use adobe because I see it very complicated. I like the Nikon Df but it is quite expensive. I have a Nikon D90 DSLR camera and sometimes I just rent on lenses that I will not be using always. I think it’s an intelligent decision to take. -http://worldwidela.com/

  • Back to top