On the issue of speculating whether the subscription rate stays $10, I'd only point out that it's only $10 for existing users. So in order for it to stay $10 instead of going up after a year, it would need to drop from $20 to $10 for people who didn't previously own it, otherwise, it only applies to a class of users grandfathered in. Maybe that's just mincing words, but I think the distinction is important. In order for it to cost $10/month it has to not only stay at that price (for some users), it has to drop to that price for others. It could happen ... I wouldn't bet more than pocket change against it, but I'd bet against it.

Marc Rochkind, I appreciate your defense of our industry. However, while I agree that developers and managers are much more honorable than your interpretation of Ctein's remarks, the corporations that employee those developers and managers and that make the decisions about how to charge consumers and what functionality to implement (and this is not, by any means, restricted to software) are run by greedy executives whose purpose in life is to boost share prices, thus earning them prestige and bonuses (usually paid in shares of the stock whose price they just boosted).

Steve D, I think that your mention of 96% pro user base is the key here. I think that what happens to make this all work out is that after a lot of grumbling, many of the amateurs wean themselves off of PS, and the subscription service sees an even higher percentage of pro users than it does now. Meanwhile, Adobe probably enhances Lightroom to make it a more complete solution for photographers, and maybe does something different with PS Elements. And it will all turn out to be a lot of hand-wringing for nothing ;)

Kenneth Tanaka wrote: " But the beneficial curve is heavily weighted toward the seller regardless of the comparative cost. " I'm generally wary of most any change corporations make. They exist to make money and their changes are going to be geared toward making more money, not toward satisfying me more as a customer. In fact, there would be no interest in satisfying customers if it weren't a prerequisite for making money, outside of a handful of small, private businesses that take pride in their work. It's a good thing to keep in mind when evaluating most any expenditure. Like extended warranties. If someone is offering it, then they're making money on it. (Not that extended warranties are always automatically bad ... but they're not doing it to be nice !) I find I'm much more cynical about capitalism than I used to be. I don't know if it's me getting older, me getting wiser, or if corporate/government greed is really becoming a bigger problem than I thought when I was younger. (I suspect it's a combination of the three).

It sounds like it's good for Adobe, therefore it's good for us. I'm still not convinced. The single license revenue model drives the company to innovate; to add functionality that will drive license upgrades. Fail to deliver and you fail to earn revenues. The new model drives the company to do enough to get by. To keep people paying "just another month" at a time. You mention quality. With the subscription model, Adobe will likely be moving (if they haven't already) to Agile development, the latest fad in software development, known for making it easy to respond quickly to changing requirements (not really that important when you're not under contract for a client) and not known for producing high quality results. I'm speculating here, of course (same as you !) And I'm not sure that this relieves any pressures. If I've paid for CSx ... I'm not in a big rush for CSx+1. The bean counters might be, so the developers are whipped until morale improves. But with the new model, I want something new for my money. I paid last month. I paid the month before. I'm paying again this month. I thought this was supposed to deliver ongoing enhancements ! Where the heck is the new functionality ? I agree 100% that Adobe is facing challenges; a mature product in addition to mobile apps. To my mind, when you have a mature product and you're not seeing sufficient revenues from new releases because the market sees little reason to upgrade, the solution is to cut development and find something new to work on. And if you're all out of ideas, you're stuck laying people off. Sure, keeping them working is vastly preferable, but asking users to pay to fund this situation is kind of pathetic. It will succeed due to the lack of competition and the nature of many CC customers (pros that view it as an expense).

You should try Lightroom, Mike. Then all of these distractions go away. You won't want to think about things that don't play nicely with it. Go ahead, Mike. Take a drink. Seriously, Stmpjmpr nailed the first thing that came to mind. There's something wonderful about knowing that you have a hard drive full of original raw files and sets of processing instructions that can be ignored or revisited at any time. I don't maintain jpegs. When I need a jpeg for any purpose, I export it, use it, delete it. For those photos where I do some additional processing in Photoshop, I export as a TIF and then end up maintaining that (in Lightroom). But it bothers a little me that if I wanted to reprocess the raw, I have to repeate the PS edits all over again. Another thing. As photographers, some of us appreciate consistency of interface between models, between generations, even between "types" (like a menu that's the same on a p&s and a DSLR). And we pay attention to interfaces and how easy it is to take the shot we want quickly, repeatedly. Enter software workflow. I don't really want to learn 6 different programs. I don't want to figure out how/whether they interface with my DAM software (no pun intended). I don't want to worry about keeping track of whether Photo Goofball release 7 now does noise reduction better than Photo Samurai version 8.0.7 and evaluating it and switching over and deciding whether I should reprocess any of my files (and how do I do that without repeating all of the updates I made after ?) Lightroom keeps track of all of my image files. I use LR to import them into a simple file structure based on date taken. I don't worry about using folders to organize them, because I'm assuming that I'll always have LR (or that some software will be able to read my catalog) to find my photos. I'm lousy at utilizing LRs categorizing capabilities. I use collections when I gather pictures for a purpose. But I tend not to use keywords. So I most often search by date, sometimes by metadata. (BTW, I love being able to evaluate collections of photos and see trends in metadata ... how often do I use which lens; how many of my best shots were with what lens; how often do I shoot wide open or at the ends of the zoom range; how often do I shoot my prime lenses at shutter speeds slow enough for IBIS to matter (and how important are those photos). That last one helped me decide I wouldn't miss IBIS too terribly much in switching from Sony to Nikon. And then you have the editing ... all in place ... batch features, individual files, syncing, applying edits during import, all with a consistent interface. And when Adobe improves the image processing algorithms, next time you export a file, you get the benefit. I like simplicity. I was using a p&s, a NEX, a DSLR. I picked up an RX100 and am not using the NEX. I dream of a day when I can do most of my photography with something like the RX1. Or an ILC with 2 primes. And I like keeping my workflow as simple as possible. I may not have the best camera for every possible shooting situation or the best software for every possible post-processing situation, but I don't have the skills to make the most out of every situation anyway. And for me, it's just a hobby.

Gosh, when you posted the article linking to an interview with a Leica executive, I replied that I could respect their honest, competent strategy. They sounded like they know where they stand in the market and who their buyers are. I'd love to hear from that executive again on this camera, because my faith is wavering ! Rangefinders are unique, the S is ... just awesome. The X2 was a nice camera that's just overpriced ... but now we've got overpriced and underspec'd. I'm guessing that it's intended to be a high end toy for the wealthy (because while undoubtedly a very competent photographers tool, you can do better for less). But a respectable toy for the wealthy, unlike the Hassy Loony, which still seems like an April Fools joke that someone forgot to take down.

I think you're right that there is nothing ideal out there. (I tried Lightzone a while back and it was promising). But on the other hand, I wouldn't equate using PS to "muddling along" either. Sure, it's not optimized for photography in the same way Microsoft Word isn't optimized for to do lists ... but overkill isn't the worst thing, especially when it doesn't feel like bloatware and isn't buggy, the way lots of other software I've used is. (I haven't used Corel products in a while, but they always struck me as a poorly integrated, poorly tested collection of programs shoe horned together). I would like to see some more advanced editing capabilities added to Lightroom, particularly given that Adobe seems to be acknowledging that their recent changes are driving photographers away from CS.

JC asked (rhetorically, I believe, but what the heck): (How many photos are there on the net? Ten billion?) Facebook alone had 220 billion in 2012 and sees over 300 million more uploaded *EACH DAY* !!! I found some of that out from a great report that Thom Hogan linked to: http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013/1 How many are public is another question ... and how many are presented as "photography" rather than "my cat" is quite another ... but interesting stats anyway. - Dennis

What do I like most about TOP ? Interestingly, it's not the content, specifically. I like your writing, Mike (it's entertaining, not matter what it's about). But beyond that, visiting TOP is kind of like dropping into a hangout for photographers. Unlike dpreview (which I visit often), it's much friendlier, and not just in a "be nice, please" kind of way, but in a "get to know you" kind of way. It starts with you and your openness in letting us get to know you. Then throw Ctein into the mix, with his off topic posts (I like the balance between on topic and off topic), and respected commenters such as DD-B, Jim Hughes, John Camp, Ken Tanaka and it feels like a place to fit into, rather than a bar that you visit when you want to brawl. I never really thought about it, but I believe David is right about the benefits of the batch mode for posting replies. I like reading about books and like the random excellence posts. (I'd like to see more of them, but would not want to see the excellence drop off just to see more). Finally, I appreciate the frequency of updates. I don't know how many posts per day you average and don't mind checking in and finding nothing new now & again, knowing that there will be something soon. (It's great when you have a guest poster put something up in your absence). I follow Thom Hogan's blog, but will sometimes go days without checking, knowing that he's sporadic in his postings. Basically, keep up the great work, and grow carefully.

Dave Fultz has hit the nail on the head. I posted my issue with the licensing model. That's my problem. But I agree completely that Adobe's problem - what's driving them to this licensing model - is simply that there's little they can add to a mature product that makes enough users want to upgrade on a regular basis. Intuit has the same problem with Quicken/Quickbooks. Yet year after year, they churn out updates and use "time bombs" to drive reluctant users to upgrade. (After a period of time, your current version of Quicken keeps working, but you will no longer be able to download transactions from financial institutions ... what's the technical reason for that ?) Really, what they ought to be doing is acknowledging reality, slowing development on these products and repurposing their work force. Problem is, they have no new ideas. Innovation is for the little guys - a couple friends in a garage. Big companies don't innovate; they wait until the couple of friends in a garage are successful, then buy them out. It's also just part of a corporate direction lately ... predictable revenues & costs beat unknowns. Corporations like defined benefit "retirement" plans, anything they can do to keep health care costs steady, and steady, reliable income streams. From cable TV to mobile phones contracts (talk about obscene ... one area where technology keeps getting more expensive !) I just ordered season passes to an amusement park (because we'll be nearby on vacation and the season pass is cheaper then buying tickets 2 days !) and the website kept wanting to upgrade my season pass, with it's one-time fee, to a monthly "membership". In this era of crony capitalism and (IMO) unprecedented corporate greed (and I consider myself a moderate conservative !) I think it's generally wise to assume that any action a corporation takes is probably in its own best interest (and the *short term* interests of its stockholders, particularly board members) and not its customers or employees. Then if you're wrong, you can be pleasantly surprised.

I'll be curious to see where you're going to go with this next installment. To date, the licensing approach has basically been: we've spent a bunch of money to create this product and will be spending a bunch more to market and support it. We anticipate selling so many copies at full price, so many upgrades, etc. If they fail to sell that many, they make less money; sell more and they make more. There's incentive to understand what will drive customers to purchase the next version. This works great for someone like me. I'm a real lightweight PS user. I upgrade rarely (went from CS2 to CS5). So Adobe doesn't make much money on me. On the other hand, what are they losing ? Force me to upgrade every release and I'll just stop using PS. Like I said, I'm a lightweight user and can get by with PS Elements or a competing solution. The new approach demands ongoing payment for the right to use the product. It reduces the risk for Adobe; they can much more easily predict their future revenues. As a consumer, though, what's the benefit to me ? I don't have to wait for updates ... but I'm not eager for updates anyway. And now that I'm promising to pay for them without knowing what they are; where's Adobe's incentive to produce what I want ? (Granted, they can eventually stand to lose out by failing to satisfy customers, but the dynamics change). A subscription is something you pay for new content delivered on an ongoing basis. When I've finished reading the current issue of some magazine, it's not really terribly useful to me and I look forward to the next. I want today's news today; tomorrow, I'll want tomorrow's. I don't really want tomorrow's Photoshop. I don't even want CS6. I don't want a 4K television (or even a 3D television). I don't want HDMI 4.0 or 7-channel surround. I'm happy that corporations continue to advance the state of the art in all of these things, so that down the road, when I am ready for a new something, it's vastly better than the old whatever. They develop new technology to procure new buyers; upgraders or young people buying their first gizmo. They make money. And sometimes, they make bets that are doomed to fail. 3D seemed ill-fated from the start and while I don't know how successful it has been, it seems to me that much of the market has resisted having it crammed down its throats. It's a healthy situation when a company has to do a good job or its customers will just say "no, thanks". Adobe's lack of competition and subscription model make for an unhealthy situation. Despite all this, I'm not overly bothered (because I'm a lightweight PS user !) I'll use CS5 until I can't use it no more, and then I'll figure out what to do next. I rely on LR for raw conversions, so don't care about ACR currency. (And DNG is always an option).

Connoisseurship is a funny thing. I almost got caught up in it with coffee. I researched methods and thought seriously about going so far as not only grinding my own beans, but home roasting. (It's not that hard to do). Then common sense kicks in. I could get into it. But it's not important and I don't have the time. With a full time job, a house & yard to maintain, and a family, I can only make time for a limited number of extracurricular pursuits. Photography is the main one. I did get hooked on "decent" coffee on vacation years ago when we visited a coffee roaster in Kingston, Rhode Island called "Majik Coffee". I bought from them, then Barrington Coffee, then a couple others, then started buying fair trade coffee from Deans Beans (Dean Cycon has written an interesting book about his travels and efforts to raise awareness about the coffee industry) and now tend to forget to order it in time (shipping costs have gone up, too) and am back to buying from the grocery store. The difference, now, though is that I think I can tell from squeezing a bag of coffee and smelling it whether it's stale (most of it is). And no offense, but all Starbucks coffee just tastes burnt to me. I like dark roasts; LOVE a good Vienna roast, but Starbucks is like HDR ;) I don't grind my own beans (which means I can't buy too much coffee ahead of time). I'm not too far along the path to coffee snobdom. I know I could, but I'm happier not. Maybe when I retire ... One tip: if you add cream to coffee (I don't anymore) and it turns gray, as it does any time you get coffee at a church social (I don't do those any more, either), it's not good coffee.

Ouch ! A few years back, the people who built our house stopped by - they had moved out of the area and were visiting, and figured they'd "drive by the old place". They noticed things like the fact that the sconces in the living room were removed (we didn't bother to correct them when they blamed it on owners in-between) and that the carpet in the kitchen had been replaced with something other than carpeting. I can't remember if they stopped before or after we removed more than 50' of fully grown arborvitae hedge and a pea stone patio, but they did tell us that the husband hauled all the gravel around back to the patio with a wheelbarrow. We shake our heads at some of the things they did when they built it; they shake their heads at changes made since. But it's only yours while it's in your name.

Mike, it was you who wrote, a while back, that picking a digicam is easy because they all suck (or something like that). And the situation today, where every digicam (except for a couple standouts) has a lens with a pinhole aperture (f/5.9 & 6.3 becoming typical "wide open" f-stops at the tele end) on a 1/2.3" sensor makes them the digital equivalents of those ubiquitous p&s zoom cameras of yesteryear with their f/8-12 lenses that were usually filled with Kodak Gold Max film. It's almost as if manufacturers aren't even putting up a fight against cell phones. Except for the standouts I mentioned. The Canon S95/G12, the Samsung, the LX5 and now the new Oly. All 10MP models with slightly bigger than average sensors and faster-than-average lenses. The good thing is that they're getting real press and are known outside of photo enthusiast circles. My wife, who has as much interest in cameras as I do in KitchenAid mixers, asked me about the Canon S95 that she'd just read about. I do think that a lot of potential; a lot of promise goes down the drain from here. A few years back, we might have dreamed about all kinds of cameras that could have been but will never be. But I also think that solid, capable (beyond anything I need) products are going to be available to me for the rest of my life.

Bernard wrote: > And when the PC is getting outdated, you simply replace the offending components and are set for another few years, without having to throw out the screen, drives, and everything else along with it. I've determined that there's more myth than reality to that ideal. I have a not-too-old Buffalo Terastation with 4 250GB HDs in a RAID 5 array. It cost around $500 new. Now I have a pair of 1.5TB drives in my new machine that cost me $79 each ! I was looking to see what purpose the NAS could serve after upgrading my computer ... it's slow & small for backup ... but it turns out the biggest HDs you can put in it are 400GB each. IDE. Not cheap. The computer I'm upgrading from uses IDE drives. I bought all SATA-II; the new motherboard has support for SATA-III. The motherboard will support certain CPU upgrades, but pretty much what's available on the market now. It won't handle new CPUs coming out next year. I could always upgrade the MB and CPU and memory together ($$$) and use them with what will then be considered slow SATA-II drives. Hopefully my ATX case will be good for a while - a friend who's been building machines said that ATX replaced something else that renders older cases & power supplies hard to use if not obsolete. I think the window for upgrading is small; past that, stuff that works with your system gets hard to find and correspondingly expensive. And the degree to which your upgrades make a difference is dependent on the degree to which you overhaul your system. I built my system with the idea that I could expand it if I wanted to add certain things, but that I'm more likely to replace it (or most of it) in 5 years rather than do incremental upgrades. But the customization options you have in the first place are amazing.

After years of despising MS, exacerbated by my wife's laptop running Vista, I took a serious look at Apple several times in the months between when I decided it was time to upgrade and when I actually did it. Every time I did, I just couldn't make it make sense. A couple hundred; a few hundred $$ for the usability of an Apple would be fine. But it was never close. Part of the problem was that I have a hard time going with the mini or iMac and making everything external. On the flip side, you can't easily get custom Windows machines any more. Dell & others make cheap, simple computers with much more limited customization options in the past, and load up the install with tons of crud that needs to be cleaned up to have a smooth running machine (driving me back to consider Apple). So I finally took drastic measures. I have two degrees in computer science, programmed assembly language on PET machines in the 80's, but have never built my own computer before. I have a clean Windows 7 install on machine with an Intel quad core CPU, 8GB memory, a velociraptor boot drive and 3TB data drives, and a Blu Ray burner ... all inside a nice steel case, for $1100. Plus some extra for external backup using USB3. Maybe $1500 with backup drives. There are "boutique" outfits that build quality machines to spec, but they would have cost $500-1000 more than DIY. Still comparable to an Apple and you get exactly what you want inside the box. I don't intend to say Windows machines are better. I still wouldn't mind using one. Maybe if they sold what I wanted. A $2400 entry level Mac Pro is overkill, but that's their cheapest machine that's internally expandable. My first answer to "which apple should I get" would be "are you sure you want an apple ?" (I seriously thought about the laptop option with external data storage, but I have little need to work on LR anywhere but in my office). BTW, Windows 7 is solid and enjoyable, especially without all the crud that manufacturers pile on top of it. After I got a little confidence from building my own desktop machine, I upgraded my wifes laptop. For $400, I maxed out the RAM (only 4GB), replaced the 128GB HD with a SSD and put Windows 7 on that, and it turned a 2 year old machine that was agonizing to use into a speed demon.

A lot of people presume the man must be poor. Why ? He clearly has more clothes than the emperor ! Seriously, I think the photo is mildly interesting in that the brown patches of ground could be seen as blood stains, adding to the illusion of a crime scene. But that hardly warrants a "single image award".

On the bright side, look at all the film & chemicals not being produced & disposed of. (Probably paper, too). It is a shame that digital cameras are disposable. As far as I can tell, 'regular consumers' (people who don't consider photography a hobby) mostly don't upgrade too often (only gadget hounds). My family & friends are good for using cameras for many years. And I think cameras are maturing to the point that there's increasingly less reason to upgrade, especially if you have a model with IS. One surprising thing I've read is a big 'waste' is those musical/talking greeting cards with little computer chips & speakers in them that Hallmark sells by the gazillions. A few minutes of novelty, then into the landfill. - Dennis

Luc, The TL350 does not use the same sensor as the S95; it uses the smaller backlit 10MP Sony sensor used in a handful of other 'premium' compacts like the Sony HX5V and Canon SD4000. The bigger sensor used in the TL500/S90/G11 only recorded VGA video and the newer model (S95 & G12) does 720p. The little TL350 looks like a serious gadget, with full 10MP still capture during 1080p video recording, crazy frame rates, and even raw (I think the TL350 and possibly a Casio model or two are the only cameras with such small sensors that capture raw).

Terry, I'm still using a Canon A610 ... a 5MP 1/1.8" sensor that does a nice job, and a 35-140 equiv that's f/2.8-4.1 ... basically a "baby" G series. These days, it's a little dated. Its high ISO is lousy despite the larger sensor (than currently in use) and it lacks IS. And it's a bit of a clunker ! I like the grip, but it's way beyond pocket size. Anyway, it has an inaccurate-but-better-than-nothing peephole viewfinder that I thought I really wanted, but turns out I rarely use, except on the sunniest days. (Newer LCDs are also better in sun). But the killer feature is the articulating LCD. I use it to shoot at angles (like sticking my hand out the gap in a hotel window in Times Square) but more frequently, to simply shoot with my elbows locked at my side, looking down at the camera. That's my favorite way to hold a camera when composing w/LCD. I've been visiting Best Buy to check out the S95 and the Sony NEX-3. After 3-4 visits and a little practice with the camera, I'm finding that the NEX' UI goes from terrible to tolerable, and the firmware update ought to make it fairly pleasant. The tilting LCD and having a lens to hold w/left hand make it intuitive to hold, much like the Sony F717. The S95 OTOH is very nicely designed for such a small camera, but not so nice to hold. I'm sure the requisite 3rd party grip helps, but it's the lack of a tilting LCD (or eye level VF of some sort) that bugs me most about it. The G11 is nice; the Samsung TL500 is probably nicer still, but those are beyond pocketable (like my A610) and once I get to that point, I'd rather something with a bigger sensor. The S95 would definitely be my compact of choice right now if I were to buy one. Someone else mentioned "processed" images. The appeal of these cameras, aside from the not-so-puny-as-most sensor, is that they will record raw. I think it's the combination of tiny sensor, high photosite density & noise-reducing jpeg engine that makes pictures from digicams look like crud. The S90/95 images look fine to me, maybe in comparison to smaller digicams; the G11 looks quite good (sharper lens I think); the TL500 good as well, but the Panasonic LX3 (and 5 even more so) benefit even more from DIY raw conversion. That's my assessment of reviews I've read; not practical experience.

Sounds nice. Add in a lens that's worth putting on it (besides Panasonics 20/1.7) and you might have something ! Maybe a nice compact 50 ... not an oversized, slow focusing macro.

psu, I also liked your long winded rumination. It's apt, as I've been obsessing over a gear tweak for some time now. What I can't figure out is why I can make most other major purchases more easily. Cars, appliances, computers, I can generally do some research, mull it over, then pick something and be satisfied knowing it was a fine choice, full of compromise. But not the camera gear. And what has me going in circles is a few considerations that fall into the 20%. (Lightroom's metadata is great for telling you just how much you shoot with your xx-yyy, how much at yyy, how much wide open, and then you can look at the pictures and see if they're important).

You might find a woman with whom your friends, one who has no interest in computers, to help you decide. Some years ago, the used tractor we'd bought to mow our lawn died. I researched lawn tractors for a few weeks while we hired someone to mow. Armed with my knowledge and a few lingering questions, we went to a local dealer. A zero turn mower caught my wife's eye. "What about one of these ?" she asks me. "They're too expensive". "How much is this ?" she asks the guy helping us. Same price as the tractor I'm looking at. "It can't tow a trailer" I say. "Can it tow a trailer ?" she asks the guy helping us. We can put a tow hitch on it and it will tow as much as that tractor he says. We bought the zero turn mower. And my wife mowed more than I did ! Until our daughter was a couple years old and we got too busy to mow and hired someone to mow for us. There has to be a lesson in there somewhere.

Why 240GB SSD ? Windows users get away with 80GB (or smaller) boot drives and I wouldn't think Macs need more. Space for the OS and frequently used apps and the rest goes on the external drive ?