Category: Articles

Software Subscription Models Revisited

Jason1 Comment
Adobe Logo
Adobe Logo

As some die hard friends and colleagues are aware, Canon Blogger, suffered a catastrophic failure about a year or so ago now, and I’ve slowly been crawling along as I try to resurrect the archives, and get everything back online. The process has been a tedious one as with nearly ten years of content, some was lost for good when the server crashed, other content survived in the last backup that was performed. Be that as it may, I recently was reading an article on Medium about The Rise of the Rent Seeker and thought to myself, “Oh my GOSH, this nails on the head exactly what I was trying to say way back in 2011 when Adobe made the switch to the subscription model for their software licensing model.  This was such a good read that I wanted to share it (thus realizing another two or three articles that were lost, but now recovered courtesy of The Wayback Machine) in the context of my original thoughts. You can read my original articles here and here.

In a nutshell, this most recent article from Medium explains that:

…the economy has two kinds of entrepreneurs: profit seekers and rent seekers, and those who participate in the latter are redistributing the wealth from the subscribers pocket to their own.  Adobe has made the shift to this model, and as such, they are extracting value, but not giving any real value back….”

It goes on to elaborate about how the technical space is inherently badly suited for innovation and development when they convert to this model.   But the statement made is pretty powerful:

Increasingly, mature software vendors who have run out of innovation runway turn to rent seeking, increasingly we are are told that the subscriptions will soon be everywhere and there is a real problem with that.

Toward that end, it raised the question in my mind:  Does that mean Adobe has stopped innovating? What else can be added Photoshop or Photoshop Lightroom to improve our workflow? I honestly don’t know as I’ve stopped upgrading as of CS5 and LR 4. I’d love to hear others thoughts on whether or not Adobe has really been all that innovative over the past 3-4 years. It was telling though, that the author actually used Adobe in his illustration of the dangers of entering into a subscription model:

Adobe Reference in Medium Article
Adobe Reference in Medium Article

The article does give a little bit of validation to me though, in seeing someone else so much more eloquently than I as to why renting is almost always (in the long run) not in the best fiscal interest of the consumer.

Photography Location

Jason1 Comment

A lot of the time people ask me what suggestions or recommendations I can give them when they look for a photographer.  It’s usually because the person is not in an area I can get to, or it’s a family member or a friend that wants to pick my brain (even though it hurts sometimes! 🙂  )  When I get this question, I tell most people that choosing a photographer is much like choosing a house or real estate:  It’s all about location!

What do I mean by this?  Simply put: a photographer can shoot on-location.  I see many photographers speak to their ability to shoot on-location, and this is an important aspect of many genres ranging from wedding photography, to band photography, and even architectural work.  Heck, last week I did a maternity shoot that was “on location.”  So, why is this such an important thing to be able to stake claim to?  Three key things come to mind for me:

1.  Adaptability – Being able to shoot on location means you can adapt.  If the surroundings are beautiful, you can adjust your composition to include elements of the scene to give a sense of time and space to an image.  If the surroundings aren’t so beautiful, then it equally means you are able to diffuse things so that you can’t tell where a shot was taken – only that it’s a beautiful shot!

2.  Controlling – Yes, being able to shoot on location means you are adaptable, but it also means you can control for a number of factors, and of utmost importance here is the ability to control the light.  You can bring flash to fill shadows, or scrims to bring shadows to harsh light.  If a photographer can control for the light in a scene – the shot will improve by a factor of ten in most instances.

Castle Rock Firehouse

3.  Fundamentals – Given the above two factors are in place, this also usually means that the photographer brings a certain set of fundamental skills to the table.  He or she knows an aperture versus a shutter setting, and can likely tell you whether ISO 100 is better or worse than ISO 32000 (depending on the look of course!).  Although many like to wax esoteric about photography in abstract terms (myself included), there are certain fundamentals that every photographer worth their salt would and should know.  If you can shoot on location, you likely have these fundamentals.

These are just three of the factors that I think about when I see a photographer say they are an “on-location” photographer.  Of course the proof is in the pudding, and while I certainly would not pick a photographer solely on whether or not that term is included in their online presence, the ability to back up statements with a solid portfolio (and yes, an interview if you have the time to talk to a potential photographer!)

While we all like to think we have these traits, and in enough of a capacity to “bring it” for any client – let’s face it…some photographers are better than others.  Either they’ve got a natural knack for it where others have to work harder at it, or they’ve just simply been shooting a lot longer.  Seriously…time means practice, and the more you practice, the better you are at anything!  There are photographers who have been shooting for decades and some of us can’t hold a candle to them.  Meanwhile, others have been shooting for days, and I often stand in awe of their work.  So, consider the above three things when you decide to hang out your own shingle – because people will likely be looking for these traits.  Do you have them?  Do you have more?  Less? Something different? Something new?

What traits do you bring to the table?  Or better yet, what traits do you think are important for potential clients to consider when hiring a photographer?  The above is just my opinion – but that doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate answer!  Am I right or am I way off base?  Sound off with your own thoughts as the conversation is always the best part about this blog!  Can’t wait to hear what you have to say!  Until next time, keep the comments coming – oh yeah, and keep on shooting!

Triptych Photography 101

Jason1 Comment

If I were to say the word triptych to you, many folks wouldn’t know for sure what I am talking about. Let’s be honest…in photography, there are lots of crazy semantics to understand! Everything from ISO’s and apertures, to shutters, diopters and f-stops, ASA’s and guide numbers are all part of the craft. Heck, there’s even one called the “circle of confusion” – and you can quickly get lost in the sea of words and acronyms in photography. One that I can’t believe I’ve not talked about here before is a TRIPTYCH! It’s pretty simple actually when you break it down really though, so fear not. Here’s your beginner’s guide to triptych photography!

In a triptych, all you are doing is taking three photographs and putting them together in sequence. The sequence can be three photographs all composited into one montage (say in Photoshop), they can be individual prints that are assembled in a wide frame, or even three framed photos that are hung horizontally or in close proximity to each other on a wall. Traditionally, triptychs follow a theme, whether it be a series of photos over time (a house in the Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter), a person with different poses, or a landscape cut up into a left, center and right framed photograph.

Triptych photographs can be a lot of fun, especially if you have the digital capacity to preview how things might look in sequence like this. Here’s a few examples I’ve done digitally to give you an idea. First, a posed series:

Triptych Portrait - Maggie
Triptych Portrait – Maggie

And now a landscaped series:

Triptych Landscape - Weeds
Triptych Landscape – Weeds

See how a landscape can have various elements in each, to visually tie things together? This is similar to, but quite different from the effect of a series of portraits. I’ve seen some wonderful triptychs where people have assembled longitudinal poses (say a dog as a puppy, at 4 years and in their senior years), triptychs of seasonal changes in a landscape, and even triptychs that juxtapose color, black and white, and sepia filters on photos.

Triptych Boneyard Beach
Triptych Boneyard Beach

Add to it the ability to angle photographs from the top left to the bottom right, or from the bottom left to top right, and even up and down to create an entirely different effect. Matting and framing choices also factor into how successful a triptych display would be. You literally are bound by nothing more than your imagination. As the folks at Canon are keen for saying then, where does your imagination want to take you today? Follow that path unique to you! To that end, I’d like to hear from the reading audience, here’s my questions back to you:

1. Do you find triptych styles of presentation appealing?

2. Have you done any triptych work in the past that you’ve posted either online or in your own house or gallery?

Monopods can Make Music

JasonLeave a comment

So often, photos that inspire you are ones taken from new angles, or from angles that you can’t normally get to, or think to get to.  Monopods are great tools in this regard…you can extend a monopod up over your head for more of an aerial perspective, or even turn it upside down to get an angle that might be otherwise pretty awkward or uncomfortable to get into just to get a unique shot.  I love my monopod!

While the good money will always add features and functions that don’t exist on lower end models, I do think that even the most basic of monopods can be useful – to the degree that even going with a Wal-mart brand or generic named vendor can be a sound investment.  If you are talking about just getting to a place you can’t get to on your own (or even with a tripod), the difference between aluminum and carbon fiber on a monopod doesn’t have as much impact here in my opinion.

Now if you are going for the stability factor, yes, a sturdier monopod would likely yield better results, but how much better do you expect from a single-legged support mechanism?  Seriously – even with your own two feet, you can get pretty steady with your shots if you use a good holding technique, tucking your arms in, leaning on a wall or tree, and going between breaths (or shooting between heartbeats as my former Drill Sergeant said in the Army.)  How is one foot going to get you more stability than two feet?  On it’s own, not much, so I don’t sweat much over the vendor here…

Check out these low angle shots I got with just a Wal-mart tripod and some creative thinking:

 

The Denver Art Museum, shot near midnight.  The camera again, was upside down (I rotated it in post), and I held the foot of the monopod to get this low view.  EXIF Data:  ISO 100 33mm f/8 8 second exposure (it’s a tad blurry when you zoom in…)

This serene harbor was shot with the monopod, and the camera braced up against a tack shop.  EXIF data:  ISO 100 18mm f/11 5 second exposure

I shot this waterfall with the camera upside down and me holding the foot of my monopod while the camera was as close as I felt comfortable putting it close to the base of the waterfall.  EXIF Data:  ISO 100 21mm f/11 2.5 second exposure

This shot was taken with my monopod and the camera braced against a streetlight.  EXIF Data:  ISO 800 22mm f/22 4 second exposure

Can You Shoot Thirteen Views

Jason1 Comment

I was reading a book recently called “Beyond the Obvious” by Phil McKinney (great book by the way) that challenges people to think about concepts and questions, and then encourages people to look beyond the knee-jerk reactions and responses.  This same mentality exists in the world of photography.  We see a scene, a portrait, or something that catches our eye and our instinct is to capture that “something”.

McKinney illustrates his point in asking the reader to answer the question:

“What is half of 13?”

He then goes on to show that there are many responses to this. The canned answer is always 6.5, and that’s what came to my mind too.  But in going “beyond the obvious”, he shows that if you think about it from the perspective of say, a deck of cards, and 13 cards in a suit.  Since the ten, jack, queen and king all are values of 10, then really, half of thirteen in that scenario is 5.5, not 6.5.  You could also say that half of thirteen is really “thir” with “teen” being the second half!  By illustrating that you can divide either numerically or semantically, entirely different perspectives, thoughts, and answers can be right at the same time!  Once I got on the mental plane of looking at things differently, my own result was that half of 13 could also be 1 or 3 – applying the semantic concept to the number…

That is such a great concept, and one I’ve always tried to help people understand here in many different ways.  The “half of thirteen” way is probably one one the most succinct I’ve ever seen though.  Let’s take that concept now and apply it to photography.  Go get your camera!  Right now…seriously!  Go get your camera, and pick some random object in your room, office, or where ever you happen do be.  I don’t care if it’s your SLR, P&S, or camera phone.

Now what?  Take 13 pictures of that object.  Make each one different!  Change the angle, change the light, change the object itself.  It doesn’t matter what you do, just do 13 different things.  I can guarantee you that at least one of those photos will be something new, unique, and even compelling.  Now, take the most compelling one, and post it here.  To get you started on the right mentality, if you’re not already, here’s my own set of thirteen:

The shots above come from the “Wreck of the Peter Iredale” – on the coast of Astoria, Oregon.  Now, granted, the setting sun, and the unique nature of the composition made my 13 shots a little easier, but there’s now reason you can’t do the same.  Take a speaker and shoot it from as many angles as you can.  Run out of angles?  Try a different tack and change the lighting!  What happens if you pop an on-camera flash?  Try throwing your hand up to act as a barn door of sorts.  There’s no end to potential…it just takes thinking outside the box!

Adobe Acknowledgement

JasonLeave a comment

Adobe

Whether tacit or not, Adobe seems to have listened to the concerns voiced by many in the creative community over their impending pricing and licensing policy changes.  As you may recall, I ran three posts late last year, first calling attention to the new policy.  Secondly, as discussed on Scott Kelby’s video podcast “The Grid“, called “Why Scott Kelby and Crew are Wrong“  Finally, I started running a poll to tally people’s thoughts on the policy shift.  Scott himself ran an entire post as an Open Letter to Adobe shortly thereafter, both addressing the issue squarely, as well as offering an alternative.  Apparently, Adobe was listening!

A news post came to my attention a few weeks ago, and while in the midst of the holiday fracas, I did not want to minimize both the significance and importance of this change. So, with the holidays behind us and a new year ahead, I’d like to give some kudos to Adobe for recognizing the painful effect their new policy would have on legacy customers.  They’ve made a change to their plans, allowing CS3 and Cs4 customers to upgrade at a reduced pricing schedule (very much in keeping with what Scott Kelby suggested), thus easing the cost of upgrading for them.  The full release is here:

Adobe Special Upgrade Announcement

For those not wishing to follow in-post links, here’s the full text of that announcement:

Upgrade offer for CS3 and CS4 customers

We’re very excited about the upcoming release of Adobe® Creative Suite® 6 software and Adobe Creative Cloud™. CS6 will be a major new release of our creative desktop tools, with huge improvements for every type of creative professional. Adobe Creative Cloud will be our most comprehensive creative solution ever, giving members access to all of the CS6 desktop software plus additional services, new tools, Adobe Touch Apps, and rich community features. In addition, Creative Cloud members will receive continuous upgrades and updates to all products and services as part of their membership.

With these great new releases coming in the first half of 2012, we want to make sure our customers have plenty of time to determine which offering is best for them. Therefore, we’re pleased to announce that we will offer special introductory upgrade pricing on Creative Suite 6 to customers who own CS3 or CS4. This offer will be available from the time CS6 is released until December 31, 2012. More details on this offer, as well as any introductory offers for existing customers to move to Creative Cloud membership, will be announced when CS6 and Creative Cloud are released later this year.

The only caveat here is that we still do not know when the CS6 suite will be released (well, some of us do…but as they say, those that don’t know guess, and those that do know – can’t say a word!).  All we can ascertain from this is that CS6 is coming in the first half of the year.  No surprise there, but if it is released closer to June, then that shortens the window for Cs3 and CS4 customers to take advantage of the reduced cost upgrade that Adobe is offering.  Still, better to not look a gift horse in the mouth.  Adobe has heard our concerns, and responded in what I think will be an appropriate manner.  While we don’t know the specifics of the pricing offer, we do know that they have heard us and are giving customers an opportunity to upgrade for a limited time.  So, start saving pennies now to make your eventual upgrade that much easier to swallow!

Of course, Cs5 or Cs5.5 customers will be able to upgrade at normal rates, so this announcement doesn’t really affect you – but it’s a welcome sign that companies and and do listen to their customer base!  So, thanks Adobe for listening!

Why Scott Kelby and Crew are Wrong

JasonLeave a comment

It was brought to my attention over the weekend that Scott Kelby chimed in on the pricing and policy change that Adobe has implemented on their latest episode of “The Grid”.  It’s a great vidcast that hits on the meat of topics that photographers are talking about, and this episode was no exception, helping to dispel some of the myths that surround photographers.  What I want to talk about here is what they prefaced the show with: a short five minute blurb about the Adobe policy, and what’s wrong/right with it.  I was dumbfounded.

Fair warning – this is a long post….much longer than what I normally post – but it’s that important!  Please take the time to read this whole thing because you will have a complete and clear understanding of these odd terms like Subscription Service, In Perpetuity,  and Creative Cloud.  You’ll understand the differences, and see why the new pricing scheme is not a good decision for anyone – personal or professional businesses!

So, in the interests of getting it right, I went back and listened to it several times, finally writing a transcript of it (which you can read here.  Here’s the nuts and bolts though of what they had to say…

[Scott] And that’s my guess.  I haven’t talked to Adobe on this.  Nobody in Adobe’s pricing dept. said this.  I can imagine the reason why Adobe did this is a couple of things:

1. I…and this is where all the controversy is, I don’t think it’s the pricing so much, I haven’t heard anybody gripe about the price it’s like $50 a month and you get everything they do. You get everything, right? You get like the whole Master Collection.  Again, I didn’t look at all the numbers, so I don’t …I could be a little off.

[Matt]  It’s ballpark and if you add up what it would cost you to buy the Master Collection, it actually in some ways can save you money.

They are looking at the Creative Cloud service, not the subscription pricing.  Let me state that again, unequivocally:

They are confusing the subscription model with the Creative Cloud stuff.

These are two different things, so let’s get that on the table right away.  The subscription service is not $50 a month!  What’s the difference?  It’s easy! A subscription service is something you pay a small amount for every month (or week, or year…whatever, you are a subscriber.  How is that different from the current licensing?  The current licensing (whether by download or media – it doesn’t matter)…means you own that license forever.  In legal terms, it’s called an in perpetuity license.  You’ve bought that license and are entitled to use it forever!  Renting a house (or apartment) is far more expensive than buying one.  Renting (or leasing) a car – the same.  Would you rent a camera?  For one time uses, sure…but who wants to use that model if you plan on doing anything regularly?  The answer:  no one!  From Adobe’s perspective (or any provider for that matter), it’s a great business model because it makes the renter more money.  The same holds true here for Adobe!  Don’t believe me?  Take a look…

We are assuming that we are starting from an upgrade perspective – people that already own a CS5 license.  The following chart is based on the cost to upgrade an in perpetuity license (assuming that doesn’t change…) and shows what that same cost would be under the subscription model based on a 24 month cycle:

Adobe Pricing Licensing Numbers

An important qualifier here – Adobe is also moving to an alternating schedule whereby dot releases are put out in alternating years to full version releases:

CS5 – 2010
CS5.5 – 2011
Cs6 – 2012
CS6.5 – 2013
CS7 – 2014
etc.

This is why you are renting on a 24 month schedule.  It’s also why there is no way that renting anything would cost you less.  They said they hadn’t had the time to look into it.  Several others have.  In their defense, the 5 minute bit was full of qualifications – Adobe didn’t tell us, we don’t know, we can only guess…all that sorta stuff, which is fine in and of itself.  But how can someone say with a straight face that renting costs less than owning?  Seriously.  Take any basic business course or economics course.  The pricing factor aside (which is already been demonstrated as exorbitant…) at the end of renting – you own nothing!

How is the subscription model a better model for anyone besides Adobe?  Scott and crew answered with the following:

“[Matt] The biggest problem I see, there’s gonna be a barrier to entry for someone who is on Cs3 or CS4.

[Scott] Especially hobbyists

[Matt] That’s who I’m really talking about.  For a company I think…it’s not just better for Adobe…to put in a subscription model because now they know how much they are gonna take in every year…but now a company knows exactly how much money you’re gonna spend each month on software.  So it’s easier for a company.

Hobbyists though, ya know, it’s hard to swallow six or seven hundred dollars…

[Scott] A year…

[Matt]  And then go into the subscription model too…

[Scott]  Oh no no…you’ve gotta upgrade…it depends on what you have…if you have the Suite..I don’t know…

[Matt]  It does get, it can get hairy…”

As you can see – it’s not that hairy – it doesn’t matter what you own: CS2-Cs5 will cost more to go to a subscription model than it would to stay on an in perpetuity license.  One more time for clarity, here’s where Scott Kelby and Crew got it wrong:

They are confusing the subscription model with the Creative Cloud.

Not only is it not that complicated – even for businesses, it’s very easy to extrapolate out the Total Cost of Ownership over time and see how this is not a good economic move for anyone (unless you are Adobe).  With all due respect to Scott and crew – I would ask them if they will switch to the subscription model?  My guess is no.  They also provided, in my estimation, a pretty lame explanation for why Adobe is changing their policy.  Here’s what they said:

“[Scott]I’ve been getting so many people asking about Adobe’s new pricing and all that stuff.

Adobe does not call us and ask what we think about pricing.  We learned when everyone else did.  I haven’t had any time to really look into it.  I think there are some good things about it.  I think the subscription model is really great, and by the way, you might as well get used to the subscription model, because it’s the wave of the future. You’re going to be subscribing to everyone’s software.  Especially when the big people like Adobe start moving into that thing.  I think the days of you going to the store and buying off the shelf – it’s either going to be direct download or it’s going to be subscription based.  And everyone wants the subscription model because it gives you revenue all year long ya know

[Matt]   Well,  it’s predictable they know Jan through December what they are going to get.”

Huh?  So they can get revenue year round?  They do already!  Different folks buy at different times…it’s called effective management of resources.  This isn’t about regular revenue – it’s about more revenue!  And we all know Adobe isn’t hurting.

That isn’t on the NAPP gang though – that’s just Adobe greed.  But I do think where Scott and crew are misunderstanding the outcry is that they think we are upset over the subscription offering.  It’s not that we are against the subscription offering per se.  It’s the exclusive and disingenuous way that people are being set up into that option.  Let me state more unequivocally what I think is wrong:

1.  The sudden elimination of 3-versions back upgrade options.  The solution to this is rather than just cutting it off immediately, to phase it out.  (This was posted in the comments from last week here.)

Since there was no major outcry when Adobe said that only 3 versions back could upgrade you would think that if they wanted to do this to go 2 versions back for CS6. Then they could offer a graduated sliding scale something like this:

Upgrade 2 versions back. Upgrade price $189.
CS3 and CS2 Upgrade at $249.00
Older Versions Upgrade at $329.00

Every Quarter or so offer older versions a 20% discount if purchased directly from Adobe.com

2.  For those that want the subscription program, fine, but I am here to tell you from a financial perspective:  It is a horrible idea for anyone…personal or professional!  The TCO is 4x what it would be for an in perpetuity license, and if you ever end the subscription program for yourself or your company – you have nothing left to work off of. It’s like renting.  For most outfits, that makes no sense for any software (or hardware) used on a regular basis.  Now if I had a one time need for In Design or something, that’s another story – but we are talking regular use here.  Heck, I’ll rent glass I can’t afford, but I also am not using that glass every day!  Only for 2 or 3 days.

3.  The last part I have a beef with is whether this will ripple over to other products.  We don’t know yet, but I can only assume that Lightroom and Acrobat are soon to follow if this subscription service takes off.  The installation base for Acrobat is far more extensive – going into regular businesses, not just creative businesses, and the impact there could be dire.  I suspect Adobe is merely giving an indication of what’s to come by testing their leading products in this model.  Unless we want to see everyone adopt this method of sucking that much more from our own wallets – we need to tell them to stop now!

So, chime in now, and share on Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus – as well as to Adobe.  I gave out links on how to do this here.  Here’s the on-going poll too if you don’t want to comment.  Speak up now and let Adobe know how you feel.  We still have a chance to change their minds.

EDITOR NOTE:  This post was written and published before I had a chance to read Scott’s Open Letter to Adobe on his blog today.  That letter pretty much takes Scott and Crew off the hook – they are advocating on our behalf and I’ve already given my accolades to Scott over there.  Please read that post as well!

Take Time to Play

JasonLeave a comment

Ever feel like your creativity is  at a standstill?  Something got it on hold?  The common belief is that creative or mental blocks come from trying too hard to actually be creative.  So, how can we stop trying to hard?  It’s not that we should stop trying per se. It’s more that we need to stop trying to make every image a powerful image.  Being playful often starts with just laughing at yourself.  Seriously…laugh at yourself.  Do something stupid or silly.  That becomes infectious and can move you forward to play.

In being playful with your work, it’s often even more helpful to put down the tripods, and SLR’s.  Put down the lenses and filters. Put down the soft boxes and fill flashes.  Being playful means letting go of the “rules” of photography.  I’m reading David DuChemin’s book, The Inspired Eye (available now on his website – use EYE3Free for 20% off through Sat.), and in it, he speaks to this idea that that inspiration can come from play.

Some ideas from David include taking a day and try taking pictures whenever the mood hits.  Even if you are shooting through wet glass, or in a moving car.  Take a picture with your focus ring taped down.  The softness from the out of focus shot can force you to look at something more generic like the lines and energy of a scene.  It really is inspired capture that David is going for here, and that can definitely come from play.

One of my favorite images from my own library is a niece – I was literally playing.  I wasn’t expecting anything great, or show-stopper quality.  Just goofing around.  I was laughing and being silly, and so was she.  I took the camera to ridiculous angles, knowing it wouldn’t work (or so I thought).  Just goes to show you the power of play in photography:

Laughing Girl
Laughing Girl

The upshot?  Take time to play – only good things can come from it!

A Pro Level Point and Shoot?

JasonLeave a comment

I need some help!  Recently I had the idea of creating a Pro level Point and Shoot camera review corner as an interesting addition to the blog.  To that end, I am compiling a short list of P&S cameras that would be useful material here for the reading audience to have.  However, since most of my experience thus far has been with SLR gear, I could use some help in ensuring my final selections are both useful and of interest to the audience here.  So – I need your help!

You see, it’s a given that there are limitations to the “point and shoot” grade of cameras.  You simply don’t have the same degree of flexibility – no changing out lenses, a smaller sensor, more inherent noise, etc., etc. etc.  Yet, when you take an SLR, there’s a lot more gear involved, even if you “go light”.  At a minimum, you’re likely to have a camera body, a lens, a flash, and a tripod.  So, which do you do?  Thankfully, with the advancement of the “P&S” grade cameras, the differences between SLR’s and the “P&S” category has narrowed substantially.

Pro Level Point and Shoot
Pro Level Point and Shoot

So, the question becomes:  which P&S is a good alternative for the SLR when you just want to take something and go, yet still have the malleability to capture the kind of images you want?  Now, if you ask ten different photographers this same question, you will likely get ten different sets of cameras in varying degrees of priorities.  That being said, a short list of high-end P&S cameras is always helpful to consider.  Here’s the short list I picked:

Canon:  Powershot S95, Powershot G12
Nikon:  Coolpix P7000
Sigma: DP1x

There were some others I considered including a few from Panasonic, Sony, and Olympus, but in looking at the specs of those, all had an interchangeable lens feature, which makes them more SLR-like than most P&S counterparts, so I removed them from consideration.  Here’s the criteria I am using to consider cameras for inclusion in a P&S review section:

1.  True point and shoot design (no interchangeable lenses)

2.  Cost should be less than the entry level SLR for that vendor

3.  Raw or sRaw capacity is probably going to be a requirement…most high end P&S cameras I’ve seen have this feature.

These are of course, just subjective takes on which P&S cameras stand head and shoulders above the rest, and the criteria to classify ones for inclusion as “true P&S cameras”.  As they come through the doors, I’ll share thoughts and feedback with you, but for the time being, I’d also like to hear what others think of these selections.

Can a P&S really stand toe to toe with an SLR?  Is it even worth looking at?  What about the cameras themselves?  Are there others that you wish were included?  Do you own any of these?  What have your own thoughts and experiences been?  Sound off in the comments, and I’ll see what I can to do add others to this roster for upcoming review!  In the meantime, happy shooting, and we’ll be back tomorrow!

Buying Used?

Jason2 Comments

I’ve not been in the gear market for a while, but while discussing some technical stuff with colleagues over in the NAPP forums, had some time to check pricing in various outlets for used gear, and there are some deals going on these days!  In my previous experience, used gear would go for roughly 10-15% less than the new retail equivalents.  That percentage is apparently a bit low now as some gear is selling for up to 25% off new pricing!  So, if you’re in the market for gear, check out the used market for some serious savings!  Here’s a few items I saw in just a mere matter of minutes:

  • Nikon D7000:  New = $1200, Used = $1000 (16%)
  • Sony A580 kit: New=$899, Used = $699 (23%)
  • Sigma 50mm f1.4: New=499, Used = $420 (15%)
  • Canon 500mm f4: New=$7000, Used=$5600 (18%)
  • Canon 5D Mark II: New=$2500, Used=$2135 (15%)

There’s more out there, but that’s just a sampling of what you can expect to see.  The nice thing is many of these items include useful accessories like bags, straps, cases, and media cards as incentive pieces…savings add up even more (about a 20% average in my estimation).  For what it’s worth, I used the forums from Fred Miranda to look up used gear pricing and B&H for retail equivalents.  Your mileage may vary.

Fred Miranda Photography Forum
Buy Sell Listings

What sort of discount would you expect to pay for used gear over it’s  new counterparts?  Is 15% the new minimum?  20%?  30%  What’s considered a “good deal” anymore?  Since I’ve not been in the market to buy anything lately, am totally not sure where things are except what I’ve seen above.  Those sound good to me but I have not scoured all of the internet to be sure…so, let me know if you’ve had similar or different experiences.  Likewise, if you’ve got any of your own deals you’ve noticed recently?  Sound off in the comments!