The biggest reason for potentially not going with Adobe Photoshop and LR is cost. Adobe is very expensive.

That's why Adobe is not for everyone. If you are a professional photographer and can write off the cost, then maybe it is worth it, but if you are a hobbyist or prosumer, why pay $120 a year (or $360 over a three year period), when you can easily get programs that do 98% of what Photoshop does (like PaintShop Pro) for a lot, lot less.

Both Luminar, Affinity, and PaintShop Pro are around $50 for a perpetual license, and there are also many free programs.

That's why it is good that there are many good choices. If you want to use PP/LR and are ok paying $120 a year then go for it, if you want to pay $50 for a perpetual license of PaintShop Pro, Affinity, or Luminar go for it. If you want Free how about Picassa, Google Photos, GIMP, FastStone, etc...

I'm also a WordPerfect user, using WP X7 right now. I bought my copy from Amazon on a DVD. I think I have the Home/Student version that I bought for around $40. WP is just a great word processor.

For Corel PSP I bought my version PSP 2018 Ultimate Edition directly from Corel for $60 as an upgrade deal, and as a software download. I'm using the current version of PSP which is PSP 2018. The "Ultimate" edition just comes with some additional bundled software. I really was not that impressed by it, although it was only a $10 price difference (An upgrade to the standard version of PSP was only $50). Next time Iwill probably just upgrade to the Standard edition. PSP itself is a fantastic program, and PSP 2018 is worth upgrading to -- lots of user interface and performance improvements.

DHooch --> Thanks for this response!

I've been using PSP for about 10 years now, where I upgrade about once every three years. The upgrade is usually about $50, or about $60 for the Ultimate edition (which just include extra software and templates). That's about $20 a year!! Compared to Adobe that charges $120 per year for their Photo Shop CC/Lightroom subscription package.

I am using PSP 2018 now and just find it a fantastic program. I highly recommend it.

Also for support I highly recommend their Forum.

That problem was fixed long ago. I'll try and do some research and let everyone know at what version of PSP that was fixed.

Yes, there are a few other minor differences, but the primary difference between the A7RIII and the A7III is the megapixel count, 24 versus 42. So you are paying an extra $1200 for the A7RIII to get a 42 mega pixel sensor. Strangely, because the A7III is using the A9s autofocus system, the A7III should have better auto focus than the A7RIII.

I believe the "R" stands for "Resolution". So in their model line-up the "R" will be the model with the highest mega pixel sensor.

I don't know what the "S" stands for, my best guess is "Sensitive" or "Sensitivity" ?, but the "S" in their range is the low light model (and also the model specialized for shooting video -- because being able to handle low light is extremely important for shooting video). It will have the sensor with the smallest mega pixel count (i.e. the pixels are huge for low light gathering capability).

The A7III is Sony's broadside to the market for professional wedding/event photographers, which is the largest professional photographer market segment. However, as a camera it should good for almost everything. I'm not a landscape photographer, but if I was shooting landscape or wildlife -- I'd prefer the higher megapixel count of the A7RIII. I think the A7III is perfect for portrait, travel, street, events, and even sports.

On the 24-70mm lens, I have no personal knowledge of that lens, but it has gotten good reviews. Note: Sigma just announced the release of 7 ea. of their ART series lenses that will be released for the Sony FF E-Mount -- so great prospects for the Sony FF E-mount moving forward.

I have an a6000 with only two inexpensive kit lenses, the 16-50mm and the 55-200mm kit zoom . So never made a big investment in Sony APS-C E-Mount lenses. If you only have a couple lenses the switch should be very easy, if not I completely understand your dilemma. In your favor, Sony should be releasing the a6700 (or whatever they decide to call it) sometime later this year.

I feel for you. The Sony A99 is an incredible camera, but Sony is not going to put much in A mount moving forward. :-(

The reason for 24MP is because it is considered the primary mega pixel "standard" for Wedding/Event photography these days. The Sony A7III is aimed squarely at the professional wedding/event photographer market. Sony's answer to the Nikon D850 is the Sony ARIII which has a full frame 42.4MP sensor.

You're probably using a Fuji or a Panasonic of an Olympus which are all great cameras. Everyone is a winner these days!

Just so you are aware the A7III is actually a pretty light camera, so heavier yes -- but heavyweight no. It clocks in at 650 grams. It's lighter than many APC-C cameras.

Tons of info and initial hands-on videos on YouTube now. Just watched about 10 YouTube videos on the A7III today. For the $2K price point this camera has no equal.

And I don't think I even heard one negative thing about it -- everyone just praises how Sony has listened to the customer and satisfied almost every major shortcoming.

Ok -- actually I did hear one complaint that one reviewer made that they didn't use the better EVF that they used in the A7RIII and the A9. It's still a great EVF but not the one used in the A9/A7RIII.

This camera is going to take the world by storm! It is the perfect -- wedding and event photographer's camera, which is the largest professional photographer market segment. Sony is clearly going after the wedding/event photographers like gangbusters.

btw: Sigma just announced 7 of their ART lenses for the Sony!! 14mm to 135mm primes. Native glass for the Sony Full Frame E-Mount. Sweet!!

I just remember all the Canon fans saying -- well we still have the glass... Well I have news for those folks -- Sony is moving fast. They completed their "Holy Trinity" line-up in native GM glass last year, and now have a lot of glass -- and lots of non-Sony affordable glass coming out, from Sigma, Rokinon, Zeiss, Tamron, Voigtländer, etc...

In a few months their 400mm Gold Master (GM) lens should be released for the Sony E-Mount. It was being tested at the Winter Olympics. The native glass reason for staying with Canon if you are an "indoor" sports photographer will be gone.

In the next two years, they should also have released fast 500mm and 600mm primes in GM models. So no more native glass advantage for "outdoor" sports photographers and wildlife shooters. Glass advantage for Canon will be gone by 2020. Yes, folks -- just two more years.

Yeah -- you'll still want to stay with Canon if you own a ton of glass --- but new photographers -- and those that do not have large investments in glass...

On the A6700, my guess is improved autofocus, improved dynamic range, improvements in video capabilities, and some ergonomic improvements over the A6500. The A6700 or whatever they decide to call it will probably come out later this year. There has even been talk about a A5300, but I doubt that, why not just come out with the A6700 and then lower the price on the A6300 and make the A6300 the low end model.

The A7sIII will probably be a lot like the A7III just a sensor with less megapixels, and incredible low light performance. This should also come out later this year.

Personally, I'd much rather have the A7III than the A6700 though.

The α7 III features high-resolution, high-contrast, fast-start XGA OLED Tru-Finder™ with approximately 2.3 million dots for extremely accurate, true-to-life detail reproduction. “Standard” or “High” display quality settings are also available for both the viewfinder and monitor as well.

EVFs have gotten really good over the past two years.

$2K folks.

A9 autofocus (693 phase-detection points, and 425 contrast points). 10 fps. Silent shooting. Uses the Z-battery, which is the larger battery that the A9 uses. Dual SD slot. Joystick.

Incredible...

I always get a good chuckle these days -- because several Canon fans told me about 1.5 years ago that autofocus on a mirrorless would never be as fast as on a DSLR, and that professional photographers only used Canon or Nikon. Yeah, right. :-)

I hope so. :-)

So far it is all the usual Mac vs. PC arguments. The PC fan will argue that Macs are much more expensive than MACs and how much more configurable and modular PCs are, and the Mac fan will list all kinds of subjective reasons that attempt to justify the extra cost, like the typical "quality" and "intuitiveness" subjective arguments.

And so it goes. This thread doesn't read any different than a Mac Versus PC thread from 5 years ago.