This is typical of the 'none of your business' nature of this discussion. None of you know why he is changing, but each of you is willing to be critical of his decision: "...y can get more out of a canon than a nikon." Again, he didn't ask for this discussion. I think this group needs to be safe in its own haven of self-serving criteria and self-aggrandizement. Who am I to buck this trend. To that extend, I have better things to do with my bandwidth than to participate in such a group of pompous puffers whose behavior speaks clearly of its prejudices.

--------------------------------
It is one thing to provide positive criticism upon request. It is another to question someone's on what is, essentially, not a strange decision. Whether he wants to change brands or why is not your business, nor did he ask your opinion. He simply listed equipment to sell and a reason why. People change brands every day.

He didn't ask to exchange any ideas nor was his post a request for assistance or anybody's opinion on anything. But, yet, the micromanagers come out of the woodwork. He was just listing equipment for sale. It was not anybody's place to criticize his decision as if he was offending the Canon users. Remarks about resale value, telling him his decision was wrong, or he should consider 4/3 cameras instead of his original plan is simply rude and self-serving, as if you know what he needs better than he does.

The only person who needs an apology is the original poster from this whole arrogant, condescending group, especially you.

What difference does it make and why is it anybody's business why or what a person chooses to sell? The original poster innocently offered his unwanted equipment for sale and people are criticizing him for his choice to sell it as if their opinion matters or should matter in his life. He didn't ask for an opinion, but, of course, for some apparently personal agendas, they were given anyway. Is there some forum standard for choices that are acceptable and those that deserve scorn? He should think twice about offering equipment for sale in this kettle of arrogant critics.

A rude, chauvinistic comment. I've never met a top photographer whose skill centered on the brand of their camera or its resale potential, rather on how they use it.

IS this still available? $700 and I'll take it.

A really good idea!!

This is just a problem of taking a cold lens into a humid environment and having water condense on the cold surfaces. Your goal is to heat up the camera to the outside temperature before exposing it to the humid air. Take a large ziplock bag and put any camera/lens in it you expect to use outside in it. Seal the bag and take it outside and let it warm up to the ambient temperature. As there is little moisture in the bag, there won't be any condensation occurring while you wait for it to come up to temperature. When it is warm open the bag and start shooting.

Incredible - You're excellent at twisting comments out of context. Nowhere did I imply that there was anything wrong with using an obsolete program if it suits your purpose. I would never suggest an upgrade if there was no need. Your suggestion to the original poster that she consider an obsolete version as being a preferred choice without considering her preferences in production efficiency or quality is just poor advise.

Yawn...Of course, if you don't have a Photoshop program running on your machine you can't open a Photoshop file, or Illustrator for an Illustrator file. Nobody said otherwise. The lease allows you to avail yourself of the state-of-the-art Photoshop features without the upfront expense. If you choose to terminate the lease than you can opt to use a different provider's offering or download the free teaser.

Nor did I imply that there was something wrong with owning older equipment. My computer is seven years old and top of the line at the time, with significant personal upgrades for speed and capacity. It is no longer capable of the most efficient processing with the modern Photoshop program as many of the newer, higher quality/resolution processes now take too much time, especially on some of my 250M files. It was fine for CS3, not ideal for CS6 or CC.

You are obviously not a customer for the new Photoshop program or its environment and you're indignant at those that feel its cost is justified. You make slights at those that might lease a car yearly as if their choice is any of your business in the same way as you cast aspersion at those who consider running an obsolete program to be a hindrance to efficient processing as if your dismissal has any value. As such, you need to consider your own narrow prejudices carefully before you consider advising others, to wit, from your original post:

"1, they can raise the price per monthly rental anytime they wish in the future and you are held ransom to that and have to pay it, forever."

You're not held ransom to anything. That's your own clouded view. You can quit the program at the end of your lease and switch providers. Since you are championing JPEGS as the start image, the images are universal. I'm sure you keep the originals as separate files from processed images. For those few images for which you might have to reprocess its a small price to pay for being happy with another program.

"2. The day you stop paying the ransom, sorry, rental fee, you will be blocked from ever being able to open any files you may have saved as Photoshop PSD files, for example if you have layers in them and wanted to possible change things around in the future, so you saved them as Photoshop files, these would now be locked from you being able to open them."

You can always download your free PS2 version and go back in time in process efficiency, so you have lost nothing except layers that you produced in CC that are a mystery to PS2. Your problem is you don't want to pay for what you use. Millions of hours of programmer time went into the Photoshop product that you think is too expensive at $10/month. Even at double that price, its cheap for what you get. Remember, Adobe is aiming their products at the professional and serious amateurs for which $19/month for Photoshop (standard price) is an excellent value, not at average users. You're not in their target market.

"After several years you will have paid out more than if you had bought a copy of Photoshop, which you can keep forever and open all your Photoshop files forever, not so if you rent from the cloud."

You didn't read my post or do your own real math. First, If you consider $10/month verses the cost of Photoshop and Lightroom (and other free stuff with it), you would have never equaled the cost of buying them as self-standing programs, when they were available, before the next update expense. But its a moot point, now, as, and you were correct, Adobe recently discontinued their self-standing program. The lease program includes all updates as they occur, not just when you upload/replace the version you are running. So get with their program or use something else. It's very simple.

"With that said you probably don't need anything better than Photoshop CS2 which you can download and keep forever, for FREE, from the Adobe website. That would be your best bet all round."

And here is where you presume the original poster only really needs what you need, the features of an obsolete software introduced in 2005, and its okay to lock herself 'for ever' into its obsolescence. Did she say she needs nothing more than that which is offered in a nine year old program? Did you ask her or give her a list of the elements of CC that are missing from PS2? It is certainly not her best bet. It is light years away from the performance of the next four iterations. If she is serious about photo processing, she needs to equip herself with the best that fits her personal budget, whatever that is. Adobe's program is the easiest way to get the best bang for the buck even if it goes to the standard $19/month after a year. She can always download the free software PS2 teaser if she is not serious about current photo processing capabilities. She has 30 days to try the new program without financial penalty and without serious consequence. At that point there are other programs to purchase that would do a better job than PS2 and actually have support.

BTW - The intro photographer's special price of 10$/month (year contract) is terminating sometime this month, after which it will probably be $19/month for Photoshop alone rather than 10$/month for Photoshop and Lightroom plus extras.

The only one who is running at the mouth is you. I never suggested a non-professional couldn't use CS2. Show me where? There are many other fine programs, but none are in the same ballpark as Photoshop and I do have Topaz, in addition, but the Topaz advantage is far less significant in CC than CS2 as the Adobe equivalent process have improved significantly such that Topaz only gives a small advantage at the CC level.

The CC program does not have to be attached to the internet and runs completely from its user's computer. It has to access Adobe once a month to confirm license continuation. You need to understand a program before you accuse it of something that is false.

You don't understand the change in the nature of data processing. As the Internet now has enough bandwidth to accommodate persistent on-line data transfer, the advantages of central programming increases, including consistent updates without a million user downloads, central data storage, instant problem feedback, push-technology, intra-user networking, online backup/storage and more. Large businesses have been working in multiple server, cloud environments for over a decade. Programs are going to be centrally served from their providers with usage licences. It is already happening and will become more and more common each year. This is extremely important as the trend is to light portable machines (tablets) with power processors and little storage and a reliance on subscriptions to cloud storage and programs.

Yes, pros used CS2 at one time. It's not competitive now considering how the market has developed. And , NO, CS2 does not provide the workflow capability of CC with BRIDGE and the new LIGHTROOM, the photographer's package.

Yes, you can get outside programs for RAW processing and link them to CS2. It's not necessary in CC, It's seamless from Bridge to CC and CC even allows the RAW processing engine to process non-RAW photographs of any type that Photoshop can load. CS6 can't even do that. BRIDGE/CC also allows automated processes of RAW files such as a panoramic merge that CS2 is totally unable to do, then automatically drop the results into standard processing after the image layers are flattened or opt for RAW processing in addition. Sure, you can figure out how to use a bunch of independent program I can process a panoramic image with a dozen RAW slices, merge the layers, process the results in RAW mode, drop it into standard processing, make a JPEG of the results and not lose the original RAW merge layers, or anything in the process along the way and have lunch before you have figured out how to do it with CS2 or whether it will be done before dinner as CS2 does not take advantage of the latest modern processor tasking modes.

Adobe does allow the option of purchasing or leasing the program. In fact, there are many forms of stand alone purchase and multiple configurations for leasing. Again, you need to do the minimum of research before making such incorrect statements.

CS2 is obsolete. It is still very useful to photographers who are not interested in the advances in photographic imaging available from a program that had developed through 5 updates since it was superseded. My girlfriend, a profession graphic designer, has CS5.5. There are capabilities on CC that she has to find work-arounds to accomplish. CS2 would be totally useless to her.

Finally, cameras do convert to JPEG. Each one does it a different way. There is no standard. JPEGs will have a loss of dynamic range over their RAW original and you can't process it back to the originally stored image. The cell phones are worse, blowing out the colors with over-saturation as the consumer likes shiny bright things. That can be adjusted out, but nobody bothers. Half the pictures that appear on UHH have been over-saturated to death with excessive midrange contrast and 'clairity' as if that's what makes a good image. If you think JPEGs are the cats-meow, than you certainly do not need to update anything.

Yes, if the program is sufficient for your needs than, by all means, continue to use it. But, it would be advised to investigate what features the new program has (added in response to requests by users, both amateur and professional) that would improve your capabilities and workflow before deciding that the old ways are good enough.

Ridiculous!

The difference between CS2 and the current CC is so great its a moot point. RAW processing is poor by comparison as is RAW file handling. Multiple editing processes are crude by comparison. If you don't need anything better than CC2, you aren't really in the photo business, nor do you probably have enough modern processing equipment (IPS monitor and computer capable of driving it) to realize how obsolete it is.

Files made in CC are not lost if your subscription expires. Your problem is the world moves on and you are stuck in the past with an incompatible program.

Sure, the pricing might rise. So would the full price. The 9.95/month will never accumulate the sum of a self-standing version before the self-standing version required an update and subsequent additional cost. It's not a ransom. You have a choice to buy the full package, buy it by the month, or continue using obsolete packages with no support. No serious photographer in the business can afford to be running old technology. The 9.95 per month is so inexpensive its hardly worth worrying about. At twice that price it would still be a bargain and you get Lightroom with it in addition.

You obviously have a beef with paying for what you use/need. CS2 is fine if you are not a professional in the current market. $9.95/month for professional level program is a no-brainer.

You're best bet is to sign up for Adobe's photographic special, $9.95/month for Photoshop CC and Lightroom (plus a few other things). That includes endless updates. It will take you 3 1/2 years to pay $400 and you can use the rest of the money to invest in projects that would recover more than the total cost of usage.. By the time you expend 10$/month to pay for the one shot price you would need another upgrade. The photographic package is less expensive in the long run and does not hit you with a large initial expense, keeps you up to date regardless of the version changes, and has support. It's a no brainer.

"....uncompromised Raw Data." OOPS!

---------------------------------------
It is not possible to have increased photographic information than the original RAW information. PERIOD. Converting it to any other format automatically causes loss of information. Yes, if you convert a picture to DNG or even look at the JPEG made simultaneously, it will look flatter, maybe brighter, maybe shadows seem lighter. What you are seeing is a loss of dynamic range. Yes, it will have a smaller file size as it has lost information either through approximation or compression (averaging). The RAW file will look darker when it is actually exhibiting extended dynamic range. The RAW information will show contrast information for darker shades than the DNG is incapable of preserving as well as differences in the brightest shades for the same reason.

The RAW file, when "worked", can be made to be as "flat" (less dynamic range) as a formatted file, if that is the ultimate goal. On the other hand, RAW information can be exploited to show significantly more detail over a much broader range of hue and density variation than any formatting standard.

Your camera started with RAW information from the sensor regardless of whether you specified a JPEG or other format type even if the camera does not have a RAW output option. The camera makes a JPEG from the RAW data to satisfy the needs of the average user, sharpening it a bit, adding a bit of contrast and saturation, making it happy and compressing it into a smaller size. When you store RAW you experience the limits of the camera's capability. Everything else is convenience.

I know many professionals that only shoot in JPEG for weddings and other sporting events as they don't want to go to the bother of RAW processing. The JPEG output is well beyond the expectations of their clients and, in reality, does a good job for its intended use. But, if your sunset is to have maximum dynamic range or your bird feather to exhibit the sharpest detail, than it is best to start with compromised RAW data.

You will discover that selling a $6 item takes the same amount of work as an expensive item to process. If you want $6 out of it, just put it as BUY IT NOW with minimal extras and let it ride. Remember, unless it is in one of the free categories, your insert fee will consume $0.30 of your 6$ item for listing, 10% of the item after sale, and 4% for PayPal charges. That amounts to about 20% of your sale price after insert and commission charges. So, just do BUY IT NOW (no auction) and no extras and just wait. You can put all seven of them for sale at once. The insertion charge covers multiple units and saves a bit. When it sells. the commissions on the individual specimens apply.

Thus, the tendency on eBay is to not list inexpensive items that make next to nothing relative to the time spent.

There is nothing wrong. You can specify the amount of time delay before shutdown upon inactivity. Go to the seventh menu, the FIRST wrench icon and the first selection is this timeout setting. It is probably sent to the bottom setting. Change it to whatever you prefer and hit the SET button (center of the wheel).

Also, it was somebody else's camera. You are suffering through not knowing the personal settings of the previous owner. DEFAULTing the camera back to factory settings insures that all the custom setting are your's. You can get to this action by going to the THIRD wrench on the menu. You then have two places to default user settings.
"Camera user settings" , then "Clear settings" - This will clear any user settings of the previous owner. It does not completely default the camera.

"Clear all camera settings, select "OK" then hit SET. - This will default the camera. Now you have a like-new camera and you're insured that you won't find other user induced mysteries (unless you make them yourself, of course...). You might have to reset the date, so check that out at the SECOND wrench menu list.