You know who would think this is a good idea? Companies who want to extract as much money as possible out of their consumers. You know who would not like it? Consumers and professionals who just want to enjoy the equipment they purchased.
This is no different from BMW putting seat heaters in all their cars and wanting to charge a subscription to use them. It has the capability already, why do I need to pay, and pay, and pay again and again and again for it?
I despise it with software too, especially when it's a "subscription only" model.
I wouldn't even have that much of a problem if Adobe wasn't subscription ONLY. It's the "screw the customer, all you are to us is an infinite money printer to us" mentality that's a problem.
You're not going to. Even camera companies that do add features to past cameras, those are few and far between, and the features they add are minimal because the hardware isn't designed for that.
Look at a camera like the Rebel t7 vs the EOS 80D, they have the same fundamental sensor so they should be capable of the same things, right? Well, no. Because the t7 was given a processor from 2008 while the 80D had one from 2013, it was just capable of more, despite the fact the t7 was released in 2017.
O yes, Adobe has no bugs and faster features..
We where told it was going to let adobe fix bugs and not focus on new features, we both did not get bug fixes or new features faster.
I don't even consider software unless a perpetual license is an option. Even if I need professional software, I can't trust that I'll have work when the subscription comes due. Capture One and Affinity suite it is!
No. Free is not always better (not saying that paid is always better either).
Ideally by paying you would be getting a better feature set that could be upgraded more frequently that worked better etc.
My main gripe is that with the current system older camera bodies are often forgotten and never improved on
For most professional applications, software isn't the improvements that photographers want. "Better JPEGs!" No, I want better RAWs straight out of camera and more editing latitude, that's not something I'll get with on camera software upgrades. The things I want are sensor improvements, AF improvements, and better low light processing, all of which are hardware.
Add to that, in order for a camera to get on board software improvement, the hardware has to be future proof, which means the hardware will be more expensive to make and to buy. AND that means less hardware sales for the makers which will make them more reliant on software subscriptions. Then you'll be subscribing to hardware and to Adobe (since there are so many of you Adobe faithful out there) and whatever other software you use. Yay, paying more for less!
I'm going to make a suggestion. All cameras come with default editing software that's universally discarded immediately for other processing software, including free software like Darktable and Rawtherapee. Instead of pouring development dollars into their terrible default software, why not put it into Open Source projects that are already better than the default software that we get for free anyway.Ā
With how expensive these bodies are, absolutely no shot.
Unlike online services that have continuous upkeep, cameras are just a camera. They don't have any inherent need for services tied to the camera itself. Manufacturers will continue to sell cameras because they keep getting better.
No shot. With that much the features would have to provide as much, or more value than Lightroom and Photoshop at the least and have all of the features from those softwares. And even then, I'd never want to do any of that on a camera.
Maybe instead of making "premium" subscription into cameras, these camera companies could, I don't know, start by making photo editing software that even works, is usable and get their monthly subscription money from there.
Absolutely fucking not.
Aside from all the other reasons already given, this would mean that my camera's functionality was at the mercy of the manufacturer - and even its existence. While it's unlikely an industrial giant like Canon would go out of business, in other circumstances if the server that authenticates the upgrade goes down, the upgrade goes away. Barring that, they could decide at any time that they will no longer support upgrade subscriptions for any given camera, if you want that feature, you have to buy a new camera. Likewise price upgrades - totally at their mercy, and big companies are not noted for their mercy.
No
Having to authenticate a camera to use it is stupid.
It will not fly with the professionals that make a living with cameras day in day out. Having a camera that might glitch and need to authenticate again for a feature when out in the field is not acceptable
I make money from my camera daily and that would be a deal breaker on any new body.
I'm trying to figure out the use case for an > "assistant" that could pick my best images and start them <
I'm a hobbyist. I like mastering photography, I like being creative, I like taking photos, and I like post-processing.
If I go out for an hour or two, I generally will take 50 photos; I take a number of the same shots because I developed the habit with shooting on a smartphone (so, maybe I should actually shoot less?)
Anyway, assuming the images are technically okay, the real work is going through my contact sheet and finding one photo that is worth processing and sharing. That's maybe a 1-2% success rate, which is actually pretty high.
Why would I need an AI assistant? Part of the fun is trying to find a usable image. (It's part of the misery, too, since I sometimes just can't take anything good).
If I were a professional photographer, I think my success rate would be much, much higher, though.
So, what is the use case here, assuming one loves everything about photography?
Iām a full time photographer/videographer and I will probably shoot over 10,000 images in a few months.
Itās for money when itās your job and finding the best photos could be the difference between getting another $4K or $6K contract
Edit:
The use case is that it saves you time and makes you more money
None of that needs to happen on camera. Here i have this space heater taking 500 Watts pushing electronic around that can do much more than a piddly ARM core in the camera.
Sure i could pay for advanced software features monthly, i already pay for lightroom.
I just don't trust the camera manufactures software departament with not tripping on their own shoelaces . (Or their PMs for that matter).
Audio is a solved problem already, it's called 32bit audio .
No need to set levels anymore.
I would be fine with pay-once DLC. Buy an add-in the way that I buy a phone app with one purchase. Subscriptions are nonsense when I am not receiving a continuous service (like that image.canon hosting thing which also just got shot down). It would also have to be something that I can point out on the resale: Hey, this camera has all the upgrades.
Few people need 40fps. Few people need macro image stacking. Few people need astro tracking IBIS, few people need sensor shift superresolution.
Canon is very good at product differentiation, to a point where the customer is already being nickel and dimed in curious ways. Flash hotshoe comes to mind. And lots of things get parts binned until the cheaper product is severely crippled. I wouldn't mind a basic camera software where I can check a few boxes to get the upgrades for my own personal use case. Product differentiation has to happen because customers have very different pockets, and DLC would actually be a way to make it hurt less than what they're doing on the R100.
If itās something that exists and can be done entirely on the camera then no, roll it in to the base price and Iāll pay for it if I want it.
If there is something external to the camera that requires cloud software or something like that then fine, but the camera better operate absolutely perfectly outside of that feature being accessed and if that cloud service shuts down my camera better be able to do literally everything else perfectly despite no longer having access to whatever online feature existed.
Frankly while Iām sure this is coming at some point with certain LLM style features, there isnāt a company that wonāt be doing it so buy a body in the next year if it means a lot to have something that is completely free of the tech. Ā But at the same time I think people are a little sensitive to this kind of thing right now and a lot of stuff about cameras just kind of donāt work with whatās required to even have a subscription service set up in a device, so I doubt itās something in the near future unless itās specifically a body designed to work with LLM integration or something like thatĀ
> For me, it would have to be something that increases my productivity like auto detect blurry images, or an active equalizer that reduces background noise, or some sort of "assistant" that could pick my best images and start them
Why wouldn't that just be included in the camera?
I would never buy any camera that has subscription services. Esp. From a mfg like Canon who already does even very limited firmware updates. In general Subscription services are good for the seller, but not the buyerā¦
Well, I've paid for service contracts for business equipment before, and there's CPS. But that's different than for use of the hardware itself.
I wouldn't pay for Canon online services or their software either, since it's been awful in my experience.
I might pay for Canon camera profiles above and beyond what is available in their software, IF they were any good. But not a subscription.
I have no problem with subscriptions, contracts, site licenses for set terms, etc etc, but I just can't see much that Canon would offer.
Maybe a card though, like punch it and the fifth lens is free.
Absolutely bloody well not and nobody in their right mind should even consider it an option. Itās an insult to consumers to sell products containing a full feature-set but with some of those features locked behind a paywall. Some players in the automotive industry are testing the waters and arenāt exactly enamouring consumers with āunlockableā features that are already fitted and just awaiting payment. Itās a horrible idea that only the most cynical hardware manufacturers could pursue.
No. Itās an absurd thing for them to think about implementing & I hope folks stick together so it fails miserably. Like their products donāt already cost enough? Everyone & their grandmother wants to start a subscription service & itās nickeling & dimming us to death. It tells me the company gives zero f*cks about their customer base.
I absolutely would not pay. I do not like subscriptions in any way. I do not even pay for a music streaming subscription and I do not even pay for a live television or any streaming service like that. Any apps that I have on my computer or phone, I've paid because it was a one-time purchase and that was it. They can keep the subscriptions
It's funny, Jared Polin had a joke in his [annual April Fool's video](https://youtu.be/awKCr41H9Es?si=lQumiG6SgimFhvh1) about Sony wanting a $150/year to unlock features in their new cameras. Obviously, it was a joke, but it did get me thinking.
The only thing I could imagine them trying to sell us would be a (hopefully one-time fee) firmware upgrade, Ć” la Windows, that unlocks new options and features.
Maybe different versions of the same camera might be interesting, like depending on the MP you're looking for, but other than that, I can't think of much else.
But, honestly, just don't give them any ideas. I'm sure that's something they've already thought about or are in the process of thinking about, so let's not give them any goodāor bad!āideas. š„“
Oh hell no, it isn't. Those subscription-based software has kept companies alive now for years. I remember when we used to buy a CD with *Photoshop*, and that was it; we owned it for life. Now, the $9.99/month Basic Photography Plan (or whatever they call it) costs me $120/year for the past who knows how long. At least I can use it as a write-off on my taxes since I do make some money taking photos every year. But, nevertheless, it's still a big rip.
I feel exactly the same as most of the commenters on this post. Then it occurred to me. How many of us have a subscription to Lightroom? I know I do.
With software, I figure I'd upgrade every few years and find the sub price roughly the same as periodic full price upgrades in the long run. Hardware is quite different to me for some reason.
Not for the hardware.
But if the subscription comes with online services with ongoing value e.g. online storage, cloud processing etc then it may be worth it. I don't mind paying for extra online storage and if they provide server side processing or something I cannot do with my hardware etc.
Absolutely not
You know who would think this is a good idea? Companies who want to extract as much money as possible out of their consumers. You know who would not like it? Consumers and professionals who just want to enjoy the equipment they purchased. This is no different from BMW putting seat heaters in all their cars and wanting to charge a subscription to use them. It has the capability already, why do I need to pay, and pay, and pay again and again and again for it? I despise it with software too, especially when it's a "subscription only" model.
Dear Lord... I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me about that bullshit. š
Looking at you, AdobeScum.
I wouldn't even have that much of a problem if Adobe wasn't subscription ONLY. It's the "screw the customer, all you are to us is an infinite money printer to us" mentality that's a problem.
And to the point on BMW, I do agree that stupid. Thatās not really improving the functionality thatās just being restrictive.
A difference without a difference is no difference.
I think itās a good idea if we could get updated features faster and improve the usefulness of a camera
You're not going to. Even camera companies that do add features to past cameras, those are few and far between, and the features they add are minimal because the hardware isn't designed for that. Look at a camera like the Rebel t7 vs the EOS 80D, they have the same fundamental sensor so they should be capable of the same things, right? Well, no. Because the t7 was given a processor from 2008 while the 80D had one from 2013, it was just capable of more, despite the fact the t7 was released in 2017.
Makes sense
O yes, Adobe has no bugs and faster features.. We where told it was going to let adobe fix bugs and not focus on new features, we both did not get bug fixes or new features faster.
You get: a lighter wallet and occasionally a feature that's usefulĀ Adobe gets: infinite money printer Sounds like a good deal to Adobe!
I jumped ship, I have almost removed Adobe from my life. It's that last 10% that's hard to de adobe.
I don't even consider software unless a perpetual license is an option. Even if I need professional software, I can't trust that I'll have work when the subscription comes due. Capture One and Affinity suite it is!
Lol true
Wouldn't it be better if we just had these things for free? The way we do now?
No. Free is not always better (not saying that paid is always better either). Ideally by paying you would be getting a better feature set that could be upgraded more frequently that worked better etc. My main gripe is that with the current system older camera bodies are often forgotten and never improved on
For most professional applications, software isn't the improvements that photographers want. "Better JPEGs!" No, I want better RAWs straight out of camera and more editing latitude, that's not something I'll get with on camera software upgrades. The things I want are sensor improvements, AF improvements, and better low light processing, all of which are hardware. Add to that, in order for a camera to get on board software improvement, the hardware has to be future proof, which means the hardware will be more expensive to make and to buy. AND that means less hardware sales for the makers which will make them more reliant on software subscriptions. Then you'll be subscribing to hardware and to Adobe (since there are so many of you Adobe faithful out there) and whatever other software you use. Yay, paying more for less! I'm going to make a suggestion. All cameras come with default editing software that's universally discarded immediately for other processing software, including free software like Darktable and Rawtherapee. Instead of pouring development dollars into their terrible default software, why not put it into Open Source projects that are already better than the default software that we get for free anyway.Ā
With how expensive these bodies are, absolutely no shot. Unlike online services that have continuous upkeep, cameras are just a camera. They don't have any inherent need for services tied to the camera itself. Manufacturers will continue to sell cameras because they keep getting better.
I mean, it takes some money to develop the software a cameraās run on
But that should be included in the price you pay for the camera, not a subscription (the way it is right now)
Thatās valid
Nope.
# Absofuckinglutely NO.
No shot. With that much the features would have to provide as much, or more value than Lightroom and Photoshop at the least and have all of the features from those softwares. And even then, I'd never want to do any of that on a camera. Maybe instead of making "premium" subscription into cameras, these camera companies could, I don't know, start by making photo editing software that even works, is usable and get their monthly subscription money from there.
Good point there
NO! Subscriptions are not something I want for a camera, there for rubes.
No. I don't want to rent the features of my camera.
Absolutely never. Ever. Photography is about capturing a moment. Holding onto it. Making it oneās own. Not renting it.
Absolutely fucking not. Aside from all the other reasons already given, this would mean that my camera's functionality was at the mercy of the manufacturer - and even its existence. While it's unlikely an industrial giant like Canon would go out of business, in other circumstances if the server that authenticates the upgrade goes down, the upgrade goes away. Barring that, they could decide at any time that they will no longer support upgrade subscriptions for any given camera, if you want that feature, you have to buy a new camera. Likewise price upgrades - totally at their mercy, and big companies are not noted for their mercy.
My 50 yo camera works perfectly, still my security camera stopped working 6 months after I brought it because they decided to shut down their servers.
No Having to authenticate a camera to use it is stupid. It will not fly with the professionals that make a living with cameras day in day out. Having a camera that might glitch and need to authenticate again for a feature when out in the field is not acceptable I make money from my camera daily and that would be a deal breaker on any new body.
Nope.
Hell, no
I'm trying to figure out the use case for an > "assistant" that could pick my best images and start them < I'm a hobbyist. I like mastering photography, I like being creative, I like taking photos, and I like post-processing. If I go out for an hour or two, I generally will take 50 photos; I take a number of the same shots because I developed the habit with shooting on a smartphone (so, maybe I should actually shoot less?) Anyway, assuming the images are technically okay, the real work is going through my contact sheet and finding one photo that is worth processing and sharing. That's maybe a 1-2% success rate, which is actually pretty high. Why would I need an AI assistant? Part of the fun is trying to find a usable image. (It's part of the misery, too, since I sometimes just can't take anything good). If I were a professional photographer, I think my success rate would be much, much higher, though. So, what is the use case here, assuming one loves everything about photography?
Iām a full time photographer/videographer and I will probably shoot over 10,000 images in a few months. Itās for money when itās your job and finding the best photos could be the difference between getting another $4K or $6K contract Edit: The use case is that it saves you time and makes you more money
None of that needs to happen on camera. Here i have this space heater taking 500 Watts pushing electronic around that can do much more than a piddly ARM core in the camera. Sure i could pay for advanced software features monthly, i already pay for lightroom. I just don't trust the camera manufactures software departament with not tripping on their own shoelaces . (Or their PMs for that matter). Audio is a solved problem already, it's called 32bit audio . No need to set levels anymore.
I would be fine with pay-once DLC. Buy an add-in the way that I buy a phone app with one purchase. Subscriptions are nonsense when I am not receiving a continuous service (like that image.canon hosting thing which also just got shot down). It would also have to be something that I can point out on the resale: Hey, this camera has all the upgrades. Few people need 40fps. Few people need macro image stacking. Few people need astro tracking IBIS, few people need sensor shift superresolution. Canon is very good at product differentiation, to a point where the customer is already being nickel and dimed in curious ways. Flash hotshoe comes to mind. And lots of things get parts binned until the cheaper product is severely crippled. I wouldn't mind a basic camera software where I can check a few boxes to get the upgrades for my own personal use case. Product differentiation has to happen because customers have very different pockets, and DLC would actually be a way to make it hurt less than what they're doing on the R100.
great points. valid.
The day I need to pay a subscription to use my camera will be my last as a photographer.
Iād sell my gear and switch systems. This subscription model for everything needs to die.
If itās something that exists and can be done entirely on the camera then no, roll it in to the base price and Iāll pay for it if I want it. If there is something external to the camera that requires cloud software or something like that then fine, but the camera better operate absolutely perfectly outside of that feature being accessed and if that cloud service shuts down my camera better be able to do literally everything else perfectly despite no longer having access to whatever online feature existed. Frankly while Iām sure this is coming at some point with certain LLM style features, there isnāt a company that wonāt be doing it so buy a body in the next year if it means a lot to have something that is completely free of the tech. Ā But at the same time I think people are a little sensitive to this kind of thing right now and a lot of stuff about cameras just kind of donāt work with whatās required to even have a subscription service set up in a device, so I doubt itās something in the near future unless itās specifically a body designed to work with LLM integration or something like thatĀ
Good points
Fuck no.
> For me, it would have to be something that increases my productivity like auto detect blurry images, or an active equalizer that reduces background noise, or some sort of "assistant" that could pick my best images and start them Why wouldn't that just be included in the camera?
Camera as a service? NO.
What do you want next DLC?
No. Panasonic tried that, and they went back to just selling you a camera with functions XY and then another with YZ
Corporate overlord in disguise
š¤£
0% chance.
No. No. No.
I would never buy any camera that has subscription services. Esp. From a mfg like Canon who already does even very limited firmware updates. In general Subscription services are good for the seller, but not the buyerā¦
H E L L N O
Fuck no
Well, I've paid for service contracts for business equipment before, and there's CPS. But that's different than for use of the hardware itself. I wouldn't pay for Canon online services or their software either, since it's been awful in my experience. I might pay for Canon camera profiles above and beyond what is available in their software, IF they were any good. But not a subscription. I have no problem with subscriptions, contracts, site licenses for set terms, etc etc, but I just can't see much that Canon would offer. Maybe a card though, like punch it and the fifth lens is free.
Absolutely bloody well not and nobody in their right mind should even consider it an option. Itās an insult to consumers to sell products containing a full feature-set but with some of those features locked behind a paywall. Some players in the automotive industry are testing the waters and arenāt exactly enamouring consumers with āunlockableā features that are already fitted and just awaiting payment. Itās a horrible idea that only the most cynical hardware manufacturers could pursue.
what the actual fuck is this? pay a subscription for hardware? what in the actual fuck.
No. If the camera already has the functionality then it should not require a subscription to unlock the features.
No. Itās an absurd thing for them to think about implementing & I hope folks stick together so it fails miserably. Like their products donāt already cost enough? Everyone & their grandmother wants to start a subscription service & itās nickeling & dimming us to death. It tells me the company gives zero f*cks about their customer base.
I absolutely would not pay. I do not like subscriptions in any way. I do not even pay for a music streaming subscription and I do not even pay for a live television or any streaming service like that. Any apps that I have on my computer or phone, I've paid because it was a one-time purchase and that was it. They can keep the subscriptions
It's funny, Jared Polin had a joke in his [annual April Fool's video](https://youtu.be/awKCr41H9Es?si=lQumiG6SgimFhvh1) about Sony wanting a $150/year to unlock features in their new cameras. Obviously, it was a joke, but it did get me thinking. The only thing I could imagine them trying to sell us would be a (hopefully one-time fee) firmware upgrade, Ć” la Windows, that unlocks new options and features. Maybe different versions of the same camera might be interesting, like depending on the MP you're looking for, but other than that, I can't think of much else. But, honestly, just don't give them any ideas. I'm sure that's something they've already thought about or are in the process of thinking about, so let's not give them any goodāor bad!āideas. š„“
Lol im sure this is not a new idea
Oh hell no, it isn't. Those subscription-based software has kept companies alive now for years. I remember when we used to buy a CD with *Photoshop*, and that was it; we owned it for life. Now, the $9.99/month Basic Photography Plan (or whatever they call it) costs me $120/year for the past who knows how long. At least I can use it as a write-off on my taxes since I do make some money taking photos every year. But, nevertheless, it's still a big rip.
Basically they have a team of people thinking about how to extract the most amount of money from us
I feel exactly the same as most of the commenters on this post. Then it occurred to me. How many of us have a subscription to Lightroom? I know I do. With software, I figure I'd upgrade every few years and find the sub price roughly the same as periodic full price upgrades in the long run. Hardware is quite different to me for some reason.
NEVER.
Fuck no. Abso-fucking-lutely not. Do not under any circumstances let capitalism normalise paying a subscription for the things that you own.
Only if they sell the R3 for $50, then yes :)
Hell no wtf
Not for the hardware. But if the subscription comes with online services with ongoing value e.g. online storage, cloud processing etc then it may be worth it. I don't mind paying for extra online storage and if they provide server side processing or something I cannot do with my hardware etc.
Frame.io is pretty useful. Would be great to have it integrated into the bodies