MyReality: Wow! Look at all the whining and crying happen in these posts. Where are the violins?Photographers have to be invited to join Getty. Getty does not force anyone to sign a contract. Their contract is available to read online. They are like any large company that wants to consolidate. They are not breaking any laws.If you don't like their contract, don't sign. I have heard these kinds of comments before on this forum. Does anyone here believe in free will? If you don't like the amount of your commission, sell thru a different outletHave a nice day?.
Actually if they had bought Corbis without going through VCG they would have been breaking laws in a number of countries. Being the sole distributor of Corbis content outside China, they circumvented anti-monopoly laws.
The plus factors for me are the huge buffer, the ruggedness of the body, the iso range, if noise is well controlled, tilt screen, and the frame rate.
The negatives are no pop-up flash, no extra crop factor like the D7100, smaller sensor pixel count, but this might help in controlling noise, the weight, short video record times, with the movie industry still forcing short record times so people can't use it to pirate movies, no 120fps or 240fps at 1080p, touch screen is a big hassle most of the time, except in some live view instances. card slot choices, as only the SDcard side is a standard format, and price.
If the price drops below the US$1500 mark maybe I'll buy, but not at US$2000. Can not justify that much as a new business expense, given all the other choices for cheaper.
koolbreez: You are all missing the reason for this, to speed up submissions. In this very competitive field speed of submission is extremely critical, and the time it takes to process RAW files greatly hinders submission time. Plenty of cameras now offer the ability to send pictures directly from camera via wifi, and do minor post processing of the JGP, but they do not offer the ability to in-camera post process RAW files. Reuters is just trying to get it across to their extensive list of freelancers that anything to speed up the submission process must be incorporated into their workflow. As most freelancers are under the impression that RAW files are best, they have to be forcefully trained to break that frame of thought, when "best" is not a priority in breaking news photography. JGPs meet the OOC quality requirements just fine, and the difference of minutes, and seconds, in submission speed can make the difference between a sale, or no sale, and that is what it is all about.
You shoot RAW with your quattro, and in-camera post process, and I'll shoot JPG, and we'll see who's image hits the editor's desk first, and makes the sale....lolol. Just saying:-)
dkirk7000: Oh I had a pulitzer winning shot but I underexposed it by two stops and can't recover the image in jpeg.
That is actually the most critical factor, how fast you can get the image submitted, in terms of whether you make a sale, or not. The breaking news business is judged in minutes, and seconds, as to whether your picture is chosen over someone else's submission on the same event, and be assured, everyone has a camera. It just takes the pro-photojournalist less time to get their submission into the picture editors.
Great Bustard: You know, if you have that little trust in your photographers, then...
You are spot on Mark. This is all about speed of submission, and making breaking news image sales. I am an editor for another major breaking news wire service, and the first images in get the push. The rest after that must be unique, and technically perfect in order to be sent out.
Don Kiyoti: This is clearly about the growing problem of some unethical photographers altering the content of their images by adding or deleting elements. There have been some well-publicized cases of this happening. Sometimes it's to "improve" the image by removing something distracting but otherwise unimportant. In other cases it's been to make the image tell a different story, and that's what Reuters can't tolerate.
Despite the wording of the announcement, this has nothing to do with speed. It's all about the integrity of the scene.
No, this is about the time it takes to submit the picture, nothing else. Time is a critical factor in breaking news picture sales, and post processing RAW files slows down the submission time, no matter how efficient the work flow, in a business where minutes, and seconds count, between a sale, or no sale.
Raist3d: I love how several people seem to know better about this domain of photography than Reuters along with their reasons ;-)
This isn't about picture integrity, that is universally understood by photojournalists. This is about speed of submission only, and getting rid of the time it takes to post process RAW files, no matter how efficient the post processing is, speeding up the submission time. That is all this is about, nothing else. The faster the image is submitted, the better chance of a sale in this highly competitive field.
DStudio: In the PetaPixel article Reuters cites the extra time photographers take on editing RAW images. And they're correct - it is often a waste of time when news-gathering - even when the photographer has an efficient RAW workflow.
However, that's the *photographer's* problem to solve, not theirs. I guess their liberal mindset (the bad side of it) is showing through here. They want to solve someone else's problems. And they will do so by mandating "the correct solution" for them.
It's good for Reuters to manage their workflows. But it's dubious to dictate the freelance photographer's workflow for him. I don't mind them specifying the types of edits allowed, but it's dubious when they get their fingers into the photographer's pie, dictating the original image format.
You are all missing the whole point of what Reuters said. This is being done strictly as a time saver in getting the submission to Reuters, nothing else. There is a time delay when a photographer has to post process a RAW file, no matter how efficient their workflow is, and that delay is costing sales in this highly competitive field, where minutes, and seconds are how submission times are judged. This is about breaking news photography, of which Reuters is a major player, not fine art, or feature photojournalism. Every freelancer accepted by Reuters knows the edit restrictions, but they are still holding to their post processing of RAW files, so Reuters has to break that way of thinking, as it is costing sales. That is simply what this is all about. It is not about picture integrity from their freelancers, as that is universally understood. It is about getting their pictures to Reuters faster.
MiraShootsNikon: I bet Reuters is really trying to say, in a "Minnesota-nice" sorta way, that they've been getting a bunch of *TERRIBLY* over-cooked images baked from RAW.
You know: "Hey, why not just keep it to JPEGs and a small adjustment-or-two with the ol' Photoshop levels panel, okey?" is passive-aggressive code for "If we receive ONE more craptastic HDR-wannabe image with ACR-Lightroom Shadows slammed to 100 and Highlights yanked all the way down, our editors will have a collective coronary."
No, they are actually trying to say you are spending too much time processing your RAW files, and it is costing us sales. OOC JGPs can be submitted much faster, and speed of submission is the most critical factor in the breaking news business of photojournalism, of which Reuters is a major player.
You are all missing the reason for this, to speed up submissions. In this very competitive field speed of submission is extremely critical, and the time it takes to process RAW files greatly hinders submission time. Plenty of cameras now offer the ability to send pictures directly from camera via wifi, and do minor post processing of the JGP, but they do not offer the ability to in-camera post process RAW files. Reuters is just trying to get it across to their extensive list of freelancers that anything to speed up the submission process must be incorporated into their workflow. As most freelancers are under the impression that RAW files are best, they have to be forcefully trained to break that frame of thought, when "best" is not a priority in breaking news photography. JGPs meet the OOC quality requirements just fine, and the difference of minutes, and seconds, in submission speed can make the difference between a sale, or no sale, and that is what it is all about.
Why do they never post the battery life? That is the biggest determining factor with most action cam purchases. Are they doubling up frames at 60fps, as most do, or is it true 60fps. The average user does not need 4K video, or anything above 1080P for that matter, plus consumers love real 120fps, or higher, for slow motion at the same resolution.
If they want to regain market share they are slowly loosing, then serious battery life technology needs to be implimented. When they can top 3 hours of battery life then I might spend the extra money to buy their products, but as it stands now there are too many comparable action cams for a lot less money, and some with much better battery life. A plug-in power bank add-on would be nice, at say 5000mha.
They are solely using video, which is low resolution. It will be much more practical when they develop it to use still high resolution images, as Adobe has already made advances in.
The high guide number makes this a very bright unit when stopped down to 1/32nd, 1/64th, and the 1/128th settings to stop motion, making extreme closeness of shooting not a problem when the flash is stopped down to take advantage of the 20,000th of a second motion stopping capabilities.
koolbreez: With this increased body size, why not a single mention of the "No Flash" issue, especially in the conclussions, as it is a big negative factor? Smaller,lighter models have flashes, why not this one, and why no talk at all about this issue?
In every A7 iteration before this A7 II, no flash was listed as a Con, why all of a sudden has this changed? The D750 it is compared to even has onboard flash. It seems only because Sony has again chosen to not include onboard flash, DPReview has changed their stance on it being a Con, yet in every other A7 model it was a Con.
From looking at the comparisons with the D5300, the only useful thing upgraded is the battery life. They both use the same sensor, and processing engine, so no difference in image quality. They both have the same resolutions, although the high end is listed now as regular instead of extended, which actually means no difference. Buffers are the same, shutter speads are the same. The GPS has been removed, and can't be considered an upgrade, even if people didn't use it. So how can this review state that the D5500 is an upgrade in every respect, when only one useful item has been upgraded? A better grip? There never was a problem with the old grip contributing to shaky images...lolol. This simply looks like a review to sell cameras, not print the real truth. As more time passes DPReview gets less and less reliable.
With this increased body size, why not a single mention of the "No Flash" issue, especially in the conclussions, as it is a big negative factor? Smaller,lighter models have flashes, why not this one, and why no talk at all about this issue?
dougster1979: How disappointing!! I was looking to upgrade my d7000 but i think i'll pass.
The increased sensor size, to 24.2 from 16, and the extra 1.3 crop factor switch are significant improvements from the D7000, and justify the upgrade, but not from already owning the D7100.
The D7200 is a huge upgrade from the D7000, just as the D7100 was.
I don't really see a reason to upgrade from already owning the D7100. Increased buffer, and built in WiFi, as opposed to the plugin module, don't justify spending $1200 for these minor upgrades. There are no significant improvements to justify the cost IMO.
This isn't the end of SI, far from it. This just means they no longer have to pay expensive medical insurance premiums, unemployment benefit payments, retirement programs (if they did in the first place), travel costs, yearly raises, and a few other expenses tied in with having staff employees. The most expensive part of most businesses is employee cost, and it doesn't go down. Hiring independently contracted staff (freelancers) has always been cheaper. In all likelihood the same photographers will still supply images to SI exclusively. The term contributing photographer will be used, instead of staff photographer, just as the bulk of National Geographic stories are credited.
There are lots of highly talented local photographers shooting every sporting event in the world, and a good post production expert can give you most any style you want in your publication if he has raw digital files to work with. I see this as jobs opening up, not going away.
I have bought three lenses in the last year, and just as others are saying the Tamron 150-600, with VR, should have been on this list. It is much better than the Tamron lens that was listed.
This lens opened up a category previously reserved for lenses costing over $6000. It is a superb lens, and I was surprised it was so cheap after using it, and marveling over the image quality. It is putting out pro caliber images, attached to my Nikon D7100, that I have no problem selling. By the way, on my D7100 set to 16megs, that puts the lens crop factor at 1200mm, at F6.4. Try buying that lens for under $10,000, and hand holding it.
Your list looks more like a manufacturer sponsored holiday shopping promotion.