racketman: Amazon will be hoping the appeal by the FAA is unsuccessful assuming they intend to go ahead with their drone delivery service.
In the case of the drone falling out of the sky, in all likelihood the person hit, or finding it just got himself a new toy, not the case with the truck.
For these drones, and the cases I foresee coming up very soon are invasions of privacy issues. Photographers already have shooting boundaries defined by what they can see from a public location standing, but how will this be interpreted with drones that can shoot from higher altitudes, but still not cross the established fence, or property line?
This eliminates any chance in the future to make money with your images on Flickr. I suspect this is fallout from the recent buyout of Getty by the original owners, or a signal of quality fall-off in Flickr uploads.
Don't overlook the term "net revenue". Getty currently takes 70% from its photographers. Couple this with a 50% split after that by EyeEm supplying them, just as a photographer would, and the net revenue gets pretty small.
There are much better avenues out there to sell images through. Getty is banking on a contributor accepting pennies on the dollar, rather than a perceived nothing because they don't know the other higher revenue selling outlets.
For news images, and owned by Corbis Imaging, the other giant in the stock market, is Demotix. When an image is sold by them, Corbis doesn't take a cut off the top, the contributor gets an actual 50% split.
raztec: A well researched comparison of all the different action cameras would be far more useful than a simple hands on review of one camera which can be found by the dozens on the internet.
I personally like the ISaw series of action cams over the GoPro, both for contrast, cost, and battery life. I wish they would be compared here. Mounting hardware is interchangeable.
What a crock of SH*T. Who in their right mind decides after the challenge is long over, and voted on to disqualify all the images he doesn't like? Your crack dealer sold you some bad sh*t.
Get off the drugs dude. You wrongly penalize us for YOUR f*ckup. If you can't keep up then get off the bus dude. Someone should bust your crack pipe so you can at least think straight.
It's interesting that even though the K-3 did good, three times as many people actually bought the Nikon D7100. I have to wonder why it was not rated the best of the year if more people in fact bought it than any other DSLR? More people bought it than those that even wanted to buy the K-3.
If the IQ is up to par, and the VC works good, this will make a nice addition connected to my Nikon D7100, set on the 16mp 1.3 crop setting, essentially making it a 300mm-1200mm at F5-6.3 and then in focus at 2.7meters away, decent macro shooting comes to mind at a good working distance. Now that is a respectable "reach out and grab it" wildlife optic. It even makes it more enticing at 1680mm at F8 with a 1.4 tele-converter attached, although manual focusing hand held might have to be completely reconsidered depending on the VC quality...hehehe.
How to do this without being racist or pornographic will be a real challenge.
If you truly want to correctly analyze the shot, then you should first look at where the natural light is coming from, and what exposure would be needed to keep salvageable highlights in both faces, without using flash, and thus not risking an accident to an eardrum if the cleaner flinched. Using fill flash in this situation was deemed too dangerous from my standpoint.
Shooting one shot from the hip to avoid disturbing the subjects does not always result in tack sharp focus, as this was not a posed shot, and had a high risk of injury to one of the subjects if incorrectly executed.
A close exposure setting in this harsh light situation was more important, to have a chance of salvaging detail in the RAW file. This setting was too good to pass up on my part. As an older working photojournalist I make very limited pp corrections.
What does this pay for usage rights?
Please don't discriminate, crabs are arthropods too, and deserve the same recognition as the wasps get, even though they can't fly...hehehe.
AlanG: I fly RC multirotors. And some of the new brushless gimbal camera mounts are made for GoPros only. That form factor has become kind of an industry standard which makes the setup and use of these gimbals much easier than if they have to accommodate various shapes and weights.
I much prefer the ISaw 2 over the GoPro 3 black, both for battery life, and contrast. The ISaw can interchange with all GoPro mounts, and costs 1/2 the price. There are lots of YouTube videos comparing the two, some even in split screen comparisons. I haven't had a chance to get the newer ISaw 3, but the specs look good. I have never had problems with the ISaw 2. The only non-interchangeable part is the waterproof case itself, as the ISaw's lens is not center mounted like the GoPro, but the cases of each mount on all GoPro adapter mounts. Looking at the two side-by-side the only visual difference is the way the lens sits on the camera, one side mounted, one center mounted. The ISaw 2 also does real good in low light situations.
One category a lot of people fall under, and not addressed in the article, is "The Dreamer". One significant characteristic of the dreamer is a lack of money that can be used for new camera purchases, so for any upcoming purchase for this individual extensive research and comparison is carried out, and contributes to the dreamer name once a selection is decided on, and before the spouse knows anything about it.
The camera selected becomes an obsession, with the buyer going to great lengths to obtain the money needed for this once-in-a-lifetime purchase, and not always with the wife's full approval. A $1000+ is a lot of money for a toy to a lot of people.
The other significant trait about "The Dreamer" is the complete love for what was finally bought. There is no way anything will ever be found, or admitted to, to not be exactly what was wanted, and expected. The choice will be fully defended.
I have met lots of people like this over the years, and I imagine many of you have too.
They only bought the system, they did not develop it. As an educated guess I would say it costs more than the helicopter it is attached to, by quite a bit. I would venture to put that GSS in the 7-8 figure price range, and that might be underpricing it. Way out of reach of everyone, except a very very select few in the movie industry, and then only one, or maybe two for now.
Wolfgang Fieger: Sorry, but...
The average take in a cinema movie is a mere 15 seconds. The longest takes you could watch are in some nature documentation videos, where you could find single takes with a few minutes. I really never ever saw a movie containing takes longer than 5-6 minutes.
So what is this discussion about? This topic has no matter for movie making.
The average take in a movie has nothing to do with the intent of the 30 minute limit, it has to do with the illegal copying of movies inside a theater. Those run a few hours, and that is the recording threat. The average camcorder is low quality for pirating of movies, but the quality of still camera/video recording is superior, to the point of reaching DVD quality, and thus a huge threat to the movie industry. It has nothing to do with the length of a take in making a movie, it is all about recording that movie during its premier showing.
moimoi: Fortunately, there is still room for photojournalism...I disagree with Chung's comments as he suggested that photojournalism is a dying breed. The fact is that photography and video are two complementary medias, but I doubt that one dies for the other. There are simply captured moments, for which video will never be able to replace photography.
This article probably aims at putting some dynamic into the discussion photography vs. video, but nothing more.
If photojournalism has no future, then the world photography as we know today will be very boring indeed.
Chung did not imply photojournalism was dying period, he stated that as a way to make a living photojournalism does not do it by itself, he had to expand his revenue sources to make a living.
This is because everyone has camera with them nowdays, and supplies photos to news agencies. This has greatly reduced the amount of money being paid for the same photograph that was being taken 10 years ago, or in some cases even less.
This first became the case in the stock photography market, and has now flowed over into the photojournalism market. There is no longer the prices being payed for a photo as there used to be, so much so that it is extremely difficult to depend on photojounalism as your sole source of income. That's all he's saying. He's not saying photojournalism is dead, quite the oposite. There are more photojournalists now than there ever were. They just aren't depending on it as their sole source of income.
Richard Katakuri: Can dpreview.com ask Sony when the 5N twin lens kit and Nex-7 will be back in stock please? Silence from Sony is rather frustrating!
Sony's NEX5N, and NEX7 manufactoring plant in Thailand was involved in the flooding, and is not expected to be back in full production until April/May of this year. It was under 2 meters of water for 2 months. That is why all the back orders, and lack of stock. Manufactoring is still shut down completely while they clean up.
Ashley Pomeroy: I sincerely hope it turns out well. I suspect it'll end up like the Wankel Rotary Engine - a niche thing, with fans - but it's nice to have a bit of diversity. I can remember when the possibilities of digital imaging seemed endless, but over time the technology seems to have homogenised, with most of the effort going into the packaging; if this could be made to shoot video the results would be beautiful.
Although I worry that the technology is too complicated to add to an existing imaging system, as a kind of added ingredient, and conversely too esoteric to capture a mass market. I wonder if it could be built into lenses, so that e.g. you could stick a 70-200mm f/2.0 Selective Focus lens on your Canon, or what-have-you?
With as many users Facebook has worldwide I don't see them even having a need to market this to photographers. This is strictly a niche market item aimed exclusively at Facebook users, with a huge market base. If they sell to just 1% of their market then they are multi-millionairs.
They could easily surpass regular point & shoot sales for any camera maker with this technology just by limiting their marketing to Facebook users, that just like Apple users, have to have the latest Facebook technology tool.
Then for those that want a print there is always just taking a screen grab. At this low resolution printing wouldn't be any better than a screen grab anyway if printed bigger than about 2x3.5.