rallyfan: Journalists are struggling for relevance.
Example: I cannot think of a more newsworthy or in fact important picture than "The Blue Marble" and that was taken neither by journalists nor photo pros nor artists.
There is a possibility that is being neglected, and that is that many in the media, at all levels within their respective organizations, may be self-aggrandizing imbeciles.
Consider the terrible Asiana airline crash at SFO. The quickest coverage came from mobiles. The traditional media then replayed the same images on a loop for hours whilst speculating to fill time and sell commercials. When a local TV station finally decided to break new info regarding the story, an entire newsroom full of people plus their management apparently didn't see anything wrong with telling viewers that "Wi Tu Lo" and "Sum Ting Wong" were among the crew...
So this is where we're at then: Privateer photos for news, old style media for comedic relief.
The media have gotten what they deserve.
Your example is not very accurate. The astronauts are in fact trained photographers. One of their main mission is to capture images from space. And they do a great job at it. Take a look at this: http://petapixel.com/2012/11/06/a-talk-by-nasa-astronaut-donald-pettit-on-doing-photography-in-space/
Yes it's a new era. But all the cost cutting from the newspapers will bite them in the ass. Of course a Tweet can beat even online news in our days. But journalism is about well documented facts. Most of what you read in the first hours on the internet is not news. It's only roumors. So yes people would pay to read the real facts, well documented, also visually documented. Cutting down the costs, loosing the visual impact and maybe soon the writting quality makes the payed newspapers ( printed or online) irrelvand in front of any other free blog that post an instagram image. Who will pay when they can get the same thing for free ?!
xarcex: Bold move! Good on you Sun-Times, good on you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a photo is just a photo and, of course, a bad workman blames his tools, so if you're a good photographer you can even use a disposable camera and you'll get good results. People should stop caring so much about insignificant labels, such as "mobile photography" and should start focusing on actual results. DSLRs will never beat neither versatility nor practicality of smartphones.
Times are changing. I'm just saying...
I would like to see xarcex report from a war zone with his Iphone :))
DSiegfried: It does NOT support all the features of the 40mm STM lens. Specifically, it doesn't support continuous autofocus in video mode. If Canon knew they had this lens in the pipeline, WHY did they not include the Hybrid AF in the 5D3?? What is the point of a full-frame lens with continuous autofocus in video if NO FULL-FRAME BODY SUPPORTS THE FEATURE??
Because no serious videographer will use autofocus. The 5d mark III is aimed at profesionals. Both photographers and movie makers. So a feature like autofocus during movies is normal on entry level bodies, but not on this. Autofocus in movie mode uses Contrast detection and it is not possible to have a smooth focus that will even get close to professional expectations. You can use a USB follow focus to focus easily, it let's you do focus switches with the exact speed you want and much more...