Maybe Canon is better after all. Since they have such a huge business compared to Nikon, then can probably afford to let a little extra expense go to camera service and quality control. Cameras are just one aspect of Canon. They can afford to fix things in a timely manner.
Just a guess.
Xentinus: What about D7000 owners?!
You're right, Xentinus. I was a D7000 owner and it happened to me. I had the kit lens and about three months into ownership (having kept the kit lens on) I took a picture in the Caribbean (blue sky) and when I got home I noticed a "dust spot". I was bummed, and then I noticed a lot more of these "dust" spots.
Well, the sensor cleaning mechanism did nothing, a rocket-blower thingy did nothing, and then upon close inspection I realized why the "dust" was stuck to the sensor. It wasn't dust.
I sold it out of frustration, and it was a really good camera otherwise.
Oh well. I have a Canon 6D now that's great. I had considered the Nikon D600 when I was moving to full frame, but that's all oil under the bridge now.
This is good business. I'm sure it's a major hassle for Nikon, especially their first adventure in affordable full frame for the amateur enthusiast and pro on a budget.
Wish I would have seen this coming a week ago so I could buy up some cheap D600s.
lorenzo de medici: As an amateur photographer who won't be selling anything by any method, I have some outsider thoughts with nothing to gain or lose. The professional photography that results from a direct transaction between the client and the photographer won't appear there or on any other similar site. Video is replacing still photography. Print publications are going to disappear, and internet based news, entertainment, or advertising requires video. The sales of stock photos aren't based on absolute quality or specificity, which the professional photographer offers directly to the client. I think they're based on more generic criteria, and there are millions of photographs already out there that meet generic criteria. So they have rightly concluded that the supply will exceed the demand, and this is all they need to pay. Any business would do the same.
I agree. I will only watch a video online occasionally, and hardly ever for news. I don't like it, in fact, when I click on an article and a video pops up. I like reading. Videos bore me.
That said, I do like clips of some personal interest stuff (surfing, practical jokes, etc.). Just not usually.
Fredy Ross: Does anybody know who are there customer base. I can't see photographers buying other photographers work nor can I see outsiders searching through so many photos of the same thing. I joined 550x when it first came to Israel but as soon as they wanted money I became suspect. the same before with 1x. I have uploaded to stock photography sites over the years but without model release or property release there is little money in it. Can somebody enlighten me>
Their customer base is everywhere. It's just hard to notice until you are looking for it. Store ads, brochures, and almost everywhere. If you go to Yahoo. com you will see stock images for news stories (the computers match up the pics with the story, which is why sometimes you see a bad match).
Do a simple Google Image search for nouns that represent ideas, like "honor" or "friendship" and a ton of images will pop up that are for sale from different websites.
I don't know if I'd buy it (mostly because it's a bit pricier than other full frame cameras), but I am very much in admiration of the camera-styling. To clarify, I don't prefer to call it retro styling because I never fully accepted the puffed up, black plastic cameras of the last 25 years. Yes, yes, of course I purchase these big, black cameras and I love them. But the artist, technician, and manly-man in me says that a camera should look like a camera, and the Nikon DF screams real camera in styling.
I also know my point of view is mostly superficial and that if a camera can do the same or more in a puffy, plastic body, then I should be smart and not throw away a few extra hundred dollars for something that appeals to my eyes.
Function is a priority, but anyone who says style doesn't matter is not being honest with himself. Style is why one guy is able to score more women than an unstylish man of equal wealth and beauty (or lack of the former or latter). Style matters.
gingerbaker: So, how much of a drawback would it be to hold a Nikon D800 in portrait orientation and take two or three overlapping shots for a panorama, which would easily equal or exceed this $34,000 back at least as far as resolution?
A $30,000 premium for avoiding a second click in the field and three clicks of a mouse seems to me a more obscene bargain than a Hasselblad Luna.
Do you think anyone could tell the difference in the files in a blinded comparison?
Blind test simply means (in the case of photography) that the viewer is blind to the information. In other words, he or she views an identical image at the same size (say, an 8x10 glossy printed on the same printer) from two different devices (or combination of devices).
The two 8x10 prints are given to the viewer, and the viewer knows only that different equipment was used for each photo. The viewer decides which one is better or is asked to guess which one was made by which device.
information is revealed after the viewer makes a judgement or decision.
It's like Pepsi or Coke. You hide the cans but the taster can still see two cups of soda. He or she tastes them and decides which one is better OR tries to guess which one is Coke or Pepsi.
Then they find out if they are correct.
It's annoying how cameras and cars are often lacking a price tag ("too low to display"). Yes, I realize the manufacturer is causing this. So annoying. Some sites have you sign in and put it in your cart before knowing the price. This is a ridiculous practice that needs to end yesterday.
I had the Nikon D7000 for a little less than a year. It had, like the D600, a problem with oil on the sensor. I was quite disappointed. It was the first time in about six years of digital photography that I ever had to consider a dirty sensor. prior to that I was using Rebels and a Canon 50D. I never had dust or oil problems.
Is this something that Nikon has worked out on the follow-up models?
What some folks call retro others call classic. I never liked the design when the original rebels came out and, like golf clubs, the trend was to make them as big and plasticy as possible. A solid 35mm camera didn't need to look pretty. The features should evolve first, and form can follow if needed.
Any serious photographer is going to pick function over form any day. The 80s saw a bad trend, in my opinion, toward plastic and poofy. Just like golf clubs.
Some things aren't retro, but classic and eternal, like hardwood floors, granite, wood and steel, and a solid, metal, 35mm camera.That said, however, I won't pay more for it based on a classic look. I'll pay for function at the best price.
But that's just me.
There seems to be an error on the part of DP Review or mine in regard to the touch control for focus and shutter. Here's what DP Review says: "There are four touch buttons at the corners of the screen, allowing you to change exposure mode, call-up the onscreen Q menu, enable/disable touch focus and touch shutter, and magnify the display."
The segment that says "enable/disable touch focus and touch shutter" might be inaccurate. The button does, in fact, turn the touch shutter off and on, but I don't think there is any way to disable touch focus.
I would love to be wrong, as I really want to be able to put the camera on center-point focus (like any other DSLR) and not worry about it shifting on me when I accidentally touch the screen in the wrong place.
I love the touch focus as a feature, but not as a mandatory feature. I've always used center-point focus and want that option. I don't think it exists on the EOS-M.
There are better photography apps than the standard filter, frame stuff that everyone else has.
Artstudio is a wonderful app that can do a lot. It has layers, clone and healing brush (that are real, not automated), adjustments for colors, and much more. It's extremely functional.
I think most people forget about the art apps because they don't think of them as photography apps, but they work great.
Artstudio is the closest I've gotten to Photoshop. Those other photography apps are really more about filters. Their algoritms are simple compared to real art apps.
They should have called it the Samsung Tuit. That way people will say, "Sooner or later I'll get a round Tuit."
My previous post is tongue-in-cheek, but the event is very real.
Adobe said the Creative Cloud is a year-long committment. But since I signed up via live chat with an Adobe rep, I believe I was mislead. I even appealed and was denied through the appeal process.
To require a year-long committment shows me that they don't have enough confidence in their product that you'll want to stay with them.
I'll continue buying stand-alone software in the future. I don't want a subscription-based service, especially one that locks you in for a set amount of time. That's just desperation, in my opinion.
Plus, all I really want is Photoshop Elements. I use Canon's FREE software for my raw files (it's almost as good as Lightroom and just as fast).
I actually quit my Creative Cloud membership months ago, but Adobe doesn't seem to be handling our breakup very well. She told me I had a year-long committment that was in the terms of service, but I signed up via live chat, and was told differently. I was told that if I quit in the first thirty days I'd get a full refund, and then after that I could quit anytime (but wouldn't get refunded for the first month of usage beyond thirty days).
Again, this was during live chat.
Well, when we broke up, she laid all that on me and I said, "Look, it's not me. It's you." I wasn't happy with the service and, frankly, wasn't using it enough to justify the expense.
So she said I owed her alimony. She said I had to give her fifty percent (half) of the money for the remaining year-long contract. I told her I was signed up by a representative and wasn't told of the year-long committment.
Now she won't leave me alone. I get emails, bills, etc.
Adobe: Leave me alone! It's over.
I like Instagram. It's currently the only social network I use, but it struggles with my DSLR files and crashes constantly when I try to work with them.
I sometimes shoot in Jpeg from my DSLR and the files transfer wirelessly to my phone (Eye-Fi card). Then I can crop them for instagram, but instagram gets hung up, due to the size or resolution of the jpegs. Then it crashes.
I use my Ipad for some photo editing (and obviously some storage to show pics), and I have the Eye-fi card that loads the pictures to my ipad or iphone from my Canon almost as quickly as I take them.
But for editing photos, a true desktop or laptop is still far, far superior to any tablet on the market. It's not even close.
Using a DSLR I'll shoot raw, put it in my computer and I can make numerous layers and more to get the final look I want.
Tablets are useful for photography, but they cannot stand alone for serious photographers. A true computer (for lack of a better term) is required.
I don't get why they would think a screen curved at the edges is a solution to anyone's problem. Most innovations come from looking at consumer needs/wants and responding before the competition.
Consumers want more battery life, easier ways to charge, durability, and as functional of software as possible (I'd like all tablet-type devices and phones to be able to handle the computing that is done by a laptop or desktop.
I can even see the advantage of having a screen on both sides of the phone (provided the protection is there, such as a lip around the edge).
But a curved screen doesn't seem necessary to me unless it's on a device that really needs it, like a globe, a building column, etc.
I like many of the new features of ios 7, but what really bums me out is the graphics. Why the flat, 1990s graphics? Everyone is onboard this trend for some reason. Adobe Photoshop, Windows 8, ios7, and even this very webpage DPreview connect.
What happened to textures? Iphone's compass used to look like an actual compass, but now it looks like a spedometer from a 1989 Nissan Maxima.
Is this a dumbing-down of graphics? Are they easier and cheaper, or is it really what the public wants?
I just don't get it.