To those of you complaining about access being an unfair advantage: Access is very challenging to gain, and a photographer who goes to great lengths to get access deserves to have that considered as a positive, not a negative.
I'm a semi-professional photographer (meaning that I have a day job that really pays the bills and earn extra income on the side with portrait work occasionally--mostly to pay for equipment). That said, one of my goals is to break into the entertainment industry down here in Atlanta (film and television are growing quickly). I'd like to do production stills, interviews/photo shoots and more. Getting access is very difficult. I can't just walk onto a set with all those clearly posted "no trespassing" and "authorized only" signs everywhere.
So, if I continue to work at it and network, I might someday work my way into the business. If I get a good photo of a celebrity, some might claim I had it too easy because of my access.
Beautiful photos. Another person working hard to reveal the "small" miracles we so often overlook. Amazing photographs, and admirable patience.
It looks good, but the panning shots were funky (wavy). Looks ideal for more up and down movement and only a little side-to-side. Panning causes distortion.
It's time to put a screen on both faces. The back of the phone is valuable real estate. Get to it, phone makers.
I'm looking forward to smartphones without a dead back.
In other words, put a screen on the back of the camera for more mundane things (time, temperature, better selfies, etc.).
It seems that both faces should be used.
I noticed the lighting is poor as well (someone else mentioned it). The flash is being shot straight at them, when it would be better to shoot using two strobes from the sides (to avoid the reflection into the camera, such as the image of the umbrella and strobe in the eye of the lady in the first example). I think it limited detail.
Lighting is so difficult and easy, both at the same time. It's a funny element, but it's the key ingredient in photography (hence the name: photos graphos).
Like I mentioned earlier, it might be that my monitor (new) can't pick up the detail intended, but from my limited experience in photography (just a few years) I don't see these photos as being that much sharper than what someone else could have done with far less work.
Maybe he left the IS on. ;)
I zoomed in and saw detail, but not as much as I expected. Is that due to the limitations of the monitor, perhaps?
Sharp? Yes. As sharp as the article suggests? Possibly not.
Seriously, though: Some private and/or commercial drones are small and light while others are quite large. It's easy to put a small, reasonably high-quality digital camera on a model airplane and get some pictures. Also, the small quadcopters can be quite safe as well (many have propellers that won't cut through the skin; people pluck them right out of the air with bare hands.
However, there are also larger helicopters and planes that weigh several pounds. These can be quite hazardous if they fall onto a busy interstate or into a crowd. A ten or fifteen pound helicopter falling out of the sky can kill a person or lead to a dramatic multi-car accident.
I think regulation is fair for these heavier aircraft, and regulation for all model aircraft near an airport is fair for regulation as well.
From my experience with RC airplanes, anything under two pounds is considered a park flyer. They can be flown anywhere and are quite safe. They fall and landl lightly when they fail.
I ventured into flying drones with cameras and learned it's extremely dangerous...
...to my wallet.
Biowizard: There are already many, established, available and reliable "gimble" mounts for GoPro - what does this one have to offer that is any different?
Biowizard: You made the claim so you it's on you to provide evidence. That's just the way it works. :)
I think it's a cool idea. I hope he is successful with it. I don't think I'll buy one as I don't have a need, but maybe someday.
It could be good for remote-control airplanes and helicopters as well, and even large kites.
My only suggestion is that he needs to re-do the sound on his promotion video. It's very inconsistent and sounds a bit amateur. But maybe that's not important for kickstarter. I'm not sure.
Best of luck.
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.