pbailey4: I am afraid that as long as it has a Sony name on it then it will remain 2nd division. Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Leica, Olympus all produced outstanding 35mm film camera systems aimed at the highest end of the professional markets with little or no commercial success. Its all about brand. And yes I have used one and most of the range as part of my work - its a fine camera.
"It's all about brand" >> Congratulations, you are every manufacturer/advertiser's dream.I acknowledge brands have some degree of appeal, almost no one is 100% immune from this. I guess it's somewhat justifiable, since certain brands have earned their prestige consistently cranking out excellent products through decades.That said, we should always try to be brand agnostic and not let the name misguide or interfere with our judgement.Is *this product actually good? If the answer is yes, they can stick a Fisher-Price label on it. I'll buy it anyway.(*this = whatever)Needless to say, brand loyalty makes sense if you're committed to a specific system, already own a bag a nice lenses, love a certain blend of features such as jpeg color rendition/UI/ergonomics.Otherwise, drooling over a name is just pointless and somewhat childish. When did camera manufacturers turned us into Pavlov's dogs?
Dvlee: Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.
I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook until facebook clarifies its privacy and usage policies and removes any clauses that allow them to resell the images.
While many will say that there is no evidence that facebook is actually reselling images, through the user agreement we have all granted fb the right to do so if it should choose to expand it's business in that direction.
Given the number of images that are posted on fb, such a move would be devestating to stock photographers , and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use.
The internet and companies like facebook and Google are always changing. Even though they are not actively engaged in reselling, the potential to do so exists.
Dvlee, I find your speech more than reasonable, but the point is: times change.Just look at music industry... the "industry" part is becoming increasingly less relevant (with the notable exception of famous artists who apparently still need old style mainstream support), while unknown musicians are now able to promote themselves through the internet.Most of them are inevitably miserable wannabes... but some aren't, so all things considered it's a good thing if we all have the chance to express ourselves.I understand why professionals (photographers, musicians) are so worried: less income, more competition.Well, if you ask me it's good news.The only evident downside may be the lower quality average (as you said, the market is being flooded with cheap content)... that's a sad and undeniable phenomenon, however I agree with Martyvis: professionals just have to do better.Pros usually outperform amateurs, amateurs sometimes prove to be as good as pros. It's a win-win situation!
Facebook doesn't force its users to upload pictures, let alone valuable hi-res pictures... if someone does it's a deliberate choice, a.k.a. free will.Besides, "stock photographers, and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use" usually don't upload their precious stuff on FB, unless they'd applied recognizable watermarks to their works in the first place.Again: free will. Therefore, IMHO "expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of"... whining people to complain even more than before.