That's a horrible name. Even worse since it was intentional. It's like naming your next camera the CholeraPix, because it's so awesome it's going to be "the $#!+ everyone wants."
MrMojo: By doing this Getty has essentially given up protecting its photographers from unauthorized use of their images in a narrow set of circumstances. At the same time Getty is making it possible to monetize unauthorized use and it appears that its photographers won't get a cut of the pie.
As far as the difference between "commercial" and "non-commerical" use goes, here is my definition of a commercial website: If the website generates income in any form it is commercial, period. Be it advertisements or simply promoting a service, the website is generating income for the website's owner. If the website owner makes money and my images are used on the website, then I am going to license my images for a fee, period.
That's probably Getty's definition too, which will likely result in them harvesting addresses using their player software and sending extortion letters to those people who thought they were using the images properly. ("For just $300 per image, we won't sure you for $10,000 and image for violation our TOS - such a bargain!")
gerard boulanger: Relatively "affordable". 14 stops DR is a little disappointment.
For a 50MP back on a 60x60cm image, I would expect 15-16EV. 14EV is acceptable, but I feel it's silly to hamper a 6x6 camera with such a small sensor. Unless, of course, they're afraid of what all the old hassy lenses look like in the corners.
RStyga: I think Pentax 645D is still the cost/performance king *by far*.
Indeed, if you are doing studio photography, already own Hassy glass, and need a high-mp digital back, this is probably worth the hassle of having to change gear if you're only buying 1-2 backs.
Otherwise, the D800 actually will have better image quality (though at a smaller image size of only 35MP). And pretty much all of the lenses ever produced commercially, if you believe the reviewers, for both sensors are insufficient to maximize overall quality. Neither of which will matter, as the gear is at a level where the photographer's studio and post processing will make more difference than the raw image created by the sensors.
RichRMA: For anyone who thinks a Nikon D800 matches a medium format camera, take a look at the output from the reference camera used in the studio tests on this site.
This is, to medium format, what APS is to 35mm. It is a joke and an affront to the format name. Call me when they start producing sensors which match the original film size.
I'm gonna start taking pictures of my toilet, and people eating food from it, and diving in it.
I'll be rich!!!!!!!!!!!
You joke, but there's somebody out there planning this as an exhibition for the social commentary on the state of [nutrient poor/GMO/wateful] eating practices. (Or, if there isn't, or hasn't yet been, then there will be)
Todd Ka: This the dumbest thing ever featured on DPR.
You must have missed the articles on photographing the olympics on an iPhone and the press release of the Hasselblad Lunar. This is much more enjoyable than either of those.
Looks like I'm due for a new camera this fall. A high shutter actuation, well maintained, clean Nikon D4 to replace my D3. The release of the D3s was, in fact, how I got my D3 four years ago. For $2400, that D3 has been a very nice camera!
mantra: hibut can't understand one thinga friend of mine bought the d4 about 4 or 5 month ago and it was not cheap!!now nikon releases the D4swhat's about the d4? it's already devalued or?thanks
Welcome to the world of modern electronics.
MarkByland: It's because a majority of people don't trust the EVF in mirrorless cameras. It really is that simple. I hate the things. I appreciate the 1:1 visual analog connection to my subjects. It is some thing I depend upon for my photo making. It's not about the "quality" of the image so much as it is about the connection of the photographer with the subject. The EVF is horrible technology and I don't care what "advancements" or "innovations" Company $ (S) or Company F can come up with, it's still a major disconnect and, quite literally, a converted electronic view of the past.
"1:1 visual analog connection to my subjects."
I call bull$#!+. With the space in a Nikon box you can put in a modern EVF with higher resolution than a human eye can see, with better brightness than you can get in an optical VF, with screen updates fast enough to catch any action you can detect *and* have a perfect 100% coverage of the frame. Without the mirror and shutter you can increase the frame rates, reduce the mechanical cost/parts, and increase flash sync rates.
And as a bonus add a useful waist level finder (something I sorely miss from "real" cameras). Personally, just looking through a viewfinder of any type disconnects me from the subject and surroundings.
I like the option for the film canister storage in the grip, but it seems like the emulsion will be on the wrong side in this configuration. Is this what all the kids mean when they talk about "back side illumination"?
Baxter Bad: Read the interview with the photographer on 500px. She doesn't claim to be a poor farm woman to whom a fairy gave an enchanted 5D2.
She was an architect who stopped working to raise her kids, but instead of sitting around letting the husband foot the bill for everything, she put her creativity to work and is making money with her camera only a year and a half after discovering photography.
She refers to the location as a cottage, not a farm. She and her family can afford a country home, not incredibly surprising as they seem to be professionals.
She sketches her photo ideas before having her kids pose for them. This is an art project, not a bunch of snapshots.
She doesn't deny manipulating the images. She states plainly that she does a lot of work in post, but doesn't go into the specific techniques, which she covers in her seminars.
If the photographs were presented as some kind of documentary on rural Russian life, that appears to be the press' fault, not hers.
Thank you for the info. None of it is much of a surprise, just looking at the photos. They have a definite style to them which she has applied in post; maybe a bit heavy for my taste, but really very meticulous work and well done. She has a good eye and a lot of skill which is evident from the final work.
People can disagree whether these match their taste or not, but there are some effective technical and artistic effects used in these photos. I would definitely not be disappointed to have a coffee-table book of my family which was done this way. Then again, I could never afford the time it would take to have a professional create these images.
nidri: The actual sensor size is 44x33mm. Same size as that of the Pentax 645D. So. How long before Pentax (sorry, Ricoh) announces a 645D II featuring this new CMOS sensor?
Which is as close to Medium Format as APS is to 35mm format. The cameras may look the same, but the sensor is a far cry from what I'd consider medium format. Call me back when they put a 6x6 or 6x7 sensor in an OTS digital back.
babalu: "'No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable ...
Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction...'".->Cropping can also be used to remove unwanted details. If nothing is to be added or removed, cropping should not be allowed. It's like telling the truth, but not the entire truth . ;)
I would disagree. There are times, with modern high resolution cameras, when shooting with a wider prime than is necessary is useful to ensure you get all the action. Cropping on a computer, or in a darkroom, is them used to isolate the subject and narrate the story "properly." If I'm not "in a hurry" I always compose in the viewfinder, but if things are happening I'm going to pull out a it and increase my chances. Getting "a" shot is not as good as getting "the" shot, but getting "a" shot will put more food on the table than getting a partial shot.
nikanth: "high frame rate movie mode with the option to apply slow motion effects." is the killer feature
I'd like 240FPS; I'll accept 640x480 at that rate (Though 720p would be nicer)
tee1000: Just one question to those of you looking forward to more small 4k gadgets: What do you need this resolution for?
Digital Pan and Zoom. If the quality is actually good enough to pull a 720p frame from the video (which, let's face it, is enough for most home vids), and you pair it with a decent pan/zoom function in software, you've got perfect 3x digital zoom, pan right/left/up/down, digital stabilization, and rotation/horizon correction to the limit of the frame to get better finished product from a raw shoot. Set it on wide, keep your movements slow, and decide your framing when you finish.
Solution: lose the iPad and go get a Windows tablet and a free dropbox account for the library. Load LR on the tablet, work in the full version (with a real digitizer on some tablets!) when on the road using DB. When you get back home/to the office, just fire up the tablet and use lightroom to move the images to their final storage location on you server or external drive.
Real Lightroom, no importing/exporting catalogs for every outing, and no additional cost.
klopus: What substantially new can mobile LR bring to the table(t) especially for ridiculous $99 per annum?
A link directly to your main LR catalog and seamless synchronization. Convenience and efficient workflow translates to real dollars for working pros, and to more time behind the lens and fewer menial, time consuming tasks at the computer for amateurs.
michael19843: Good idea. D4 owners can now sell their camera on ebay and be disappointed with the new D4S with its 4k feature no-one will ever use. A bit like those FireWire ports on the old Mac's
Hey, don't knock it. That's how I got my D3 for half price the same month the D3s came out - a pro upgraded to the latest and greatest, and I got back into FF/SLR photography.
JordanAT: So what is the effective resolution of the resulting image, and is there/will there be a way to view this on a PC? Is there a standard format which this conforms to.
I ask because I'm often in archtectural structures where having a view like this would be a great memory tool to go along with the dozens/hundreds of detailed photos I take. But looking at the webpage and samples, it seems like it's little more than a low resolution gimmick.
For work stuff, I try and think linger term. I've only run my own shop for 10.5 years, but I have records back to day 1, and all but the first year is digitized. We went all-digital about 5 years ago, and started digitizing the back catalog 2 years ago. Getting everything into a format which has longevity is important - usually either PDF, JPG, or TXT. It's hard to stop and print some stuff (techincal analysis tools) when the answer is already done, but all it takes is letting one software license lapse and the original data is gone.
Not that it's too surprising - it's not as if there's a huge userbase for spherical panaoramas.