sh10453: I do not believe for a split second that these pictures are "selfies" taken by a wild monkey.
Of course I don't believe that this wild animal is suddenly becoming a technical guru, capable of operating a modern-day camera, and becoming a challenger to Ansel Adams.
Mr. Slater brings his reputation 100 meters below ground level with such a ridiculous story.It's amazing to see so many naive folks who actually believed this BS!
As for the copyrights, and since Slater had brought it onto himself, the copyrights belong to the monkey, the wild animal monkey, that is!
Not true. There are two.
Stu 5: Although copyright on the close up photo is in dispute. The wider shot is not. It is interesting to see that DPR do not appear to have copyright credited the photo as belonging to David Slater/ Carter News Agency underneath it. Also the photo appears to be on the DPR server. Have DPR paid image rights to use the photo to the Carter News Agency as have news organisations like the The Telegraph and Daily Mail?
Your link doesn't support your claim. Wikimedias has both images
"one of the monkeys he was photographing grabbed his camera and proceeded to take hundreds of photos of itself. "
"Have DPR paid image rights to use.."
Why should they? The images are free to use:
"Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim, and that 'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable. "
webrunner5: Wow, The Sony 7s really has a nice look to it on the comparisons. Pretty had to beat large pixels. That is why I still have my original Canon 5D.
The GH4 looks sort of like early Nikon cameras. Pretty much needs a lot of sharping to get it up to snuff. The 7s almost looks Sigma like. Well done Sony.
How do you make your link " common output size and the difference is less clear-cut." clickable?
No moire (serious problem in video) on A7s even compared to GH4
Just same time as Phillip Boom reviews A7s
nerd2: Why they are still making long-flange (mirrored) version of their camera instead of going full mirrorless?
I would rather see AF tests on F2.8 70-200 lenses than other weird 1.2 lenses which will is be so lens dependent and disputed. Every camera maker has 70-200 F2.8 lens, and that is the lens that must be used for AF tests
What lenses are you lacking in A mount? This isn't E-mount camera. Care to list all the "missing" lenses?
SammyToronto: Typical example of a company charging an exorbitant price for a camera not based on merit, but because they can. They were one of a kind in the market, so, to Sony, that meant ripping off their customers is fair game. Thank God for Panasonic, and competition in general!
SammyToronto, let us know of a company that doesn't gouge prices of a unique product that does not have a direct competition in the market.
List them here:
FuhTeng: Being able to record 4k video is something nice to put on an advertisement but what's the point? Unless you're ridiculously close to a large TV you'll never see the advantage over 1080p, and 4k video makes enormous files.
Guimar, a still grab from video is never as good as photo taken in still mode (lower DR due to higher readout speed, rolling shutter, compression artifacts).
Samaistuin, so you can't mention the fact that SammyToronto was not compelled to buy it? Great sense of debate.
It's a free world. A company is free to set a price, and buyers are free not to buy it.
pedroboe100: I would still get a K5iiS and a Tamron superzoom lense and it would not cost that much. Don't care about video that much...
yallo, K-5 is an APSC camera (not FF) so F6.3 lens on APSC would be equal to F9 or F10 lens on FF.
RX10 is indeed faster than APSC camera with super zoom
"I don't believe you were being forced to buy one."
Exactly. He is implying it's "cheating" when no one was holding a gun on his head to buy a camera.
It's free market.
Also, $300 drop in price -- after 8 months -- is not really that big. Canon dropped 6D prices more than that after few weeks, as I remember last year
arbuz: "The point is that downscaling produces more detailed, sharp and noise-free image. "
But isn't RX10/FZ1000 already doing full sensor readout then downscaling in the camera?
oselimg, is K5 better at low light by 3 stops? I don't think so. According to dxomark, the difference is 1.3 stops. Not enough to compensate for F6.3 vs F2.8 difference at tele end.
oselimg: it's amazing that some people even present this huge price cut for a new model as "smart move". It sounds like coming from a Sony executive trying divert attention from the fact how much the consumer was about to be ripped off. It would have been a dumb thing not to reduce the price against a very strong competition named FZ1000 but, one can hardly call it as smart. Or perhaps most of comments here are written by "brand lovers". Yes, love is a blinding thing but we mustn't fall in love with big, multinational companies.
"it's amazing that some people even present this huge price cut for a new model as "smart move"."
New model? RX10 was released 8 months ago. It surprising that it was still selling for $1300 after that long.
Some cameras drop by $300 within a month (take K5 II as an example).
Tamron superzoom is significantly slower lens 2 to 4 stops slower (vs constant F2.8 on RX10). Much larger overall package too, and lens optically quality would be worse
G1Houston: Just tell you how much SONY has been overpricing its products ...
Yeah, like the cheapest FF A7 camera that is selling for under $1500.
Or A3000, the cheapest ILC camera at launch, period.
Or A6000 that is 2 times cheaper than direct competitors from Fuji.
RX10 has been out for 8 months, and there was no competition to it. Why should have they priced it cheaper?
mosc: The Sony makes so much more sense now at $1k than priced like a high end APS-C with 18-135 lens. Now, it's a price savvy competitor with a rich feature set and a competitive price.
16-135mm APSC (not 18-135mm)
Only 2 mm, but some people think 24mm is big deal.