Yes, I believe Slater should be allowed to claim the copyright. If Wikimedia's argument is correct, then corporate copyright ownership should *also* be questioned as the construct of "person" is completely artificial and strictly a legal one - there is no individual behind a corporate copyright claim, only a legal entity that exists in paperwork. If multi-million dollar corporations can claim a copyright for works created in their name, by (sometimes thousands) of other individuals, why can't an individual claim copyright for this single work 'created' in his name (without the input of the photographer, Slater, the images would not exist - Slater created the opportunity via the camera, the placement, the editing AND the public posting).
Again, it looks like money allows the system to work one way - protect the monied construct - but hurt the individual.
steelhead3: Too bad pocket wizard didn't include the most advanced cameras being produced today.
In regards to mirrorless support from PocketWizard, don't hold your breath. I called LPA Designs (manufacturer of the PocketWizard line) in regards to if/when they would develop m43-compatible products and I was told that I should contact Panasonic / Olympus to get them involved in order to reduce LPA's development difficulties.
According to reports, LPA is stretched somewhat thin with layoffs last year due to slow business. After the phone discussion I was left with a feeling that LPA is not going to go out of its way to push any corners of (any) envelope - they just don't have the resources and aren't too interested in creating them either. I have begun contacting alternative companies, more 'scrappy' and up-and-coming (Phottix and Pixel, for example) in an attempt to drum up interest instead.
Congratulations to Hasselblad for finally making a product that their customers wanted a number of years ago.
If only other companies would actually listen to their customers. Eventually.
I just realized that you gave this camera a Gold Award, 82% rating, without even touching on - or testing - the flash system. Flash is a notorious weak spot of compact / superzoom cameras (past owner) and you didn't test the built-in flash performance nor, especially, external flash or even better when used in conjunction with the (quoted) wireless system.
Is it pre-flash TTL? Independent built-in sensor? Power levels or compensation available? How is daylight fill flash performance - is the ratio pleasing or adjustable? Does the wireless system actually WORK (as advertised)??
I believe these are good questions that a potential buyer will hit up against - at the LEAST the daylight fill performance.
David J B.: I've taken better photos through my car window.
I hate to say it, but there is NOTHING special about that shot - it is the grand hall from George Eastman's personal home, now a museum. Take the tour and you, too, can take a photo just like it
I still find it laughably ironic on how many reviewers complain about the locked exposure compensation dial...when it was Nikon's standard for over 40 years. And just one of the reasons why I DIDN'T buy a Nikon film SLR.
When the locked exposure dial was Nikon's standard, everyone thought it was "normal"; now that Nikon no longer uses the lock, everything thinks that is "normal" - in other words, everyone accepts what is most commonly handed to them [by Nikon] and learn to frown on the alternative.
While everyone here is whining and moaning like small children in regards to their favorite pet peeve of the moment, I'd like to take the time to compliment the writer for posting, IMHO, the nicest in-the-field test shots I've seen in along while on this site (in the Shooter's experience section). They show wonderful examples of some of the extra DR and JPEG processing available and are interesting, colorful and dynamic to boot.
Thank you for brightening up what could otherwise be a very to-the-point article.
dinoSnake: "In Europe, DSLR sales are strong, especially among women. So maybe using a DSLR is a more of a status symbol for someone wanting to become a better photographer, compared to mirrorless."
No, really? America "Bigger is Better" attitude still exist? What a shocker!
As a person who lives in a huge city, and works extremely close to the tourist district, it is extraordinarily funny for me to see so many dSLR users out there...taking pictures by holding their cameras out in Live View and watching the rear LCD as they snap. They aren't even using the supposed dSLR's greatest advantage! They simply bought the name brand on the tin, received their peer acceptance and went blindly on their way.
If Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung want mass market acceptance of their mirrorless products it would help if the mass market can actually GET their products. Here in America almost NO mass market retailer have mirrorless cameras on retail display - FAILURE!
You missed the point of the article.
SLR is NOT the "best gear that users need" in all markets. Mirrorless is very strong in Asia and, therefore, as the story points out, only in America and Europe do people rigidly adhere to SLR use in the belief of "better". But Nikon's mirrorless development is incredibly weak, the Nikon 1 system did not hit the central market target due to a decision not to challenge their SLR sales too much, and they are paying for it.
Americans still stick to the "bigger is better" mantra, even as the Sony A7 series and more advanced technology is applied to mirrorless to address any performance disadvantage against SLR designs. And yet, as the rest of the world embraces the newer technology of mirrorless, America stands firm.
Just a Photographer: No Nikon! You need to innovate - Evolving is just NOT enough!
Start listening to your customers and look at your competitors.Some do some cool stuff that you leave alone...Soon you will be left behind. By competition and your userbase.
That is probably not going to happen. Nikon has a proven track record of being rather *conservative* - forget the corporatespeak. Nikon has always moved in a slow direction, protecting their "legacy" of SLR products
"...and I worry about the negative trend in DSLR that we've seen recently and about how that will develop"
A proactive statement would have been "we are planning advanced systems that extend, and move beyond, the dependence on SLR designs to grow our market for the future", but they didn't say that. Protect their SLR production and SLR name recognition at all cost, that's Nikon, not innovate much.
"In Europe, DSLR sales are strong, especially among women. So maybe using a DSLR is a more of a status symbol for someone wanting to become a better photographer, compared to mirrorless."
ArcaSwiss: I pay $1500 per year to maintain one seat of Pro/Engineer CAD software. I get about three new releases per year. But if I stop paying maintenance it still works. I'm not a renter. It makes me a lot if money so it's a good value.
At least, then, people would have a choice: stay subscribed and continue with the updates, or cancel and stay at the level where you currently are. Adobe has made it an "all or nothing" proposition: you have no choice, either it is our way - pay us continuously, forever - or no way at all.
And then they wonder why "World + Dog" (to use the British saying) is telling them to "Stuff off!"
razadaz: All those who are running to embrace the new subscription model, just because it suits then now, should take note of the thousands of loyal customers Adobe has let down and deserted.
Heck, I think it's more important that they take note of the fact that they will be paying whatever Adobe asks for the rest of their LIVES. 90 days after you stop paying you no longer have access to your own work - Adobe completely pulls the plug on ALL functionality of Adobe products, you get NOTHING!
Biowizard: I haven't paid any money to Kodak for several years. They sent a bailiff round to take all my 35mm transparencies away so I can never see them again. And now that Kodak has gone bust, I can't even get my slides back by paying.
Twilight Zone? Or simply the New Reality. Thanks, Adobe, NOT.
What you don't understand is that in some Adobe products - InDesign for example - you don't HAVE a choice of file format to save your projects to. In InDesign you have INDD files - period.
So if you create a project using ID CC, then must save in INDD format, then stop your subscription, you have...nothing. Nada. ZILCH. You can't open your project and NOTHING on the planet can, either. You are 100% a complete hostage to Adobe's subscription policy.
Lea5: You don't need a poll to see what people concerns. It is very easy.People want to have a CHOICE! They want choose the way they want to go. Left or right. This is how we grew up in a western world, a world with choices. They don't want a corporate communism. They are concerned with the way the corporations lead the system with their unholy friends at wall street anyway. They promised us a brave new world with "all the choices you have." " Be all you can be." It's all a big lie! You have no choice! They give you just a liitle more space until the leash ends. People are fed up that's why the response was so fierce.It's easy for Adobe. Run both systems, boxed AND CC and nobody will say a thing anymore.
Or, conversely, simply offer some type of alternative on Creative Cloud's licensing:
a) When your subscription ends your software goes into "demo" mode, you can read but not write files. At the least you can still access your own work.
b) After a set pay-in on the subscription model, if you terminate the subscription your software continues to function. You will no longer get CC benefits such as added functionality (ending the subscription shuts functions down) and will no longer get updates.
I think the main complaints fall into a story:
- pay in- have nothing to show for it at the end of the term- can't even access my own files if/when I terminate- all of the aforementioned means that the money you are charging for this idea is far too high, considering that upon termination I have NOTHING, not even the ability to view my own work!
HappyGuy: Personally: I will stay with the version of PS I already own... no more updates (only hope LR does not go in this direction!).
Professionally: my employer will NOT pay a monthly fee for my (and my 6 coworkers) software, so I guess that means no more updates for the full CS6 bundle.
This is very sad.
Most print houses want high-res PDF flight-ready output anyway, nowadays. Sure, you can send your full INDD project but it is larger, does not included embedded fonts (must be included in the preflight run and then fully packaged), takes time to either FTP up or mail a disk as it is too large to email, and then must have manhours spent to check and convert. A PDF is simply more convenient for them now and is more commonly preferred.
TomC601: Third, "I'm a casual/hobbyist/amateur user and make little or no money from Photoshop. I can't afford the $240/year to keep updated but would still like the latest software." Adobe could charge these users a minimal monthly fee ($5/month seems affordable) and then offer upgrades on a per upgrade price. Then this user can opt for the upgrades they choose without it costing them what they can't afford. (BTW, I would fit into this category.) Thus Adobe would be getting some ongoing revenue in this model and stands to keep good faith with their customer base.
Let me know what you think.
So now they have created a condition where a portion of that pre-training circumstance will be lost, lost due to the lack of affordability. Home and SoHo users will drop out, schools will switch training programs as their accountants realize that they can no longer afford Adobe's new per-seat / month licensing scheme.
So what happens? The constantly growing customer base that they have enjoyed for YEARS will now dry up, that's what. If schools do not train for Photoshop or InDesign, what will the companies who hire do? Over time, switch to what the market is being trained for. If home and SoHo users no longer feel they are being supported, they will form new alliances of user groups to support alternative products.
All this, and more, benefits everyone BUT Adobe. Corel is already jumping on the idea, with blog posts pretty much saying 'We're not grabbing your money (yet)! Come to us!'
The market is already starting to move.
Yes, indeed, that is probably Adobe's (read: probably more the CEO's personally created) scheme.
The *problem* is the ignorant short-sightedness of it all.
Adobe is a market leader BECAUSE a vast majority of people use their products in a vast majority of purposes. What benefit to them is this? A large user and knowledge base - Adobe products are trained for in schools, home and SoHo users are fluent in using the products, etc.
This not only creates a knowledge base for current users - "How can I...?", just ask, someone will know - it creates a reoccurring customer base as companies who hire employees get a pre-trained workforce. In many industries, Adobe product knowledge is fully expected as a condition of employment.
TLD: For a single product user, the price is definitely too high, but people using the Creative Suite, and who keep up with updates, are going to save money. If you own any CS6 product, it will cost you $240 to try the full CC package for a whole year. If you wait till mid July to sign up, that gives you the maximum time to try any future updates, and enjoy all the added value of the Creative Cloud.
If at the end of that time you don't like, and think $600 a year too much to stay with it, then you still have all your perpetual licenced products install to go back to. That just doesn't seem so bad to me. How much do you people pay for Cell phone planes, Broadband, mobile data for your iPads, cable TV etc.? How long would it take you to earn $600? A day?
I would be more worried about future access to any projects I create as a professional than short-term benefits, if I were truly "professional".
Which I am.
The idea that one must continue to pay in order to access one's own work...borders on insulting. I don't need updates, but I need access.
Prognathous: Corel's response:
"For the foreseeable future, we will continue to sell the box version"
Adobe's competition are probably toasting themselves for their newly-found fortunes - their worst competitor has just self-imploded.
Who could ask for anything more?!
40daystogo: After reading many posts on this DPR and photo.net, it strikes me that most people haven't grasped the long term implications. Here are some common dis-illusions:
-- People who think they can use CS6 for 10 years, since it meets their needs. Well, not if you buy the next model DSLR that's not supported by CS6.
-- Each time Apple upgrades their OS every year, it breaks many previous versions of software, so if OSX 10.9 breaks CS6, then everyone is stuffed, or can't get new Macs.
-- It also hasn't struck most people that they're going to be paying this monthly fee till they die, that is, if they want to access their Photoshop files, created with the newest software, even after retirement.
"Each time Apple upgrades their OS every year, it breaks many previous versions of software, so if OSX 10.9 breaks CS6, then everyone is stuffer, or can't get new Macs."
Hmm. That seems to be a conscious choice by Apple, for CS2 for Windows, developed in 2004, works perfectly well (with the exception of the Acrobat print distiller) on Windows 7 x64.
So planned obsolescence seems to be a built-in Apple "feature".