Classic Adobe combination of ignoring the questions and not listening to people who actually have bought their software. Everyone loses from this. Hackers will find a way to circumvent their process and people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to.
Shoot foot.Reload.Shoot foot.Reload etc
Pentax did a similar thing or the K-X and other earlier models. It's not ground breaking but it is popular with some people. I had a white K-X which was a lot less threatening to some people. I was able to take photos of my kids in playgrounds without people hassling me, whereas if you bring out a big black camera people tend to get suspicious.
The K-30 is a great camera whatever colour you buy it in.
Jun2: I am surprised that Getty images didn't put the condition that the guy can't start a competing service before buying the istockphoto.
I'll reply to you what I replied below to the person who asked the same question less than half a page down. Bruce sold it a number of years ago and the non-compete agreement has expired. Which isn't to say Getty isn't taking it's pound of flesh. They have cancelled the iStock accounts of at least two contributors. One was a former iStock employee who's non-compete had also expired. More significantly was Sean Locke who has sold around 1 million images on iStock and had done little more than complain about Getty's practices re Google Drive and be loosely involved the FB group associated with Stocksy. Here is his blog post about it. http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/
LensBeginner: Can't find the "Content License Agreement", the "Standard pricing and payment policies" and there's a note that says " [NTD: This will have to be prepared.]".
Still not fully mature yet, it seems.
As an amateur interested in getting a little money to fund lenses, with as little fuss as possible, and if it doesn't work out who cares, I'm quite interested.
Many seasoned stock shooters with multi-thousand image portfolios at other stock sites have been turned away already. They have a "look" and production quality they are striving for and the bar is very high. If you want to cut your teeth on stock and earn some lens money you're better off building the skills and a portfolio and somewhere like Shutterstock or Dreamstime and then applying to Stocksy. You could try iStockphoto as well, but be warned Getty is trying it's best to give you nothing (or as little as possible) and take all your work. Look into the Google Drive deal referenced above if you want to see what I mean.
Ulfric M Douglas: Surely when he sold his company they got him to sign an agreement to NOT compete with them with a new business?Anyway, TWO founders (count them) with huge foreheads is a great start!I would certainly join this thing if that was my thing.
Bruce sold it a number of years ago and the non-compete agreement has expired. Which isn't to say Getty isn't taking it's pound of flesh. They have cancelled the iStock accounts of at least two contributors. One was a former iStock employee who's non-compete had also expired. More significantly was Sean Locke who has sold around 1 million images on iStock and had done little more than complain about Getty's practices re Google Drive and be loosely involved the FB group associated with Stocksy. Here is his blog post about it. http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/
Half a car!http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html?view.hlookat=108.7207&view.vlookat=46.9770&view.fov=3.8609&imarkerath=108.7207&imarkeratv=46.9770
Prognathous: No articulated screen... bad move Pentax.
Pentax has consistently said they wont put in an articulating screen because it compromises the weather resistance of the body.
AbrasiveReducer: Pentax' already excellent lenses have just gotten sharper with the AA filter removed. It's a shame they charge extra to leave something out but there's serious potential for good jokes. "How much would it cost if you don't practice AND you don't play?" "You couldn't afford it". -- Chico Marx.
If the implementation is like the D800E, they actually put another piece of glass in to counteract the effect of the AA filter rather than removing the AA filter. If they took the AA filter out it would mean a more substantial redesign.
High ISO quality in RAW fabulous. 2 stops better than the SLT-A65 (K30 at 3200 looks like the Sony at 800) and 1 stop better than the D7000 and probably ever so slightly better than the K-5 though the noise pattern is a bit different with little dots rather than the blotches of the K-5. Makes me wonder if the K-5 has some NR even in RAW whereas the K-30 doesn't. I'd still choose a K-5 over the K-30 because of the various other advantages of the body, but the K-30 is a fabulous camera. Makes me very excited for whatever will be replacing the K-5.
tonywong: Odd camera angle for an interview. Didn't seem very flattering imo. Mr. Laforet doesn't look 36 to me, maybe it's the natural highlights in his hair.
Interesting interview though.
It looks like the angle you see for police interviewing a criminal in a cell.
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Certainly the majority of people struggle to get anything back, but as the article states it is something you have to build over time. I sell through iStock and even with their high cut percentage, I'm making around $1 per image per month on a portfolio of <1000 images and that is with a few hours of effort per month. Certainly it hasn't always been like that, and it has been a slow build over a few years and I'm not saying that if I scaled that to full time the income would scale as well, but if you work at it consistently, the rewards are there. I know of half a dozen people in my peer group (those who started at about the same time) who are now doing it full time and making a decent living out of it. I can't imagine doing it full time myself, but you don't have to be a stock machine to make a go of it as long as you're smart about it and work hard - but then isn't that the same as any job!
Actually the top (micro)stock site takes 80-85% of income for non-exclusives. Even the very top exclusives only get 55%. Having said that a fair number of people seem to make a living and at times a very good living out of it (we're talking $200K+ after expenses). On top of that there are thousands who make more than enough to sustain an expensive hobby from a couple hours of effort a week. Sure it's not a profession, but for many it's enough to be self-sustaining.
Great story. I have done the bridge climb a couple of times and so wish I could have taken my DSLR up there. The next closest thing is climbing one of teh pylons when they are open, and you can take a camera up there.
Gallery is working now it seems
Torsten Koetting: just look at the samples at imaging-resource while waiting for dpreview to fix the gallery :)
True, although it's a bit difficult to tell because there is less sky in the D3X image. The D3X is better at ISO800 and ISO1600 though.
The 24 MP sensor is a technical wonder no doubt, I just hope they haven't sacrificed image quality for resolution and it is just a case of a bad JPEG engine as suggested above
Oh man, look at the sky in the ISO 800 and ISO1600 images. It looks like some sort of weird speckle pattern Photoshop Filter has been added. The grass is as bad, except the noise makes it looks like a weird grass texture. Even at IS0400 you get colour blotching in the sky. I'm not sure what the settings were for those shots, but having that much blotchy noise in the sky at ISO400 is bad news. Looks like resolution at all costs
All of the inconvience of an ILC without any of the benefits