Deardorff: Anyone stupid enough to deal with Getty DESERVES the screwing they will get.
Getty does not value images or those who create them. "Content Provider" is what you are and you might discover your favorite images given away free or licensed for use for less than a dime.
Not to mention you get 40% or less of what they decide to license the image for.
Cheating photographers is their business model and they do it well, helped along by fools who ask to be screwed.
What I do notice is that pros are teaching alot more workshops and selling how-to videos in greater numbers to pad their take home income. That market will probably expand to serve the moneyed amateur. I've purchased a few videos from Ming Thein himself because I realize that I have not attained his level of skill but will like to get there.
I did and was honored to dabble in microstock when I was a beginner because I thought "wow, they want my stuff?" but haven't done anything of the like for many years now.
I don't know if photography professionals will see a winnowing of their ranks due to this recent market shift. Perhaps they'll become more like fine artists--many of whom carry a second job (or actually have a primary job with photography as their real passion).
Again, that might not be so bad. I can go out and buy an EF 50 1.2 because I "want to play around with it" rather than making practical choices about upgrading my equipment due to my clientele. If it doesn't work out, oh well. I'm the moneyed amateur with cash to spare.
Yup. I remember when Getty tried to screw over Daniel Morel and the court forced Getty to pay up.
It's disgusting when a company that is in the very business it should be protecting by looking after the interests of all rights holders decides to act like the most blatant IP pirate.
I think sometimes it's much better that I'm not a professional photographer but rather a moneyed amateur. I don't depend on my gear to put food on the table and I don't have to deal with crap from the likes of flickr, getty, or any other company that seeks to get images for next to nothing while saying it would be good exposure for up and coming artists.
Canon, why don't you just go ahead and release an 18-4000x zoom? The image quality will suck the same. I guess foolish soccer dads are born every day and will still prop up this crap business.
lacikuss: Is this a $250 camera?
It'll have to be. My recent experiences with Pentax purchases finds them to be overpriced initially in relation to their quality.
Phathom: A fixed lens compact seems quite odd to me.
The terms are too restrictive IMHO. Sigma can basically make up any excuse and your short loan may turn into a permanent one if they think you breathed on their camera wrong.
Meh. One reason I never got a Kindle is because I don't need them keeping tabs on everything I read while trying to sell me more crap. It's just too invasive of my privacy, just like this Fire doohickey.
I actually only had a $3 flip phone until last year. I try to keep my current smartphone off the grid as much as possible.
Always beware of big brother.
Jeff Keller: Just a heads-up that we're aware that the Ricoh WG-4's ISO 200 studio test scene shot is out of focus. This should be resolved in the morning (our time).
That's just a gimmick when what they should be doing is dropping bigger sensors in and improving image quality.
The image quality of all of these are just ho-hum. Why don't the M4/3 makers hurry and release a fixed lense solution, blow this sector out of the water, and make pallets of money for themselves? Seems like a no-brainer.
Give it 3 months and every Chinese me-too shop will have this for $19.99 with free shipping from Shenzhen. Just wait, you know it's going to happen.
$550 for a G16 when you can get the, EOS-M with wide lense, flash, and a much bigger sensor for $350?! Are you freaking kidding me? Whatcha be smokin Canon?
The only thing I miss about film is when places like Walgreen's were offering free film development about once or twice a year to keep the industry alive. I'd shoot up 20 rolls and get them all done for free! Now that that's done with, I don't miss it.
What lense was used for this?
If Canon doesn't fix themselves soon, they won't have to worry about mirrorless, because the world will be canon-less. Get it? Ha ha!
random78: I only see thumbnails of the gallery images on the last page. Clicking on the thumbnails doesn't open the gallery
"Because it's a Leica"? "Defending honor"?! Haha. Leica apologists. They need to get with the program and realize that this kind of cam is worth a MSRP of $199. I will never get one of these overpriced fisher price lo-tech cams even if I have money like Buffett.
645D: Same price as a D800. Better video?
Canonikon, you've been officially put on notice. Start making cameras with the functions we want for 1/2 the price or go the way to Kodak. Last warning.
Ahem, Pany and SONY, put a proper hotshoe on any cam above $200 already, all right?!
Fire sale for $99!
Xiaomao: Hope Fujifilm will put their in releasing a brand new X11 or X12, instead. I like the desigh and idea of X10, but will buy one without orbs.
Time for Fuji to put these X10s in the $99 bargain bin already. Then maybe I'll buy one for kicks.
Ol Iver S: well written, the new firmware "attempts" to fix it... ;) it´s a shame that this wonderful piece of technique has such a serious design flaw! maybe i´ll keep it even though, it is capable of taking wonderful pictures and really nice to use. time will tell!
p.s.: no difference before & after worth mentioning over here, at least concerning wds.
Glad as hell I didn't buy this cam out of the door. Despite all the hoo-hah and good reviews, it had a crippling design flaw. Unless they slash the price to about $199, it ain't worth it. Wait for the X11 indeed.