Smeggypants: I wish still photography isn't neglected for the A7S. I have no interest in video but the A7S is teh Still cam I Currently want becuase of it's High ISO performance
Still imaging isn't 'neglected' - the A7s functions fine as a still camera and as you say, it has high ISO performance. It's arguable one of the best cameras for controlled noise at relatively high ISO compared to larger cameras (e.g. Canon 5D Mk III).
parallaxproblem: Quote: "Before we introduced the A7S we didn’t know who would buy it." What????!!!! Sony didn't bother to so any sort of research or analysis concerning their target market before developing and releasing a product? I find this genuinely shocking
Another quote: "In the beginning, we had a lot of demand from gadget lovers, who really liked it. But after that initial boom was over we’ve had a very stable level of business. It’s maybe still a niche, but this is our challenge". In the DPReveiw interview with another Sony Exec, Kimio Maki, a year ago he was crowing about the 'success' of the QX range and how he had humiliated his manager who asked 'why to I want this' with a response that the manager was not the target audience... seemingly not many people apart from a few 'gadget lovers' were the audience
Sony seem to be 'winging it' with their product releases and I see no evidence of a clear strategy for their product lines. As a Sony owner I am rather disturbed by this
> I find this genuinely shocking
In my experience, it's actually not unusual. Also I don't think too many A7s users are complaining Sony developed and released the product. Sony (and others) develop and bin or release many products on the basis of internal opinion/pride/instinct as well as external (competitive) forces.
> I see no evidence of a clear strategy for their product lines
I 'm not sure about that.. in the case of the A7x, look at the RX series (e.g. RX1). I'd say it was a logical or strategic precursor to the A7 series (i.e. it's likely someone internally thought let's release an RX1 with an E mount).
I hope this situation makes flickr rethink its future in several ways. It's a shame Getty continues the relationship with the original photographer after termination. I think the termination is a good opportunity for flickr to readdress the market, improve their site & user experience, and possibly enter the stock space as a supplier themselves, and do it 'right' i.e. give a fair rev share split. This might be idealistic, but flickr is already making some money from pro accounts, so may be able to be more flexible with rev-share options for their contributors. I've always thought flickr never really needed Getty, and they could have entered a similar market themselves on the side, and grow their own niche by self-curating (or offering an incentive to flickr member who curate groups).
Jeff Greenberg: If Getty licensed enough of your flickr images to allow youto quit your day job & shoot stock full time, raise your hand...How about enough to buy a very large memory card...?A Happy Meal???
Unfortunately the rev share is too heavily weighted to Getty to be sustainable for the photographer IMHO.
JDThomas: As far as the 80/20 split goes, that's only for flickr contributors. If you are a contracted Getty photographer you get 40% as far as recent contracts go (some people are grandfathered in at 50/50 or better.
The main problem with Getty isn't that they are ripping off poor flickr photographers, it's that Getty devalued stock photography when they bought up all the smaller agencies and started selling royalty free images for almost nothing.
If I remember correctly I think you can get an image for web use from Getty for about $4 if you're a member, but most other agencies charge 10X that amount (which was previously standard).
May sales from Corbis have plummeted the last few years because of this. I also have 5 Getty affiliated photographers that shoot in my area and we all cover the same events so switching to Getty isn't an option.
Thanks for that - I read with interest what you say about variable rates, when the last sentence in the copy on the DP top page says "If Getty chooses to accept the request, the photographer can choose how to license their images, at rates comparable to Getty's other images libraries" which makes the scheme sound quite inviting from the point of view of a level rates playing field, but sounds like it's not really from what you indicated, though maybe it's not comparing apples with apples.
Yeah they are not necessarily ripping off flickr photographers - I think they are just taking advantage of the flickr situation (most are hobbyists who are ok to get a little bit, instead of nothing by simply posting). Unfortunately I think their approach perpetuates the devaluation of photography. Anyway, there's still a choice: join or not join. If one joins, I'd hope it's not an exclusive arrangement - that would be going a bit far for the 20%.
jannefoo: This is good business... for Getty. The photographer gets pennies after Getty's 80% slice.
I agree, and I also agree with both adjacent comments. It's why I've resisted joining. I'd like to see a better rev-share deal to the photographer. It's just a take it or leave it approach. However it's obvious a lot of people were happy to take the deal upon sign-up, but I wonder whether signees since then have been satisfied with the system and compensation. This PR just reinforces my view that Getty have smartly tapped into a pool of creative hobbyists (and others) using quality cost-effective cameras, and leveraged their name accordingly, to expand their library.
A great photo - saw this on the front page as a thumb, and had to come here for a closer look. Terrific work.
sugardaddy: Phase One dropped the ball when they made v4, v5, and v6. The interface is poor on my Mac Pro and PC. It produces great files but it was a pain to use when I have tens of thousands of images. Phase One tried to remedy the situation by purchasing Media Pro, but that was simply a band-aid to the problem. Media Pro was even more buggy than Capture One. Noise reduction has always been poor on Capture One.
C1 does have a few strengths though: keystone correction, tethering, intact skintones even if saturation was pushed, etc. But it was an annoying program to use. LR was a breath of fresh air even though I purchased almost every major version of C1.
I agree - the interface change was the primary reason I moved away from C1, even though otherwise it was a good program.
A great article with stunning examples. Thanks for writing it up.
Come on guys - this is just a news snippet. Are the DPreview guys supposed to review an incremental firmware update? I think this article is not the place to post a complaint. About Albino_BlacMan's comment, in some stores, SanDisk is the only media card you can buy, and lately SanDisk seems to have changed their internal architecture for 16Gb Ultra cards, so it's a worthwhile upgrade otherwise there's a whole line of ultra cards that you can kiss goodbye with this camera. Any update that improves on stability is a good thing.
I agree with Leif, moreover it's been over 3 months since the Japanese release of version 5 and still no English release. It's taking way too long.