Into m4/3rds, Pentax 645, others - many, many others.
so, interesting that now Taylor's new album is going to be exclusively on Apple … is that smell a rat?
CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.
I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.
Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.
So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.
by that logic, every musician who is paid for their work - i.e.. concerts, are working for the concert goers.
Lee Jay: The drone risk to aircraft is exceeded 10,000 to 1 by the bird risk to aircraft. The drone risk to privacy is likewise drastically exceeded by binoculars and long focal length cameras.
To put it mildly, drones are a way lower risk to your happiness and health than some people make them out to be.
geese don't sit out side your apartment bedroom window with cameras ...
ianp5a: I'm surprised by the use of lbs and feet regarding the regulations. Is that normal? Do they not yet use metric measurements? Or was that changed just for the article, where they're thinking of the US readers only.
since the FAA is a US administration, I would think that these rules would be for the US only. And the US still uses the Imperial system of measurements. Now, it would be up to other countries if they wish to implement similar or more restrictive rules.
that is cool - in many ways. Where is it?
harveysteeves: I actually like #1 but agree, what does it have to do with weather?
its the Weather Channel and not the Nature Channel or the Outdoor Channel or even the Photography Channel. One of the problems of TV these days is that the channels are going outside of their theme trying to get more viewers but actually lose them.
I actually like #1 but agree, what does it have to do with weather?
beautiful images but another semi-secret location lost to the trampling hordes …and sometimes I am one of them.
D1N0: If you don't want your photo's "stolen" don't put them on the internet. Right click prevention scripts won't save you. Just get the URL from the source. The print screen button can not be scripted away anyway. Stupid greedy photographers who think they can sue anybody over simple instructions to avoid clumsy protection which doesn't even work in every browser are idiots. Put pictures online and get angry when people copy them. That is more moronic than even a baboon could ever be.
oh BS, if you justify one type of theft, you justify them all. After all, its just relative. If you say it is alright to steal a penny then it is alright to steal two or maybe 10, how about 100 or 10,000.
if you are saying that it is alright for someone to steal the work of a photographer, then equally, you are saying that it is alright for someone to steal your identity. Have the guts to post your real name so that it can be appropriated for a short time. And learn that theft is theft.
AKH: Impressive that the IQ is about the same level as the almost 7 year old Nikon D300.
had a D300, would take my EM-5 over it any day of the week for what I do.
vroger1: I have 23 digitals since 2003-Heeeelp!
only 23? you are doing well ... I have or have gone through 23 Nikons ...
Kevin Casey: I tried to read this article, but the horrific grammer and profound lack of proofreading made it impossible...or maybe it was undermining my GAS denial.
Did you not read that English is not his first language or perhaps not even his second? The fact that he probably speaks at least 3 languages puts him far ahead of a couple of whining wankers in my books.
Jack144: Eagerly awaiting Canon's response!
regarding the Canon, a friend of mine, down at CES, said that Canon didn't know when the 200-400 would be out as they were having problems so I wouldn't bet the farm. And the $13k ballpark price, not a guess.
bobbarber: LOL at all the complaints about price.
How many posters complaining about price have carried on in these forums about the disadvantages of 4/3 sensors, such as pixel-peeping chroma noise at ISO 3200 (horrors!) that doesn't even show up in prints?
You can get a slow, sharp 600mm lens for the stabilized OMD for a couple of hundred bucks.
If you prefer DSLRs, then why did you dance on Olympus's grave?
Be consistent, and pay through the nose for telephoto on your "superior" APS-C sensors. It's what you wanted, folks. You can brag about how much your paid for your equipment, but your pictures won't be any better.
as someone who actually does shoot both m4/3s and Nikon FX, there is a difference and it is very distinguishable. I would love to be able to carry my Nikons around with me all the time but I purchased the OMD for one specific reason and that was transportability.
falconeyes: The lens I am really looking for is aAF-S Nikkor 500mm F5.6 G ED VR
has anybody ever made a 500/5.6?
Peter K Burian: I often get benefit from Roger's tests but not this time. I have read this article twice and I have no idea what value it was to me. A lot of information but what does it mean?
There is an important concept that's missing here: "Give the reader knowledge, not information".
whether it gives knowledge or information may be up to the reader. It gave me knowledge - I may contemplate selling my 24-70 Nikkor for a Tamron just for the VC. Also, if you are already enamored with your lens purchase, the decision to read the article was yours alone. I am also thinking that if the article had shown that the Canon combo was Nikon's equal, the tenor or your post would be somewhat different.
marike6: It's hilarious to see the m43 fans beaming with pride because their camera won a popularity contest. The fact is "Reader Polls" are almost always driven by fans voting for whatever camera they own.
But it seems some actually believe that the results of an online poll are some indication of superiority. All I can say is if you shot with a 5D3, A99, D800 or D600 it's doubtful you'd vote for an EM5.
As an owner of both Nikon D800/e and OMD, I would pick the OMD. The D800 resolution is impressive but the OMD is a more flexible camera whose only downside is continuous focus. The D800 sold well because of the pent up demand for a D700 successor but the reality is most buyers would be better off with a D600.