Kodachrome200: The biggest reason this is never gonna make you money is that nearly as I can tell you cannot submit to it. they curate images from the 500px website. This means you have to be publishing full res images to 500px for either no reason or just on the off chance your image will be selected. It takes 1000s of images in a collection for a photographer to draw regular income from stock. If they dont allow photographers to submit images to be reviewed and added to the collection it will never include enough of any one photographers work to make any money. Relying on the off chance that a 500px employee finds your image and selects it is never going to get you anywhere. also it is clear that they dont understand the stock industry as they are mostly selecting pretty pictures. instead of pictures of people doing things.
The way to make money in stock is to shoot images of people that you have model released expressly for the purpose of stock. people working. people engaged in outdoor activties
It's their company. They'll run it as they see fit. Don't like it? Start your own.
If they don't select your image, that just means you're not good enough. If you make a little money, great. If you don't, tough s***. Go try being an actor. See if going to hundreds of auditions work out better.
Most of you people in here actually believe your worth as a photographer is more than you think. The reality is, you're not that important. Except in your head.
Protect your precious images. After all, you're the next Ansel Adams right? Keep telling yourself that someday your photos are going to be worth millions!
Mrrowe8: Great camera for a starter camera for someone moving outta point and shoot and great student starter camera ... Most of the images made by this camera will be only seen in a computer or 4x6-8x10 print size so no matter what it will serve the porpoise well .. As for the Nit pickers OMFG really , "blah blah blah touch outta focus" or "where are the landscapes ?" Stop that's not whose buying this and come to the conclusion if a gorgeous woman or man , what ever you taste is and you would still find fault .. Sweet Jesus
I bet you when they get to heaven, these people will be the first ones to complain about how the place is too high off the ground.
Those are really ugly colors. WTF?
Marco1971: compare the images with the 23mm prime. For me the zoom fails....
Funny you mention that because the 23mm prime fails miserably at 10mm.
At first glance, I thought the shape of it would yield the perfect landscape camera with a permanent 16:9 ratio and native resolution. Alas, it isn't. Would be nice if someone came up with that kind of camera though.
SiliconVoid: I was not aware DPR, or the photographic community in general, had begun evaluating camera equipment on the basis of whether the user, or subjective audience, is instantly elevated to being a better photographer simply by holding/using or viewing images taken with said equipment... O.oAn image does not need to awe its audience in subject, composition, or creative lighting in order to represent a technical example of what the equipment is capable of providing. These are 'real-world' shots after all, that means just like the bulk of your 'real-world' shots sitting on 'your' computer there are any number of images that would not impress anyone photographically..Just as one can strip a nut with a $75 wrench, someone else can get the job done with a $5 pair of pliers - the tool is being evaluated here, not the wielder... Enough already.
Perhaps DPreview, itself, is mediocre?
His highness has spoken.
Thank god I'm not the only one.
* THESE IMAGES ARE INCREDIBLY UNDERWHELMING.*
I'm still considering the XT-1, but I will not make a hasty decision of ruling it out based on these images. Although, it would be easy to do so.
Samuel Dilworth: This rampant kitsch (which runs amok on sites like 500px) is destroying our ability to see. It’s like the ‘loudness war’ in music: everything is turned up to eleven to attract attention. More is without exception more in this world.
So it follows that if a dog is good, and a pot-bellied toddler is good, putting the two of them together at sunset on a misty farm is even better. (Duh!) If you formulaically combine:
• fluffy pets• children• sunsets• snow• backlit mist• flowers• bucolic artefacts• fabrics blowing in the wind• blurred backgrounds• very warm, highly saturated colours
… you arrive, as Shumilova did, at the apogee of this aesthetic – the equation can’t be denied! – even though you’ve truthfully created an absurd parody of beauty.
As this garish view of the world becomes normalised, it becomes harder for people to see other, better possibilities.
Dilworth just got owned by alextardif. :D
I really feel sorry for those of you who over-analyze, over-think and over-criticize to the point that you can't even SIMPLY enjoy lovely photos such as these. I hope I never become so rigid that I only see post-processing, f-stops, shutter speed and focal length everytime I look at a picture. Have you become so hard that you no longer let the magic in? I bet if you had a chance, you'd criticize people like Da Vinci for using the wrong brush when painting the Mona Lisa or telling Michaelangelo that he used the wrong chisel carving out the Statue of David. If this is you, it's definitely a tell-tale sign that you've been reading these boards for far too long and it's time to pick up your over-researched camera and SIMPLY enjoy being a photographer again.
How about that. A Mac vs. Windows debate in a Photography forum.
I bet somewhere in a Computer forum, they're debating Nikon vs. Canon.
MacBook Air 11" is the travel photographer's best friend, next to his camera.
I lugged a 13" Air all over Europe last year. Too big.
NEXT UP: Let's review camera bodies but we'll exclude NIKON, CANON, OLYMPUS and FUJI from the comparison.
Marcos Villaroman: It will be interesting to hold an iPad Air and see how the smaller size/lighter weight works. Does the smaller size mean it is easier to hold despite having less bezel to grab?
It just means it's easier to steal. lol.
HeyItsJoel: I'll never understand why Nikon insist on starting their kit lenses at 18mm when the ideal length to start is @ 16mm (~24mm fov).
@ CarVac: I get that "ideal" focal length of 16mm from personal experience and the opinion of those who are interested in wide angle photography. Not everyone in the world is interested in the tele end you know. Who are you to judge who shoots what "properly"? Average shooters can certainly benefit by introducing them to a whole different way of seeing the world they want to capture. The 18mm at the wide end may work for you, but don't presume to speak for everyone else.
I'll never understand why Nikon insist on starting their kit lenses at 18mm when the ideal length to start is @ 16mm (~24mm fov).
I think I read somewhere that 58mm is closer to 'normal' point of view than 50mm. Can someone confirm or deny this?
Paul Guba: Is it me or is this site becoming like yahoo? Why did an article that essentially provide no information need to be 7 pages long.
...and you read all 7 pages of it. :)
Meh. I would have gone with a gorilla pod instead of just a mini-tripod. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.