Now when will Leica rebadge dome of the Panasonic 4/3 cameras. That is a gaping home in their lineup.
Garry35: Even without this latest debacle I have always felt that Adobe have held their customers to ransom in many ways including software price, ACR not be updated for older versions of PS etc, this why I have retained a healthy respect for Corel Paint Shop Pro. After downloading the fully functional trial of PSP I was left wondering why I needed CS6 and have now decided that I don’t. As for Lightroom ACDsee Pro is a much better option for me. Amateur users of PS must outnumber professional users by the hundred if not the thousands. I haven’t spoken to anybody in the last few months who can contemplate using Adobes cloud service. PSP has far more useful tools for photographers than even the latest version of PS and is a fraction of the price. Goodbye Adobe.
I have to agree. Paint Shop Pro is a very powerful program and probably the reason Adobe created the Elements version with the advanced features they have to compete at that pricepoint. I have been a Paint Shop user since the shareware days and updated to the JASC and Corel versions. While it does 95% of what Photoshop will do, when I transitioned a hobby to pro, clients expect Photoshop skills. That is when I bought Photoshop. However, when I retire in a few years and faced with a monthly subscription, I would go back to PSP in a heartbeat! PSP is far more polished than Gimp...and relatively inexpensive for upgrade or initial purchase.
danny006: I think they try to stop the illegal download of photoshop, a smart move I must say.
I give the software pirate programmers 2 weeks. The do it for the challenge, and the gauntlet has been thrown. A DLL file here, an intercept registry script file there all giving the "false positive" message telling the software to continue functioning...and even receive updates.
dougster1979: This is very worrying. What if Apple, Dxo....do the same. The worlds economy is going down the pan, businesses can`t be sustained. Hence the introduction of compulsory subscriptions. This is a very bad president. It wouldn`t surprise me if Adobe is the first of many.
Microsoft also started with that model with their Office subscription for up to 5 computers. While you can still buy the individual package, they did away with the 3 user family/student pack - now limited to 1 computer. While the regular Office retail boxes have historically been 1 computer, don't know if the eliminate the 1+ option where same user could install on PC and laptop. Just trying to force everybody with multiple computers to the web and send Microsoft $99/year.
TakenUserName: Did Nikon do ANY marketing research? Or conversely, what type of unbiased marketing research would even suggest the viability of this feature set.
Two features are totally missing. A viewfinder - optical or electronic, it doesn't matter...and definately not a $400+ option protruding from the top! The second feature is interchangable lens capability (with an adapter for existing glass as the camera can accomodate a more compact lens design of the same DX sensor focal length.)
VIEWFINDER - People are getting tired of 100% dependence on the LCD screen, washed out and reflecting your face in outdoor settings. Belive me, I hear it from my wife with her P&S to the extent that I am now shopping for small compact. An OVF/EVF at least gives you the option.
LENS. Prime lens is fine...but at least give people the option with interchangability. Fixed prime on rangefinders left the station with digital zoom P&S and has become a consumer expectation.
Hit character limit so a little clarification on "lens" above before somebody posts "Leica". Consumer level $50 35mm film cameras all had fixed primes and people were satisfied. With the advent of digital and LCD screens, zooms became an expectation. On the high end, Leica and other rangefinders accomodated other focal lengths with FOV markings in the viewfinder. Even their zoom was 3 set focal lengths in one lens rather than continuous zoom. Now EVF allows zooms in rangefinders like theNikon V2, Sony NEX 6 and 7, as well as some Fuji models.
Omitting the viewfinder and interchangability when creating a small alternative to the DSLR with a crop sensor. They modeled after the wrong nitch camera (Fuji 100s) when they should have modeled after the the Fuji EM-1 which evolved from the Fuji 100 and has the far better feature set.
Nikon is late to the game. Do they have time to "evolve" the line like Fuji did? For my wife, will be a NEX-6 for her bday in May. Nikon eliminated itself.
Did Nikon do ANY marketing research? Or conversely, what type of unbiased marketing research would even suggest the viability of this feature set.
lmtfa: Another BS test camera to see how many saps will buy into this. This camera plus a viewfinder comes in at a cool $1400.
My Nikon DSLR's (D700 & D90) plus great glass can't be beat. My P510 & P7100 are just good, nothing special. The big disappointment is the Nikon 1 V1. This camera was a major fail even before it came out and Nikon keeps trying to convince folks to buy into the system by pooping out revised models. Al la V2, J3 andS1. My purchase of the V1 was a bad decision but I was enamored by Nikon and so are many others.
I bought the Sony NEX 6 with the 16-50mm kit lens, after seeing this camera I am so glad I strayed.
Note: Pocketable for $1000, oh please.
I agree, and words cannot express my dissatifaction with the Coolpix A. While I am a D7000 user, currently shopping for my wife moving up from a P&S. She demands a viewfinder - OVF or EVF - and a zoom range can attain with multiple lens. Both are lacking.
It realy comes down to 2 cameras, Nikon V2 (only because could use my lens for extreme tele) and the front runner Sony NEX-6. The Sony NEX-7 and the Fuji EM-1 are out of budget, but probably would have been pushed for the Coolpix A if had similar features and the ablity to accept my current glass. Instead, Nikon elects to mimic the Fuji 100 that they initially brought out before expanding the line to includ feature (like interchangable lens) with the Pro and EM models.
Scottish Kev: Forgive me if this has already been covered but I spent a long time looking for a backpack that would carry camera gear and hiking gear, as when you are out in the wilds you dont have "just" your camera gear and then wear everything else. This bag like many out there only does camera gear.
Why dont more bag manufacturers actually design bags to carry camera gear and personal gear.
Oh and I did find a 1 or maybe 2 manufacturers who do what I think is a sensible back pack for hiking/carrying personal gear and I bought one but it was stupidly expensive (such is this camera/hobby/addiction ah well) but it does an awesome job!
richard cohen - Also add the Lowepro sport 200 aw to the list of those with hydration. While I earlier described it as a "negative" with small items sliding down the narrow part, what I should have said is that that area was designed to accept a Camelback bladder. It is without that bladder in place that it leaves the space between the back and camera compartment that small things can slide down. Also, without the bladder in place, an iPad or small laptop (14' or smaller) fit nicely in that area.
For Christmas, I got my daughter the Lowepro Sport 200 AW backpack (not the sling). It has dedicated camera compartment with side access and an upper compartment for other gear with top access. The only complaint is the top compartment goes all the way with a thin channel to bottom behind camera compartment that small stuff can slide down into. HOwever, while rear access has security concerns, flipside requires removing - slowing own her hiking friends who would not wait. Slide access allows on the go access, and with skill can swing backpack forward with one de-strap for front access and platform for lens change, etc. Currently she uses it for snowshoeing treck through the Alps, works well, and she doesn't get left behind. Plus, high visibility orange is nice.
D1N0: She put it on the internet, there is no copyright information in the exif. Still not and the pic is still No. 2 hit for "Strathmere Weddings" If this is theft then she is criminally negligent by putting the picture on the interwebs this way. Facilitating theft.
When you read her messages you get the image of a middle aged woman who has created her own private reality and who steam rolls anybody who gets in the way of it. You know the type when you ever worked for a customer service. Evil clients from hell!
@D1NOFacebook was only a reference. I was going by the radio stations's comment "The image was captured innocently during a Google image search of “Strathmere Weddings.” On a Google search, it could have come from anywhere. The fact that it came from her website or blog, doesn't excuse it, but makes it worse. Red flags and alarms should be going off at the radio station...this is a professional photo and the photographer probably knows something about copywrite - unlike what you read from the general public here. Even worse, if the company really intended to pay for it, they wouldn't have done a google search, but gone straight to stockphoto.com (or similar) amd purchased a license.
Also, you don't purchase a photo, you purchase a license for specific use. The photographer, by default, retains the copyright unless passed over in writing.Finally, "It's a jpeg, you can put exif in it" technically wrong. I am in the process of scanning decades of slides. Straight from scanner is jpeg.
1) What do you mean SHE put it on the internet (so therefore it is somehow OK). You don't know that. Perhaps it was her client who posted it on their Facebook page with text about her wedding in Strathmere. Then Google, through it's web cataloging algorythm pulls and catalogs it off the Facebook Page. The photographer may have had nothing to do with it.
2) What is it about copyright and EXIF/watermarks that you don't understand? Copyright is always assumed...PERIOD. There is no requirement for EXIF or watermarks. In fact, I know one world famous wedding photographer that only takes medium format film - no digital. EXIF doesn't exist with film and when you scan film to digital, it doesn't manufacture EXIF data. That is why back in the day, you carried around a norepad to manually record exposure information.
missitnoonan: Wow this woman is a nutter and basically a copyright troll looking for an easy payout. Station was wrong, admitted it and tried to rectify the situation. She just lost her mind.
If you're that concerned about misappropriation of your work post a copyright notice in the exif and watermark your image, both are easy to do. Not doing this, getting bent, and asking for a high payout is trolling.
Adding to the above...While I don't know the specific laws in Canada, laws in the US are typically two tiered.
1) First is the automatic copyright granted to every photographer - professional and amateur - as they take the picture. In this category, they are free to claim, and use small claims court if necessary. Lawyers typically won't touch it as little in it for them. $2000 seems reasonable, but the court would ultimately decide.
2) Prior to it's unlawful use, register the photo with the copyright office of the Library of Congress for $80 - per registration event and multiple photos can be included. Maximum penalty by Federal Law is $200,000 PLUS attorney's fees. And yes, lawyers will work with you on that one...particurally when the offender has deep pockets. Typical awards are in the $10,000-15,000 range, but $200,000 is the max.
Now you know why each quarter I register my customer's photos for the most recent quarter.
I find it amazing that people confuse "nuttier" and other descriptive adjectives with assertively standing up for ones rights. There is a huge difference - and it didn't degrade until the the radio company countered assertiveness with name calling "extortion." Basically, they don't have a leg to stand on. "We pay $40" is pure BS as 1) they farmed Google and in the email noted found several others they presumably didn't pay for, 2) forget farming Google, they could have bought from StockPhotos but elected not to.
Internationally, the copyright belongs to the person taking the picture, with the only exception - if they were the employee of a company and taken as part of their job, then their employer owns it. PERIOD! No need to embed in EXIF data which is easily erased - and sometimes non-existent if original was film/slide and scanned for digital product. Also, no requirment to deface with watermark easily removable in Photoshop.
Having read both the DPReview article and the originating linked article, I find the comments amazing which illustrates the lack of knowledge of the general public. Bottom line...if you strip away the defensive hyperbole actually started as the radio station introduced the "extortion" word...this is really quite black and white, the company stole photographs for commercial gain...and got caught.1) No picture is 'required' to have a copyright notification as it is generally automatic/inferred to the photographer...even some dude with an iPhone owns the copyright to the pictures they take.2) Comments degrading the photographer's professioal status for posting on Google? It's backwards, Google indexes and pulls from sources like Facebook where wedding party posts.3) $2000 is quite reasonable. "At Cost" simple rewards the company. They got caught this time. How may time not caught as per email - one of several found on Google - stealing a business practice.
Has the FAA relaxed the rules on this yet? While they allow remote control helicopters and gyrocopters for recreational/sport use, they grounded all others when used commercially. I know several real estate photographers who posted ariel photos of homes for sale and suddenly got a visit from the FAA., and effectively closed that portion of their business. They were going to make "rules" but were absurd...like a full helicopter's license. They also made exceptions (or special permits) for government agencies so now seeing police departments with ariel drones of similat design.