> This lens is really a joke...
But has it gone up in value as collectible???About year ago I read my Canon 50mm f1.0is still worth (ignoring devalued dollar) whatI paid "used" for it ~1999, about $2K...
What about Harvard?What are they offering free?Does the University of Albania offer a photography degree?
Clever.Like some microstock.Or Getty commercial.
If nothing exists that specifically states a copyright transferthen AFAIK copyright stays with shooter...
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???
Its $175 net Royalty Free, right?Yeah, that's going to be appealingto anyone NOT full time stock shooter.They will get occasional thrill of licensing& never know they have KILLED theirchances of being full time self employedstock shooter making reasonable income.And despite the ambient moaning thatstock no longer provides reasonable income,some ARE still achieving reasonable income,some well above their nation average incomes...
dantome: Photography should move an emotion, and these images do, if you like you do, if you don't you don't. But the negative comments I don't get, those of you who continue to nock these images put you're work up, lets see what you can do, I am sure you can't, thats why you knock. Every photographer has a style, and she has developed her style.
If you can't do, just shut up.
Critics of contemporary photography have no effecton pricing. Those who buy it as investment dependon branded galleries & dealers for advice-direction.
Criticism back & forth between hobbyists is...a hobby.
Snow scene with footprints arranged?
I don't know video but it led me to wonder:what about series of scenes, snow, sand, wet rock, etc., in which each footprintis seen to be made by "invisible" person & each scenerelates to next to create one long "walk" through WYor wherever...?
You bunch of flat-light-whiners.Lots can be learned despite.Would you rather have NO early samples??
What I found most interesting of all:amongst all the whining, NOBODYcommented negatively on IQ, nobodypointed out softness, artefacts, poor IQ, etc.Lack of negativity, even amongst super whinersdoesn't replace a stellar DxO rating, but still...
Have been using Canon EF 17-55mm f2.8 on 7D bodyfor almost 4 years. (yeah, as if it was fixed lens)And as a stock shooter with very limited processingskills, never went above ISO 1000. Nearest camera store told me they'll sell ALL their RX10s as new & won't have floor model, so don't know how I'll test RX10 IQ in advance.
Obviouly increased zoom range would open upamazing amount of new photo opps.BUT ANY OPINIONS ON WHETHER THIS WOULDBE STEP UP IN IQ APPRECIATED. Also, I take afair number of wide angle f2.8 images usingonboard fill flash. Will RX10 at 24mm + shadecast lens shadow when using its onboard flash?
Am also surprised no one here reports they are conflicted between RX10 vs. A7r + fast lightweight zoom? I am...
Typo?"Here you can see that the RX100 can receive around 0.7EV..."Should be RX10?
No image stablization.Why? Shame.Need fast zoom, too.
If this is work of photo savant,its probably the images that areNOT being shown that have beendismissed as mistakes by newspaperphoto editor, but are, paradoxically,breaking new ground...?
Blue skies over HK Harbour still happen,according to Alamy search:
When I downloaded "original" size & look athistogram, it is clipped at both ends...? Why?(flower shop display)Hey, straighten me out on this if necessary!
El Cajun: "apeture"? Could a writer for Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review be troubled to spell one of the most basic photographic terms correctly? Or how about using spell check?
I'm sorry - this makes it hard to take the author seriously.
El Cajun: "Or how about using spell check?"
Starting sentence with "Or" willget you points off on your 6th grade grammar test.
If it allows:a. month to month subscriptionb. use on more than one laptopc. further processing via earlier CS#sthen YES to once or twice yearly.
Otherwise, no, NEVER.
No ISNo f2.8No thanks.
Not sure these routes match reality...?EU<-->US & Asia<-->US are often polar, no?(at least my flights have skirted Alaska, Iceland)
And, yes, nothing to do with general photography.Barely related to travel photography.
AbrasiveReducer: At least if these people were celebrities we could say they forfeited their right to privacy. I'm sure any proceeds from the use of the photos are given to these non-volunteering subjects.
>>In the US, so long as the photographer is standing on public property, they can take a picture of anything they want=====False! Its still possible to illegally invade privacyin US public places, e.g., if someone was carrying prescription bottle or private papers in non-overtly exhibited fashion, but the image allowed one to zoom in & read details...The legal test is "expectation of privacy".It is clearly expected in public restroom.It is clearly expected within one's clothing.Many many other examples.
This drive-by freelancer is going to have his hands fullif he does this to minors, IMO, whether or not legal.