This may be slightly controversial, but in good light mobile phone cameras can produce reasonable images. As soon as the light levels drop and the ISO increases, those minuscule pixels produce noise in abundance. Who uses a phone camera for serious photography anyway? I only use mine for quick snapshots when it's not convenient or appropriate to carry a DSLR.....
I haven't renewed my Flickr Pro account. I fail to see the point in it. As a free hosting service, Flickr is probably useful to some, but as a means of generating income, it's a non-starter - if Getty invites you to license your images, you get offered the square root of sweet FA as a licensing fee. I can make more from selling a single print. I'll stick to my own website from now on.
As for Ms Mayer's comment - sheer stupidity. There are lots of top class Pro photographers out there, some of whom struggle to make a living in the current climate of the 'Look! I've got a DSLR, I'm a pho(faux)tographer', who'll charge peanuts and sell you a monkey.
Wow! Seriously impressive performance. Finally, Sigma is being recognised as a producer of very, very fine lenses. Haven't seen any pricing info, but this lens will not be cheap. I'm thinking along the lines of the GDP of a third-world country to claim ownership of one of these. Would be sweet on my D7100 though.........
Sdaniella: to all those detractors/negators of shallow DoF images shot 'in-camera' on the spot with the mounted lens...
why not just settle for a focus-free, 'infinite' super-high deep DoF everything is in focus, via tiny apertured tiny lensed tiny sensored cellphone cameras (or something smaller than a dSLR), and photoshop all the '3D pop' shallow DoF to your hearts content POST-PROCESSED (ad nauseum)... (blurry tunnel vision lens-baby optional)
Most wedding photographers don't have the time to do extensive post processing on their images, so getting the right results or as near as possible straight out of the camera is pretty important.
It's far easier to take a few extra seconds setting up a T/S to capture the right look than it is to create that look using minutes/hours in post.
Photoshop CS6 has a lot of refinements over CS5, but I still don't think the 'blur' effects that can be added in post look anywhere near as convincing as those created by the camera and lens.
The radio station behaved despicably - they wanted a photo to use in promotional material to generate advertising revenue. They had two LEGAL options - 1. pay a photographer to take photos they could use, that would easily have cost $2000 plus. 2. License an existing image for commercial use, depending on volumes this could cost from a few dollars to thousands of dollars. Getty Images may only pay a few bucks to photographers, but they sure as heck don't sell them for a few bucks.
So instead of a legal option, they chose an illegal option and used an award winning photographer's image without her permission. Had they asked her beforehand, they may have only had to pay a nominal fee. Because they didn't, the photographer is perfectly reasonable asking them to pay what it would have cost them to commission the image. If her rate for a day's wedding shooting is $4000, then requesting $2000 for commercial use of one of her images is reasonable in my view.
JohnyP: I think the laws should be amended: any content posted online by copyright holder should lose copyright protection and should be open to reproduction, modification and derivative works.
If you don't want others to be exposed to your work - open a gallery or travel and display your works on tour.
time to clear our courts of these nonsensical cases.
That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard! So if you're a photographer who runs a website as part of your business to advertise your work or sell images to customers, it's OK for me to steal them from your website to make money from them?
I hope some sort of rescue can be worked out. Jessops is one of the last few remaining camera shops staffed by people who have a passion for photography. I've spent a considerable sum of money in local Jessops stores in the last couple of years. Yes, I could have bought cheaper elsewhere, but useful, friendly advice and honest opinions are worth paying that little bit extra for.
jkokich: I've seen shots from th SD and they're lousy! not worth $7000, not worth $2300! Any number of cameras, much cheaper, can do better.
I wouldn't rely on Flickr for comparing picture quality - it uses a horrendously lossy compression algorithm during upload.....
Bart Hickman: 300mm/F6.3 on micro 4/3 = 600mm/F12.6 on full frame or 400mm/F8.4 on APS-C. Doesn't sound so amazing to me.
Focal length doesn't change on a crop sensor. Field of view changes which has the same effect as increasing the focal length by the crop factor when compared to full frame sensors. Aperture and f/stop are unaffected. Effective DOF increases because DOF stays the same, but with a narrower FOV. It's simple optics and Physics.....
Jim Lowell: I'm sorry, but I have no interest in HDR photography. I'm still missing the point of it, frankly. I shoot raw and try to take a great photo everytime using my knowledge and camera options and then post process later in apps like CSRaw and Photoshop to print later on quite well.
Now, those are the kind of HDR images I really like! The dynamic range of the original scene has been too much for the camera, and careful use of HDR processing has resulted in something that looks staggeringly life-like....
I have mixed views on HDR - I definitely prefer the more natural look where HDR has been used to try to capture the scene as it looked to the human eye. I'm not so much of a fan of the over-cooked 'artificial' look that's often produced by HDR processing. However, that's just my personal taste. Photography is an art form - like any other art, it will polarise opinions....
It's a very informative and well written article. Thanks for sharing!