SKPhoto12: Frankly a little overdone. I much prefer the Russian mum! Power to him if he gets the price, but it is not for me!
Overdone? Compared to the photoshop computer art the Russian "mum" created? Overdone? Really?
Martin Parr "The Last Resort"
Very nice photo
I think if your work is good enough to get license you can do better selling it on your own or seek out a deal with an agency directly. These opt in to the agency pools deals are never as good as if the agency wants your work because it's unique. And by the way, do we really need anymore photoshopped to hell and back landscape stock?
AV Janus: Shameless...They take 70%... I wonder how many emploies they have and where that would possibly explain this model...Probably bloated consulting and legal fees...
Have you checked the stock agencies? Unless you are contacted by a big name agency because your work rocks, you aren't going to get better than 30%. It's a pretty standard deal out there. There are a few that might give 40 or 50 percent but what is their gravity in the industry? For example say Bob's Pet Stock offers contributors 80%. Big deal, no one on the planet knows about Bob's Pet Stock.
dvine: The prime contract, seems to give 500px, rather than you the "Licensee" the copyright to your images. See contract excerpt below.
The licensee gets a license - that's it. The person that took the photo has the copyright, that doesn't transfer to a licensee.
Nothing tricky about this.
Still offering two basic colors of skin-tone, peach or grayish yellow. This is a wonderful camera in may ways. Nikon colors not being one of them. Do they offer one with a b&w sensor?
Not so sure. There was a lot of purple fringing on the tree trunks and branches.
cue the tree huggers
Beautiful. It would be wonderful to live there.
I can't wait until the web further reduces everyone's attention span to two seconds. Then a regular vine could be a three night mini-series.
Dammit! First food, water, shelter, clothing... just when I was getting a handle on that, then I find out I need these five apps as well.
thx1138: Camera specs look good, camera itself looks good. How about dpreview rather than just do studio tests put the AF of cameras to the test against each other for action work. Specs are one thing, results are all that matter. How does it compare against D7100, 70D, 7D, A58 etc shooting birds in flight, sports etc.
The only way I'm going to even begin to consider a Pentax is for there to be demonstrable proof it's clearly superior to the Canon and Nikon offerings and even then it needs to have the glass to back it up. Only appealing glass I see for wildlife say, from Pentax is a very expensive 560 f/5.6 with no IS.
For BIF, I prefer a Remington.
misha marinsky4: I read diglloyd's review.
Here's my request: DPR has a double blind print test, Zeiss vs Sigma. 11x14, four apertures: 1.4, 5.6, 8, 16.
Would the Zeiss do better than 50/50, which is random?
In addition the D800 sensor is tiny compared to medium format. There is no amount of resolution that is going to overcome the size difference when it comes to tonality at base ISO.
This is a lens the pixel peepers will love. They can now create even sharper landscapes than their previous sharp enough landscapes. Few people can justify the purchase via increased revenue directly tied to the capabilities of this lens. 9 out of 10 simply want it rather than need it.
The 4S was better than the 5. Maybe the 5S got back to the 4S level.
Nokia could convince me in the same manner they "convinced" Bruce and David to give their camera a whirl" $$$
Hey, I'm convinced!
Even less effort to get the pix to the facebook. I'd look for quality to edge up even a little more.
So you're saying that for Stan, it was about the glass...
Yeah, these suck. I'd much rather look at photos of your cats at 36mp with the whiskers in sharp focus and the eyes a blur. Now THAT'S what the hell a camera is for, not this crap.
That WAS sarcasm in case you are also sarcasm challenged.