InTheMist: It's basically YouTube for photos.
no, it would not. photographers will never make any money from this kind of advertising its two small a pie.. Photographers sent these images two getty with the expectation they be licensed. A pie that should have been big enough for everyone. that said there has been ample reasons for years not to trust getty to market your stock
MrMojo: What amazes me is that any photographer with half of a brain would agree to Getty's terms and conditions. Essentially, the photographers assume all of the risk and cost of creating the images. Then Getty pays a fee that comes nowhere close to covering those costs, much less the photographer's time. Getty is doing very well under its business model while its content creators earn very little.
When stock licensing started out photographers saw it as a way to earn more income by licensing images that were outtakes from paid gigs. Then some photographers began producing images on "spec" in the hope that they would recoup their investment. The downside of stock photography is that clients can license images at less cost than assigning someone to create the photos. It didn't take long for companies to switch from assignments to sourcing images from stock agencies and photographers.
Now that images have been commodified and fees are so low stock is lose-win business model. Guess who wins!
you can make money in stock. I would not do it with getty. but it can be lucrative if you know the industry and you know how to make images with very little cost. if you produce a lot of marketable stock quickly at low costs of production it can make a lot of money
yet another reason to stay away from getty with your stock
i always considered a big part of the appeal of these cameras compactness. i dont get the new design its dorky and it makes the camera to large for the category.
It think the Ricoh GR is a gold standard for small cameras design like this. really accessible controls and a comforatable grip and still small and not bizarre looking
Kodachrome200: I dont want to be to negative about innovation but fuji has invented a myriad of wied and useless sensor technologies all of witch were out performed by the standard bayer sensors of there time even in the areas they were meant to be superior. so its hard to be thrilled that fuji has another idea for a weird sensor. more useless reinventing of the wheel
not true. they were not overwhelmingly adopted pr professionals at all. and they were soft by 8x10.
as far as the x cameras any success they have can be attributed to the for factor and the lenses they are cool cameras especially the x100s the x trans is not selling it though.
there is a reason fuji abandoned super ccd and exr. its because they did not work. xtrans is no different. the whole idea was to get rid of the aa filter. well there is a better way to do that look a t a d7100. no need for aa filter and compatible with all raw processors flawlessly. xtrans does not even work well with the software it ships with witch is an embarrassment. plenty of aps cameras have dropped the aa filter without having to resort to these screwy sensors that have compatibility issues.
again BS, pure BS. the S2 and S3 and S5 all bombed. they literally coouldnt sell the things. and the bizrre pixel arrangement made it so even the S5 couldnt make a sharp 8x10 (I worked with one when I was at a high volume studio) meanwhile the D200 it was based was an execelent professional grade camera witch I used for years and made lovely wall sized portraits for my customers. The literally were only able to sell them through volume deals to large accounts for way under retail price. often to accounts that also purchased processing equipment as part of the deal. thats why so many high volume protait outfits used them. that is how fuji sold the s cameras because they couldnt get anyone else to buy them
nope sorry. i have seen absolutley nothing from the x series that is not easily possible with other cameras
I dont want to be to negative about innovation but fuji has invented a myriad of wied and useless sensor technologies all of witch were out performed by the standard bayer sensors of there time even in the areas they were meant to be superior. so its hard to be thrilled that fuji has another idea for a weird sensor. more useless reinventing of the wheel
good job hasselblad. getting back to the serious work of marketing fuji products
Rick Knepper: Here's the thing we all want to know Mr. Hasselblad. Will CMOS help make the camera affordable?
i would imagine it will be more expenisive
Zoron: where's the OS ?....its 2014 and FF market going down....now or never man
FF market is going no where they still by far the biggest money makers in the camera market
Danlo: I dont understand, WHERE is the hands on?? Theres just one image with the 35mm lens.. Dont get it..
there hand is clearly on it in the picture :-P
this lens is going to be epic i can feel it.
i think they arent going to ever do a Ricoh GR lens profile. kinda makes me sad
Trollshavethebestcandy: Slap this on the Oly EM1 via adapter and you have something interesting.
wouldnt be wide enough. better on an aps camera
its a great lens. but the gushing about as if a 1.8 zoom creates unprecedented capabilities. it does not. you get the same low light capabilities and dof that full frame f/2.8 zooms do minus some image quality and a more useful zoom range. Now of course this plus an apc camera is cheaper. and its a fine lens great quality. but the capability is not unprecedented, just the f stop
wow that look like its tough to pull off. working at that mag and to have something so so delicate :0
Deutsch: What Category does Nikon Coolpix A fall into?
no they dont. the cameras people are waying against them are in these last two classes
i feel like large sensor compacts should have been in this category