EasyClick: For me it was their return policy. On amazon and even John Lewis you could return the package after opening it and using a camera. They would take the product back no questions asked. At Jessops, it wasn't so. If you broke the seal, it was nearly impossible to get a refund unless there was a manufacture problem. That alone lost me as their customer.
@Biggestelk "Just because all the big companies who can afford to accept an unwanted item back doesn't mean customers should expect it everywhere. With this attitude, no wonder the high street is getting more barren on a daily basis!"
You've written your own epitaph right here. The 'net retailers are not only giving customers lower prices, they're giving them a valuable service you won't or can't. I prefer to support local retailers even at some price premium but not ones who fail to deliver value.
Doug Frost: Cheap, flimsy and unstable. In a word, useless.
If you need to pack light, get a good sturdy monopod instead. And if you need more stability, increase the camera's ISO and shutter speed a tad.
Have you seen/used this product in person, or are you just offering an opinion based on third-hand conjecture?
CameraLabTester: The odds to make money from your photos are overwhelmingly stacked against your tiny image contribution...
Unless you have the rare photo of a UFO mother ship returning Richard Dreyfus to his mashed potato mountain, which will then earn you millions of dollars in paparazzi royalties.
Not shabby. Do you have a Flickr gallery link you'd care to share? I'm just curious what is "selling." I see you're listed as living in Shenzhen, so I could imagine a lot of editorial sales for China-related stuff which is a little less common than pretty sunsets and autumn foliage.
This is why I have all of my Flickr photos marked for Creative Commons. Unless I get a photo of her majesty's naked bosom or Tom Cruise and John Travolta out on a date, I'd rather contribute a public resource than fill out a bunch of paperwork for the odd $10 check.
cjhwang: I would really like a more LEVEL HEADED complainer. By that I mean, have you shot a rangefinder in film era or in the digital era, either a Leica M# or an Epson R-D1. (and not only for a week but for 6 months+)
If you have, then I'll give you the right to complain all you want, as you will have had time to get used to the rangefinder shooting style and the "fun" factor of being part of the environment you are shooting in.
it also helps if your shooting style is more "street" (aka candid, casual, non-posed)
EDIT: I've shot for about a year in an Epson R-D1s and I regret the day I sold it, and I am constantly waiting for a more affordable digital rangefinder but as I grow older, I might just have to save and buy one and keep it forever ;D
>the rangefinder shooting style and the "fun" factor of being part of the environment you are shooting in.
I'll call BS, because I've listed to this for 25 years and it's less true today than ever before. Way back when, an M-series was really less obtrusive than a big SLR, and that conferred some advantages in some situations. It didn't hurt that their glass was objectively among the very best, either.
Today, you can shoot a dSLR from the back screen, or get a mirrorless ILC, or a top-end point-and-shoot, or for the ultimate in stealth, a smartphone.
The only thing rangefinder users know that SLR users do not is how to operate a mechanism whose sole purpose can be done faster and more reliably by a computer chip. There is no artistry whatsoever in that.
Here is the question: Take the logo off, would you still pay $8,000 for it? I suspect most FX dSLR owners would say yes about theirs.
GordonAtWork: I wish someone would recreate Kodachrome 25 or 64 or Ektachrome 200. these were my film choices back in the day. A Cibachrome print will outlast ANY modern day inkjet/dye transfer/laser print etc and the quality of the prints surpasses anything printable today.Digital has been the evolutionary step in photgraphy but Instagram isn't really the "ooh I like that" process.
OK, they were gorgeous, BUT, expensive! And you were at the mercy of your lab, and even the good ones weren't 100%.
Also, I think the "original" for archival purposes is the information--the data--and that has the potential to be preserved with a purity beyond any photographic process yet seen. Yes, we'll need to actively protect against format and storage medium obsolescence, but I think that will turn out to be a smaller deal than people think, especially with images judged to be worth saving 100+ years after they were taken. It's not as if preserving physical images doesn't require active conservation of some expense....
Peiasdf: In other word, designed by committee.
Good thing the launch wasn't delayed until 2020 otherwise we would have RC cars more advanced than this.
I like NASA and really don't like private space companies but I bet they would not have made similar choices due to better managements.
The irony of your comment is that changing specs in the middle of a project (hey, Senator Blutarsky wants a 16MP camera on this or he's canceling the funding!) is exactly the kind of thing that would add years to the schedule.
The relevant benchmark is that this is the best camera we've ever had on the surface of Mars, attached to the most powerful rover ever built. If it finds strong evidence for life (past or present) then we just might see a big swing in support to spend $50-$100 billion to put a team of scientists up there. If so, you can bet Nikon and Canon will be fighting each other to equip them with the best imaging equipment ever seen.