vFunct: This can make money for the photographer if the photographs are newsworthy, which tend to get millions of hits.
If the photos are more of the godawful crap you see on that godawful 500px site, then no, you're not going to make money as no one cares about those ugly godawful 500px photos.
The only people that say art is subjective are those that have no sense of taste.
Art is absolute. Smart people already know this.
lol if you had the most basic sense of taste you'd hate it too.
I would suggest researching actual fine art photography, then look at 500px to compare.
This can make money for the photographer if the photographs are newsworthy, which tend to get millions of hits.
vFunct: You actually would make money if they monetized this via embedded advertising.
depends on the sites that do use them and the kind of money it pulls.
Obviously the kind of photos that are going to pull in big money are news photos, as they gets millions of hits on web pages.
No one is gonna care about boring landscape art photos. If you're idea of photography includes all the godawful pics on 500px, then no, you're never going to make money.
You actually would make money if they monetized this via embedded advertising.
Jim Salvas: Nikon introduces the 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Undoubtedly a great model.
Heavier cameras also get you more clients.
Professional photographers know that, to close a deal, show the client the biggest camera.
NEVER go into a meeting with a point-and-shoot or mirrorless. You'll get laughed out.
Amazing high-ISO comparisons of D4 vs D4s (per Macrumors): http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310
It's at least 1 stop better than the D4, which already has a much better sensor than the Canon 1Dx.
wudyi: Face Detect AF is BIG plus in this camera which has me seriously thinking about it now.
Curious about this as well.
Too bad DPReview doesn't test sport AF quality in its reviews, and only pixels.
ondrejbobek: Not bad, but 1D-X has faster fps, more sRAW options and stiil better(?) AF fort sports (much, much faster USM lenses)... hopefully better colors are true (from D600/D4/D800 its really hard to work with this "in tests great sensors").
It doesn't have a good a sensor, though.
The Nikon sensor is MUCH better.
You can get a good stop or 2 improvement over the 1Dx. The D4 is already at least a stop improvement, and the D4s should add another stop.
So, you can shoot either at 1/1000s with a 1Dx or 1/2000-1/4000s with a D4 at the same noise level.
That's worth more in action shots than 11FPS->12FPS.
Also, the reason Canon sensors are terrible is because they use a very old process for their sensors. Nikon sensors are made with a higher-end process.
Photomonkey: A good update to a fine camera. Not everything that everyone wanted but good nonetheless.
This may be Nikon's last top end DSLR. We may see a move to mirrorless (donning flame suit) for the next generation.Buy your piece of history today.
Mirrorless is NOT going to happen for pro dSLRs. There's too much lag for action applications.
Mirrorless will ALWAYS be for amateur n00b photographers.
westerner: Can't see anyone shooting at ISO 409,600. What's the point of this? Just because you can, doesn't mean it's needed.
Fahd: Nikons flagship offers full HD while most flagship smart phones now offer 4k.
Why are there 4k smarphone video?
Isn't that a waste of battery?
sh10453: The whole trend is a new form of slavery, and not just by 500px, but any site that charges over 10% to 15% commission.
Just think about it; their cost for storing and selling your images in an automated process (on huge sites like Getty's, Flickr, or 500px) may not exceed pennies, I would think!
Some correction to this trend is badly needed.
Freelance photographers, in particular, should join hands and make their own site, as shareholders, and pocket their fair fees (and not allow the big players to buy the site out).
A 20% difference is nothing. It is not important. It is not something you should care about.
The best kind of photography are street photography, like this guys.
The worst kind of photography are the garbage you see on 500px. That site is filled with thousands of photographer, all without a sense of taste.
The funny part is that those idiots have NO clue why they are terrible, or why street photography is more valuable than landscape photography. They have no idea how worthless their photographs are.
Remember, if you think the landscape photography you find at 500px is good, you are a terrible photographer, and you should be ashamed.
Professionals laugh at you, just to let you know.
wudyi: I'm not sure what value this guy is producing in the pictures part? It's honorable to be nice to people on the street and to get to know them, but if it's just so you can snap their picture I'm failing to see the point. As well, the process and the output are so common and blase' it's actually embarrassing. And this guy gave up a good career for this? I suppose you can do that if you're young and single. It helps that he looks like a linebacker, too, so he doesn't get mugged. And, of course, this guys approach is preferable to the sneaky, wannabe street photog. hiding behind a wall to snap a picture of your granddaughter! What creeps!
I don't get this whole street photography thing. Why be so interested in strangers? Why not form real friendships and nurture the one's you already have. Forget about your dumb dog and your street shooting and go connect with your wife and kids.
You don't get it because you do not have a sense of taste.
Professionals with senses of taste have already decided what is right and wrong. Their opinion matters. Your opinion is irrelevant.
My recommendation to you is to figure out why street photography is better than what you like. Once you're on the same page, you can become useful as a photographer.
Life isn't about what you like. It is about what higher ups have decided for you.
grock: I used to think the comments on indie music blogs were the worst, but photography websites are really catching up. So much freaking jealousy and pettiness. So many people here can't stand it if someone is successful if they have what are deemed to be less than perfect technical skills with a camera, or if their composition seems amateurish or non-groundbreaking. Photography exists so that people can look at and enjoy photographs. Guess what? If someone enjoys looking at a photo you took, you succeeded. Nothing else--the brand and cost of your camera, the artistic merit, the people paying for the photo, the post-processing, the lack of preparation, etc-- matters.
In general, amateur photographers are the absolute worst.
Nothing they ever say should be respected. If they were capable at all, they wouldn't be amateurs.
These are the same idiots that think mirror less cameras are useful.
Anyone that owns a mirror less camera should automatically have a "I'm an idiot" badge on their forehead.
Most pro agents charge 30-50%. This isn't that far off.
how the hell can they improve on the AF?? It's, like, perfect.
vFunct: How come there was no D4 review?
That's probably true.
If they did reviews targeted for pros they'd have to do things like measure focus accuracy, focus speed, battery life tests, card speeds, and other things that matter to pros but smartphone/mirrorless users wouldn't care about.
Anyone know a good site that reviews pro cameras?