John M Roberts: There will be many non professional shooters that will feel, “what the heck, I might make some money if I just invest in the join up fee. I’m not getting anything right now anyway.”
30% of a sale does not justify what work I put forth into creating my library of images. I put out all the expenses, time and effort to gather images with the speculation that the effort will pay off. The agency takes none of that gamble. Their gamble begins after selection. How cushy they can also charge for a contract. They are feeding off of the large arena of photographers that are not gambling their livelihood on photography.
It seems this trend of devaluing what the image creator receives for their work will be difficult to reverse mainly due to supply and demand yet I would encourage photographers not to settle for such a percentage.
>> 30% of a sale does not justify..
Well, then you should of course sell your images yourself and keep 100% of the price. Personally I care more about the amount of money I actually get than the percentage. Then again; if you already have an easy time selling your photos by yourself there is no reason to join an agency like this.
What you 'pay for' via their cut is of course not the cost of keeping their servers online. You pay for the reach they have - in other words for 'getting inside the store'. Which in most cases is 1000x more exposure and lots more sales than you can ever dream of getting if you do everything yourself.
They also handle the boring stuff - like sending invoices, follow up that people actually pay and even more important in this day and age: Track down sites that use your photos without permission - and make them pay.
It all boils down to the size of the total cake and the size of your slice. A huge slice of the total means nothing if the cake is tiny.
How much money you are left with at the end of the day is of course way more important than the percentage. I would rather have 25% of a large cake than 75% of a muffin.
Some of the major players (I am lucky enough to have 100+ photos with Getty Images) does a lot of work for their share and is in my opinion well worth it. I made more from my first 2-3 sales via Getty (I got in early through their co-operation with Flickr) than I had made from other services in total the previous years.
What you 'pay for' via their share is not only marketing and outreach but also payment collection and even more important: systems that chase down sites that use photos without permission. It seems that some people think this type of companies only receives your photo and then sits down and waits. That is simply not true.
Would have bought just because of the sensor it if it had a body similar to the D600.
I see no point in having old-fashioned dials for things like ISO on a modern camera. It is just fluff for fluffs sake, it does not add any functionality that is needed or missed in the digital age.
Most everything you can do with the old-fashioned buttons and dials on this model can be done just as easily on any other mid- to high-range camera body without even taking your eyes from the viewfinder. It is not like you have to dive into menus to change settings like exposure, ISO, WB and so on if you know your camera well.
brn: Unlike many posting here, I don't hate HDR. However, in these "photos" it's abused. Looks like something you'd see in a video game.
I totally agree - way too heavy use of HDR. You could almost take a photo of any old bedroom with old wallpaper and make it look like it has been abandoned for 30 years if you process the photos this much.
JEROME NOLAS: Come on guys! This is a great camera!
That depends on what your 'real world' is. Not everyone shoots portraits and only use f4 or larger apertures. I used to do lots of landscape and long exposures - until I 'upgraded' to the D600 that is, which is indeed useless for my type of photographye unless you want to spend half an hour cloning every shot.
Thatcannonguy: Oh, if only i could make a phone call with my shoes, could drive to work in my fridge and cook on my bicycle... Where is all this going to ?
Oh, and don't forget; every picture taken and uploaded can be used by Google for advertisement without the 'owner's' consent.
Do you need to 'root' this thing too to get rid of Samesung's shell ?
>>> Oh, and don't forget; every picture taken and uploaded can be used by Google for advertisement without the 'owner's' consent.
Don't be ridiculous. Google has no more rights to use anything uploaded, shared or sent from this device than from any other device connected to the internet.
Durandalfr: LOL, people spit on the nokia 808 for having a small bump on the back and not being as flat as GS3, how people cannot put such a big phone into their pocket and blahblahblah. Now you have an hybrid phone/camera with an ugly degigne and miraculously, maybe because it's samsung's, pocket can now contain that king of design. People are brainless.
It is quite strange how people behave around new things like this.
The average dpr-reader obviously goes everywhere with10 pounds of DSLR equipment (including a couple of f/1.4-lenses) on their back. And they fail to understand that this camera is not aimed at that kind of buyers at all.
DPReview007: OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Let's hope Nokia, Sony and Google Nexus (i.e. Nikon) will make more intelligent choices when they show their hands later this summer / year.
Thankfully, 2013 will be the year of the real camera phone finally.
>> It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Yep, and all of those 'crappy little ' compact cameras are far better than any cell phone camera today - by a large margin.
This is not meant to be a super duper camera, but a good compact camera with lots of extra capabilities. And I am sure it will do a great job within that space. After all it has a sensor size that is very common in compact cameras today and that does faaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaar better in low light conditions than your cell phone camera.
Have no fear though; in a couple of years this merging of technologies will reach DSLRs as well. Personally I can't wait; dragging along a portable PC to upload event photos more or less as things happen is a pain in the a. I would much rater just do it right from the camera after some cropping and basic adjustments.
grahamdyke: This is genuinly gona kill the compact camera market for the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic cos they don't make phones, Sony may be ok if they can get it in gear!
I would have bought one if it came out 3 months ago, but just jumped on the TZ40. I had to replace my broken TZ7 and my current Samsung Galaxy Ace Mk1 could really do with a refresh. Would have been perfect...
I agree - I think this is highly useful for a lot of people.
Even though lots of people ridicule this now (probably the same group of people that hated it when DSLRs started offering great video capabilities) it is surely something that will be considered as standard features in a few years.
krassphoto: I'm waiting for a full frame DSLR with built-in phone..
I sense that you are joking, but a camera like that would surely sell a lot.
Being able to do quick edits and adjustments AND upload directly without having a wi-fi conneciton is something that lots of pro-photographers would love to have instead of dragging along an iPad or PC out in the field to do the same.
CarlosNunezUSA: Corel is going to be laughing all the way to the bank with this mess by Adobe.
The cloud is the mother of all lock-ins, some things are good for the cloud, but NOT everything is a good business to be on the cloud.
When the greedy CEO of Adobe wakes up, a lot of market will be lost. If I had shares of Adobe, I would be dumping them right about now because that decision is going to cost them dearly.
Just like Microsoft and Windows 8, all the customers yelling at them "NO" and they went ahead with it. Results? Sales are flat...
>> Just like Microsoft and Windows 8, all the customers yelling at them "NO" and they went ahead with it. Results? Sales are flat...
And still they have sold more Win 8 licences in 6 months (100 million) than there are Macs in use worldwide (in 2012 there had been sold 122 million Macs since the foundation of Apple)... Just goes to show that the total PC market is enormous.
rsxrider: I'm not a fan of Instagram-filtered photos. I think people (at least the people I know), too often use it with reckless abandon.
I agree - and TV shows/movies that does the same (one prime example being Top Gear that regularly takes it so far that everything looks fake) is not pretty. But a touch of adjustment can often make things look better.
marbo uk: It's simple, just buy 2 D600's so your covered for the 2 weeks while it's away being cleaned every 3000 shots :-)
Considering mine is a mess after less than 3-400 shots (even without any lens changes) I would estimate that I need at least 10 D600s in rotation to have one freshly serviced and usable at any time...
I commend Samsung for taking the first step in a direction that many will find very interesting in the years to come - also in DSLRs.
Having the opportunity to do quick adjustments/crop/edit and upload photos (and short movie clips) directly from the camera anywhere you have cell phone coverage without any external units will be a major feature for lots of photographers. Be it event photography, sports, traditional photojournalism or those who simply want to share something without having to drag along a portable PC or tablet that adds bulk and an extra step in the workflow out in the field.
Love the idea, hope it makes it way to way more cameras in the future. Wi-fi connection alone - like several competitors already have built in - just won't cut it in my opinion.
All well and good that you are testing cell phones, but reviewing a phone that was out already in May/June this year and is closing in on 30 million sold at this time might be a bit late...
NormFJr: I just looked at the sample pictures. I have been a CANON Elan 7e film photographer for nearly 10 years. I have stayed away from digital because I have always wanted a full frame digital camera. I shoot mostly sunsets and portraits. I have reviewed the new D800 and 5D MK III images. NOISE has always been my BIGGEST issue. OMG where is the NOISE in these images? I could not find any. Just look at the last series of inside images. Zoom in and at look at the ceiling tiles. There is none that I can see. I just found my next and first digital camera.
About time you moved up to digital; if noise was the main thing holding you back you could have made the change several years ago.
At comparable iso values (and lots that are not available without looking terrible on film) DSLRS have passed analog cameras quite a way back when it comes to noise.
Maiev: Is it me or nobody saw DP review's word on the SD cards.
"The D600 has twin memory card bays accommodating two SD cards, with provision for simultaneous recording"
That basically means you can run in storage terms. RAID 0? That is basically giving you double the speed at the cost of SD cards... am I right?
No, it means that you can record the same data to both cards if you want to, and thereby have an extra 'backup' if one of the cards fails during shooting.
Raid splits data between disks - that's the key to its improved speed, and if you did this in the camera and in effect wrote 'half a photo' to each card you would soon be in trouble when wanting to access those photos afterwards :)
What most people will use it for though is probably either as an overflow where the second card gets used as soon as the first fills up, or having JPG written to one card and RAW to the other. I guess that you can also set it up to use one for photos and the other for video.
tim4321: While I am exciting at the creative possibilities of such integrated technology, I am pessimistically aware that the camera industry depends on stunting their technology in order to milk the consumer.
If the technology were faithfully integrated we would have a revolution in creative photography today - instead we have instagram.Only now are we having perhaps in iOS 6 some possibility of controlling the iPhone's camera programmatically, as opposed to simple dumb post-processing and uploading.
It's depressing that this camera will probably not even allow this control to users or developers.
Manufacturers - we need cameras that are a faithful tool giving us utility according to the technology which is available now - not something to play the market, rationing features over the years to artificially differentiate products and feign innovation.
Today's photographers need today's technology to innovate and create new ways of seeing the world, and we are being held back by this :-(
>> It's depressing that this camera will probably not even allow this control to users or developers.
I think you have to look at the camera options on modern cell phones such as Samsung Galaxy S3 before you take a stand on these issues. The myriad of options it offers (which will no doubt be available on this camera as well) puts Apple to shame big time for their lacklustre implementation of camera-related tools in iPhone.
billorg: Why is all of this connectivity starting with point and shoots only? Dslr cameras need it too, the eye-fi cards are really buggy, unreliable, Run HOT and are very yesterday. Bottom line is that we need to be able to instantly email a photo - sized as we choose on the fly as well as upload to our FTP and/or cloud space from anywhere. Not just upload to Facebook or other sharing and social sites - serious photographers need more than that. Some in-camera editing for the basics should be available also. Interfaces would obviously have to be modified to email easily. What is taking so long? The technology is very available and has been for a long time. I also think most people will not want to pay for a separate 3G acct - so it has to either be part of their existing 3G acct if they have one or just use wifi as a connection to not only the phone, but also directly to FTP space and email. The wifi NEX is ok but only let's you go through the phone to email which is clunky.
I totally agree. Unfortunately lots of DSLR-owners are a very conservative bunch of people that don't want change - even if it is a totally optional functionality that you don't have to use if you don't want to. Just look at all the hostile negativity towards something like being able to shoot live video with DSLRs when it appeared a few years ago.
Personally I would love to have functionallity like this Samsung camera has in my DSLR. I bet actual pros that take sports/press photography that needs to be delivered in smaller resolutions for web-use immediately would love it as well instead of stressing like they do today with uploading 'live' from their portable computers out in the field, causing them to potentially miss some action. Of course there are systems that more or less does this job today if you pay enough, but it adds a lot of bulk instead of having it embedded in the camera. And 3G/4G is a must - just wi-fi won't do.
David Zamora: What I think will happen in the next couple years is that we will be seeing 3g/4g + wi-fi integrated cameras, but at no cost to the consumer. The camera companies know its silly ask consumers to pay for yet another data plan just for a camera. What I predict will happen is that camera companies will provide 3g/4g for free to the consumer, but the bandwidth will be throttled and the 'free' 3g/4g will most likely have ads on the screen when uploading to the phones 'social apps', eg. Face Book, Twitter, ETC. Similar to how Amazon offers free 3g on their ereaders (with ads).
I think this method will be common place within several years...and will make make way for some great photo sharing on social media sites as well. I'm pretty stoked as to where this is all going!
>> Why pay a separate data plan for a camera?
You guys really need to shake up the carriers in the US. Some of the limitations they have (in order to make money) is mind-boggling for us that live in other countries.
Where I live (Norway) I can tether any device to my cell phone via wi-fi to get access to the internet and don't have to pay a cent for making that connection in itself.
And if I have a second or third device (typically a tablet - or maybe a camera like this) I pay USD 5 extra a month for an extra simcard and it all runs on my main phone account without any extra charges than that small monthly fee.
Of course any data traffic generated by the tethered devices or devices that use a second or third sim card is paid in the same way as if the phone itself generated the traffic.