Some good general tips here - considering how a lot of cameras belonging to casual photographers actually look, any kind of actual thinking about how you treat your gear willl help a lot.
I have seen camera bodies with a few thousand shutter actuations look like they have been in war zones for years,and even seen people shoving DSLRs with the external flash attached and no lens cap into handbags containing half-eaten sandwiches, sticky candy wrappers and shoes used on a sandy beach 5 minutes ago.
Some people simply don't care at all - but of course complain loudly if the camera for some reason does not work like it should due to their negilgence.
Looks like a nice device which will appeal to quite a few people.
I am blown away by all the people wanting features in this thin 'phonecamera' that are barely available in compact cameras that are 3x as thick though. Do you really think those cameras have the size they have just to make them easier to hold?
Optics/sensor size is limited by physical factors. That's why we don't have 200mm f/2 lenses that weigh 50 grams, are 4 cm long and cost 100 bucks. So judge devices like this from what is actually possible and not pure 'what if' fantasies. Please.
Bugs Bunny: XP is gone, Long live the Mac OS Microsoft had that os for more than 10 yearsA lot of people do not trust Microsoft OS.Apple is years ahead.
You seem to think that OS X today is extremely different from when it was introduced in 2002. Well, it isn't.
Windows has evolved way more the last 10 years than OS X has.
The only reason XP has been supported for such a long time is that the customers demand it. Microsoft has a very different philosophy than Apple when it comes to upgrades and backwards compatibility. Try running software that is more than a couple of years old on a brand new Mac and you will see what I mean; most of the time it simply doesn't work, forcing you to upgrade.
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.