ProfHankD: I think this draws a pretty clear APS-C vs. FF line: we're paying about $1K for the bigger sensor in the A7 (give or take minor tradeoffs like poorer EVF vs. no flash). Honestly, I doubt the $1K difference will be justified by IQ, because it sounds like the new 24MP APS-C sensor gets about a stop higher ISO, and the only IQ difference between my NEX-7 and A7 is +1 stop dynamic range for the A7. Basically, the big difference is just crop on old lenses... and as my article http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5881382628/old-slr-lenses-full-frame-focal-reducer-or-aps-c discussed, a $150 focal reducer does great things for that while cropping just before the often-too-dark FF corners.
Incidentally, the a6000 seems to retain the shutter button placement from the NEX line, which is better than the A7 placement. Overall, some nice design tweaks... and I couldn't care less about the PDAF stuff. ;-)
Saving a grand needs no justification.
Got to wait for DxO to see how good the new sensor is, but a full stop improvement is probably not happening. Hopefully ½.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the tests on this. The resolution is still greater than with a comparable bayer, because you get an actual luminosity reading for each pixel (for bayer you have the greens overlap for side-by-side pixels), and there can't be moire because even through the colors have to be interpolated, they are actually being captured at the site of each pixel. Color resolution drops, but moire is not created. They must have had a good reason for the array, maybe the old system with it's deep pixels lost photons from steeper angles and the wider new ones fare better. Noise performance is probably much better.
And it's great to see modern design, weird or not.
munro harrap: The percentage needs to be 70% to the photographer, as they have no expenses like travel equipment time, health issues, and like all agents cant be bothered to take pictures themselves. Its costs them how much per image per annum to host your work on their site? and can they GUARANTEE that the pics wont be stolen? Well? There's no point advertising a service when you dont say what EXACTLY is involved, but ask you to Email them (thus giving away your hard drive and location!) to do what? make an individual deal? No, everything on offer should be available- exact contract details- (IS there a contract) the terms- do you upload thumbnails to the site before anyone buys and email them the image yourself after they have paid the fee? That would be good- as then everybody is happy. I expect 500pix to answer all our queries HERE, by sending everything to Dpreview, and on this page so we can all see it. Why risk death in Syria to fund them, AND lose your work?
Without commenting on the percentage, no-one on the internet can GUARANTEE that something wont be stolen. I also haven't heard that unlicensed use of stock photos is some kind of a widespread problem. How is emailing them giving away your hard drive? Or your location? And I'm sure you can get the contract details by contacting them, maybe they are still being worked at.
The photographer emailing the picture to the buyer would be a horrible way to run things. What if he doesn't? What if it takes a day or two, but the customer needs the photo now? If they run a marketplace, they need to make sure the customer get's what they are paying for, and fast. And would you buy a photo based on a thumbnail? I wouldn't.
Brilliant idea! I don't have quite enough potential use for it to get it for that price, and I just got a fisheye lens for christmas too, but I can imagine it would be loads of fun. The high-up perspective is something new.
Edit: The flaring is probably due to the plastic impact resistant casing, and unavoidable if the sun is visible, I wonder if they can minimize it or not.
mrc4nl: as a m43 user a rectininear 10mm is great, the question for me is which mount should i choose.
a "native" m43 mount may yield better results (because a adapter will introduce small misalignments)
Or i choose i Nikon mount, so i can use it on a nikon body, but also on a speedbooster gaining one stop and perhaps even better sharpness.
This lens is designed for APS-C, you can't use speed booster with it.
David zzzzzzzzzz: Flawed color.
Due to user error, auto WB is a gamble.(EXIF)
keeponkeepingon: I find it frustating that you downgrade every picure to an iPhone's resolution before evaluation.
Who the heck wants a "level playing field"??? I really wish you would compare apples and apples and we could see the 41mp pureview sensors duke it out with this 20mp sensor at full resolution.
I barely pay attention to your dxomark phone data, with the exception that I point out this atrocity on every review I care to look at.
"For all DxOMark Mobile data presented on connect.dpreview.com we're showing only the 8MP equivalent values, which gives us a level playing field for comparison between phone cameras with different megapixel values by normalizing all to 8MP"
You don't understand what normalization means.
If the resolutions were not normalized, a camera with the same per-pixel image quality, but higher resolution, would get exactly the same score as the low resolution contender.
Scaling down _increases_ dynamic range and color depth, and decreases noise. Nokias 40MP would count for nothing without the normalization.
Futher reading http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Viewing-conditions
Peksu: Sony Alpha to NEX E should have been the first thing they release, it's the obvious adapter for that system. I really hope it will come out before summer.
The flange distance is practically the same as for Canon EF, it just needs a different mount and an aperture ring.
Not larger for NEX, because Sony makes LA-EA-adapters and people adapt Alpha lenses for NEX with full aperture control and EXIF (and phase detection AF).
Sony Alpha to NEX E should have been the first thing they release, it's the obvious adapter for that system. I really hope it will come out before summer.
Hopefully they add adjustable speed soon, two second trips across my city are surreal.
The concept of an original is meaningless for a product where every piece is a copy. For a non-functional object the value is only in the eye of the beholder, and the market value is a collection of such opinions. Scarcity does not create value, I could make only one print of my photos and they'd still be worthless. If the image on a paper is worth 250 grand to Sobel, I don't see why that would change if a million prints were made and handed for free. It's his view of the value, not something tangible. What if he had deemed the picture worth 25 million instead? What would he think now? He saw that value in it when he paid up. Such is the nature of art.
Obviously Sobel only bought the print for the monetary worth he presumed, and not for the artistic one, which can't be taken away. I would see that a photograph is a poor medium for that, but it's his money.
If what Eggleston did was morally right is debatable, but unless agreed in writing, he certainly has the right to keep printing.
Clyde Thomas: Publishing is not equal to copyright ownership.
A lab is supposed to confirm copyrights before printing.
If I sell my client a Photo Disc, that does not allow them copyright for printing. That's an extra charge, and the law.
The law is there for a reason. It prevents my artwork from being reprinted without my permission. There is a vast chasm between displaying on web for promotion, and reprinting for reproduction service. I assign those rights individually, per client, per need.
That's why togs can sue magazines and newspapers for printing images without permission. A photo lab is no different.
That's why YouTube is forced to pull down certain video materials that don't belong to the publisher.
That's why we sell rights based on time, and circulation. One year usage is less expensive that ten year usage.
Easy how? Lets say I bring photos I have taken myself to a print shop to get some copies made; what are the steps the shop workers should undertake to confirm that someone else somewhere on earth wasn't the one who captured them instead, and I'm not operating without permission?
That's like a Monthy Python sketch, it would require omnisciense. Do they have some Major Database of Photography where they can compare the shots to most professional (or not, makes no difference) shots ever captured?
The diamond analogy is moot, people don't just snap diamonds from air. Requiring traceability for a diamond is reasonable, for a simple visual presentation not. And the dealer isn't even analoguous for a photo lab. I would be surprised if printers were liable in any other western nation.
I'm glad then that I don't live in the USA. Here a photo lab would never be blamed if an individual did not have the rights to a photo. Just like the maker of a car would not be blamed if someone intentionally drove over a person, or million other analogies. Knowing the IP of every printed image is far beyond anyones capability, and completely unreasonable. If the customer owned a cheap printer of his own no one would be there to question his rights. I don't think the printers here even look at the photos, the content is a private matter for the client, probably pictures of family and children most of the time.
Just like you say, the togs sue the magazines and newspapers, not he outsourced printers that produced the copies for their clients.
Josh152: The fact of the mater is Photos at My Door/More Photos and/or your Facebook friends do not have ANY reproduction rights to your images just because you put them on Facebook unless Facebook formally transfers to Photos at My Door/More Photos or your friends the license you grant Facebook so it is legal for them to display your photos on their site. Which as far as I can tell Facebook hasn't done and probably never would as it would be against the spirit of the license and an egregious violation of trust.
The printing service does _not_ have access to any photos on Facebook. The customer who orders the pictures must have access to them.
rfsIII: It continues to baffle me why photographers on a photography website would advocate stealing from other photographers. That's what you're doing when you say "it's perfectly fine to do take someone else's pictures and do with them what I please. It's only a coffee mug or mouse pad!" Why don't you go to your friend's bank and casually take out a few thousand Euros? If he's your Facebook friend he won't mind.
All printing services have been printing anything on order since the dawn of printing. They should all cease operations immediately because somebody could print illegally? They are all profiting on selling illegal prints?
I still haven't heard a _single_ thing why this new app is different from what has always been done. Printing is printing is printing, printers print what customers order from them. The printing service doesn't bill you according to content, you could print white sheets and they would make the same profit. They sell a service. Putting your content on paper (and mugs).
Edit: Also, for your second paragraph, that has nothing to do with the app or service. You could have always done exactly that, and it has been, and will be, exactly as bad. How does this connect to an app that communicates with a printing service? That now happens to have integration with Facebook? The app is not stealing anything. Is not an automaton that prints random pictures from Facebook.
Peksu: I'm not on Facebook so I'm probably missing something, but what stopped people from downloading those Facebook photos before (and then printing them)?
Stan, I haven't said otherwise. But for example, if you upload a photo in USA, I could over here make a print of it for myself completely legally. Not perhaps through an American printing service, but that would be weird anyway. If my printing service started requesting proofs of license from me, I would change providers pretty fast. Amazing if that's how it works over there.
On a third note, I guess in USA it is highly illegal to make a desktop wallpaper out of any image under any kind of copyright (that wallpaper is a copy). I couldn't imagine some child being sued over such. That's why it's legal to make some copies for personal use in Finland, it just feels reasonable.
They do not sell you images, you have to provide the images. Just like all printing services out there. They offer you a printing service, and you pay for a printing service.
As for the original post, I haven't seen anyone here say anything along those lines, who has said such? The arguments have mainly been that this service does nothing different from before.
I really doubt a printing service is responsible for rights when a private individual orders prints. Such ordeal is far beyond the capability of any imaginable entity. If you order a print illegally (somehow), you are the one to blame.Although the legal system in the USA is a mysterious one.
rfsIII: This is a dream come true for stalkers, psychotic ex-husbands, and pedophiles. Who advised them that this was a good idea?
I just can't shake the image of some stalker eyeballing me from a cafe across the street drinking from a mug with my face printed on it.
Peter K Burian: This is encouragement of theft. Yes, you can only use Friend's photos but National Geographic is one of my FB friends so I can steal their photos. In fact, FB is encouraging me to do that. How can this be right???
Where you draw the line between capability and encouragement is completely subjective. P2P-networks don't encourage stealing any more than Google searches in my mind, if people use amazing technology for ill means, that is a problem with them and not the technology.
You could draw the line anywhere, there is no fundamental difference between DPreview site, Google image search, Pirate Bay, Photos At My Door, Facebook itself or just internet in general. They are technologies and/or services, they do not encourage anything (except for you to use them for something, otherwise they would not exist).
Edit: Also, it hasn't yet been pointed out what this "encouragement" is that Photos At My Door is doing is, I sure can't see it. They just print.