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.