I will just see about returning it to henry's canada. I am not shipping my camera off for who knows how many times.
Once you get past the unanswered question of copyright there is the realm of moral correctness. The photographer could have never published that work, as would have been his right. If only he had the capacity to publish that photo, then there is some sense of ownership. To then steal away that ownership is morally bankrupt.
Must be one of those temporary workers they keep talking about in the media.
"Changes are significant" only equals a "little bit better"?
Look at all the internet geniuses that magically gather here for this post.
Better stuff finds its way at the bottom of Flickr's Explore everyday. Much better.
Affordable excellence. Hard to complain about that.
Killing in God's name. How civilised.
The only people who are likely to be disappointed by this are those who were hoping Flickr was a way in the door. Those in the door don't seem to be complaining. The Flickr/Getty interface was convenient but often quite irritating.
Getty intends to share the ad revenue with those whose images get embedded. They have a similar program for commercial users called Connect. Initially with the Connect program, Getty rounded down figures while placing the threshold for renumeration at 1 cent, which required thousands of views to achieve. Moreover they made the threshold specific to an image not collective for all images of a photgrapher. It doesn't take a genius to fgure out what the outcome was. Getty was always collecting revenue on the collective use of all images across their library while not being obligated to pay the indiovidual photgraphers due to the rounding down, per image and threshold requirements. The scheme was eventually amended to be more fair to the photgrapher; however even those with sizeable portfolios are only reporting revenue in the pennies per month range from Connect.
I guess 500px thinks it can rival Getty.
Haha, they give the Df the Expeed 3 then turn around and offer the Expeed 4 in this consumer package.
The old version was quite excellent... how good will this thing be?
I am a wannabe professional, not a wannabe enthusiast retro shooter. Would someone please put the lovely sensor in a camera that supports all its capabilities?
Saffron_Blaze: Did I understand correctly that the poor focusing in low light effectively defeats the value of the impressive low light capability of the sensor?
Ok, enlighten me. I wasn't being smug. I picked that up reading the pro/con list
Did I understand correctly that the poor focusing in low light effectively defeats the value of the impressive low light capability of the sensor?
I wonder what the mark-up on the Df is compared to the D610 and the D800? They'll probably make more selling one Df than two D800s.
deltaskyking: Anybody else think it's a mistake that Nikon didn't include video on this camera? The camera model "Df" means "Digital fusion" meaning combining the old style of Nikon's camera body with the new capability of digital cameras. Personally, I like the look. However, after being bitten by the oil spotting the sensor problem on my Nikon D600 and Nikon's slow reluctance to even address that issue, I'm going to spend my money elsewhere - maybe a new Sony A-7.
...or people that understand marketing. That said, I am fairly confident I know something about DSLRs and marketing and I am not pleased with the price, nor some of the features both present and absent from the Df. If Nikon can sell the D800 for less than this Df throughout much of Europe that is fair indication it is over priced.
Saffron_Blaze: I would love to have a reasonably priced prosumer camera with the D4 sensor in it. However, I was thinking more like D700 not D610. The D700 was as close to being professional grade as the D610 is to being consumer grade.
"DXO sensor scoring is nearly useless"
DPR likely disagrees with you.