Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software
From: Bowser on 9 Aug 2010 13:06 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:38:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> wrote: >>"Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. >>> >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 >>> _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.html >> >>Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346 >> >>No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... >> >>One other thing: Since the Leica X1 is amazingly slow, you'd best press that >>button now for images of things that happen next week. It may be slow, but >>is is expensive. > > >You have obviously given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended trial, so >perhaps you could tell us what you believe are its good points? > >What I mean is, you couldn't possibly have made comments such as those >you made above without having given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended >trial, could you? Because that would make those comments pure BS, and >we all know you have *such* a strong aversion to that. ;-) I did try one, and gave up after a few hours. If you like it, go ahead and blow a couple of grand on a nice slow P&S that offers no visible advantages of most m4/3 cameras. Then again, you can read the DP Review review, download the sample images, examine their timings, etc. They've seen a few cams, and probably have a pretty educated opinion. Or you could just troll some more.
From: Bowser on 9 Aug 2010 13:08 On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> said: > >> "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. >>> >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 >>> _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.html >>> >> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >> >> http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346 >> >> No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... > >Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? >...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. No Sonys? Is thee no other SLR on the market besides the two sacred cows capable of producing a quality image? According to Getty, no. Very, very stupid list.
From: Andrew Templeman on 9 Aug 2010 14:35 Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > >> > >> http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346 > >> > >> No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... > > > >Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? > >...and if the D300, why not the D90? > > Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of > the images they collect based on camera make and model. No Sonys? Is > thee no other SLR on the market besides the two sacred cows capable of > producing a quality image? According to Getty, no. Very, very stupid > list. Looks like they just don't update the list very often. Everything on there was introduced by Aug 2007. Are there any others of that vintage that are missing? -- Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
From: RichA on 9 Aug 2010 15:44 On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck > > > > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" <ba...(a)bing.com> said: > > >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>> What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. > > >>>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 > >>> _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.html > > >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id.... > > >> No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... > > >Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? > >...and if the D300, why not the D90? > > Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of > the images they collect based on camera make and model. Alamy has some kind of test based on noise. However, I had no trouble with a Panasonic G1 (or Nikon D300) images submitted.
From: Bruce on 9 Aug 2010 15:51
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:06:52 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:38:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> wrote: >>>"Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. >>>> >>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 >>>> _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.html >>> >>>Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>> >>>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346 >>> >>>No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... >>> >>>One other thing: Since the Leica X1 is amazingly slow, you'd best press that >>>button now for images of things that happen next week. It may be slow, but >>>is is expensive. >> >> >>You have obviously given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended trial, so >>perhaps you could tell us what you believe are its good points? >> >>What I mean is, you couldn't possibly have made comments such as those >>you made above without having given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended >>trial, could you? Because that would make those comments pure BS, and >>we all know you have *such* a strong aversion to that. ;-) > >I did try one, and gave up after a few hours. Then let's see some samples. Go on, post them, and make sure the EFIF information is left intact. |