Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 08:50 "Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> wrote in message news:QZR7o.338$5N3.50(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com... > 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 can have a lot of fun with that kind of girl, if you have the money. -- Peter
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 08:53 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8v0066l29qugq4tktoftpmkfat2pnban3s(a)4ax.com... > 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 do admit you are an expert on making strong comments, without actual knowledge. I think I missed your response to my Olympus inquiry. Would you please repeat it so that I can take it off of my checklist. -- Peter
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 08:57 "Bowser" <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in message news:jrt066hsogi09v8b1j1hni58qoqja7dhdd(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:51:16 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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. > > I told you I gave up on it. Go find your own images, or post anything > you've ever shot from any camera. Trolls don't deserve any effort. I can't understand why you call Brucie a troll. He is so educated and helpful. His information is always accurate and based upon first hand knowledge. Think of the hours of reading and experimenting he saves us. <\end sarcastic tag> -- Peter
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 09:02 "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message news:2vo066llo0n5djs1k2b3iof5p9ij5er50f(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Neither Getty nor Alamy use lists of cameras whose results are >>accepted, while results from other cameras are automatically rejected. >>The criteria for acceptance are based on the quality of the image >>being submitted, not the brand and model of the camera that was used >>to capture it. >> >>Both agencies will accept results from a variety of cameras, including >>some of the better compact P&S cameras, and from super-zooms, provided >>that they are of a sufficiently high standard. The camera lists are >>therefore meaningless - and that's why Getty Images have refused to >>make any comment about theirs. >> >>The addition of the Leica X-1 to a list that isn't actually used might >>be of some peripheral marketing value to Leica, but it has no >>relevance at all in the real world . > > Then it would behoove them to remove their lists altogether and encourage > others to never make any mention of any "approved cameras list". Like > stepping in and slapping trolls like RichA publicly. Even stating it > loudly > and boldly on their main pages. Or they remain looking like fools. That > they do not do this only proves my point all the more, they shouldn't be > dealt with nor encouraged/rewarded financially in any way. > Brucie knows. He has many accepted images there. Just ask him. Of course, he will never point you to which images, or tell us under what name the images appear. We do not deserve that knowledge. -- Peter
From: Savageduck on 10 Aug 2010 10:17
On 2010-08-10 03:17:37 -0700, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> said: > Bruce wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> They probably just want to lessen the amount of work that would be >>> entailed, screening out junk that would get submitted if they opened >>> the flood-gates to every camera, some of which (P&S's) can't produce >>> acceptable. >> >> >> That's precisely it. They have no desire to be flooded with cell >> phone images. >> > > Guess they wouldn't want images of Saddam Hussein's execution > then, which is a little odd for a news organisation. > > BugBear What ever GettyImages is, it is not a news organization. < http://www.gettyimages.com/ > Those would be organizations such as Reuters, AP, UPI, newspapers & affiliates, and broadcast News networks & affiliates. -- Regards, Savageduck |