|
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml > Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_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. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Aug 9, 7:52*am, "Bowser" <ba...@bing.com> wrote:
> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml > > Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...asp?article_id... > > No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... > They'll get to them. You know how long it took NASA to approve the D3? Since the camera was incepted. But I applaud them for doing this, to keep the riff-raff and second-rate stuff out. At least one of those image banks has some integrity. Thought some pros take exception to their tryst with Flickr. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" <badda@bing.com> wrote:
>"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml > >Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > >http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_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. ;-) |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
Bowser <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > >> > >> http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_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/> |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@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...@bing.com> said: > > >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml > > >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...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. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:06:52 -0400, Bowser <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:38:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> >wrote: >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" <badda@bing.com> wrote: >>>"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml >>> >>>Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>> >>>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_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. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote: >On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@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...@bing.com> said: >> >> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml >> >> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >> >> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...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. All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <none@noaddress.com>
wrote: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@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...@bing.com> said: >>> >>> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml >>> >>> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>> >>> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...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. > >All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any >people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are >not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. 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 . |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <none@noaddress.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@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...@bing.com> said: >>>> >>>> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml >>>> >>>> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>>> >>>> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...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. >> >>All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any >>people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are >>not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. > > >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. |
Re: Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Aug 9, 4:00*pm, C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@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...@bing.com> said: > > >> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > >> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@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.h tml > > >> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > >> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...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. > > All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any > people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are > not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. 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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.