I keep backup camera, the main could just get some issues and then oyu can be in trouble. Or you just simply dont want to take your expensive main body to some places. However I shoot mainly outdoors so the chance of geting into trouble is much bigger then yours.

There is also two other problems not mentioned: RAW is simply raw and skilled graphic designer can do anything he likes with it. He can do so extensive tweaks you will not recognize original file and sell it as his/her own. And of course he/she is partially right becouse of the extensive graphic work on it, anyway arguing about ownership (especially abroad) could be a big problem. The second: designer can tweak it in very bad way and then publish it as your picture - you will not be glad about that for sure.

Microstock pays absolutely insane low even for JPEGs and they dealing with photographers is well known - I will never upload any RAW on microstock. My JPEGs are usually accurately post-processed the way I like them and so the buyer has no much space to tweak it.

Guys, please forgot two things: at first 17-40/4 on APS-C bodies and second FF isnt the only and the ultimately best option for all kinds of work!

The 17-40 was built for film cameras and so has limited resolution, there are dozends of ppl complaining about 17-40 on crops. Its great built quality but its worth on FF, its range is also pretty bad on crop - not wide enough, not long enough, aperture also not the best... there are far better options for prime lens on crop. And remember - its 27-60 eqv., not 16-30 like Sigma = Completely different lens!

How is metal body related to image quality? At first - body isnt defined by image quality only. Why do the pros NOT buy Canon 1000D instead of 5D or Mark3? Do you think its only because of image quality? At second - most semipro or pro models have metal body and usually also better image quality then entry level. So in fact it is related, however its only side effect.

Would you put your $2.500 lens weighting 1kg on feather-light and soft plastic body? When you invest $8.000 into lenses, it is saving $300-$500 on body really worth drastic reduce in built-quality, durability and ergonomics?

I dont say "buy cheap lens", I say "Im not so rich to buy cheap junk". Just my opinion, buy what you like

This is business and photographer and agency are partners. They are not my employer and Im not their employee or slave. In most of the countries across globe you must first prove someone IS guilty before you do legal steps.

There is simply no excuse for what SS did and it is very clear example how much their value their contributors. Keep that always in mind when you upload there - its not first nor last case.

In case there is simple and efficient way how to remove aberration in PC, no lens manufacturer would bother with producing better lenses. Generally it occurs while using cheap set lens (eg. Canon 18-55 is "great" for that) shooting high contrast things or shooting with sun in the picture. Usually using lens hood and using faster f-stop helps.

Do not compare lenses just with price - eg. some Canon or Nikon lenses costs 2-3x more then same quality Sigma, Tokina or Tamron.

Sorry guys but the best super-wide zoom ever is Zuiko Digital 7-14 and for FF/APS-C is absolute killer Sigma 12-24. Canon itself doesnt produce any good super-wide zoom for FF and EF-S 10-22 for APS-C is good but definitely overpriced compared to very good Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24.

ZD 7-14 is the best also because of 4/3 third format - extremely low distortion for such lens and stunning optical quality. The problem is that its nearly impossible to built such lens for FF, Zuikos are very telecentric and because of smaller sensor have also some huge technical advantages on the side of lens construction.

Yep, I ment clients do not like to see exactly same picture elsewhere. Eg. they pay $2000 for their website and they dont mind to pay another $50 for RM image rather then saving $49 and risking their competitors could accidentaly produce something with the same picture. With microstock becoming more and more popular this "danger" increases dramatically.

I think microstock is great for what it was at the beginning - exchange of cheap material between designers. Logos, textures, backgrounds, simple vectors... The problem started when pro level photos came to microstock, because those are really extremely underpriced.

Well, my personal opinion is that future is midstock. Not both extremes like Getty charging huge $$ for picture or microstock like SS or IS which are absolutely underpriced.

Just for thought: I had a meeting with my webmaster (btw. I do smaller project myself so I know exactly what this is all about) and he told me some interesting points. They did purchase time to time from SS but they quit that  - why? Because it has already happened that there were another webs with similar photo and the risk is becoming too high, clients get upset about that so they rather pay more to get RM image. The second point? They pay $250 for subscription and then use 20 pics = $12 each. Is that still cheap? Yes! But is that the same price as midstock? Yes! The result is that they go to midstock agency and pick some high quality pic for $10 rather then spending half an hour browsing on SS thru all vectors and crappy and keyword spammed pics to get the same for the same $$. So I think Dan Heller is perfectly true that microstock is shooting themselves in the foot with the race of the "cheapest pics" (which means minimum money for the photographer in the result) and with keyword spaming (making clients go away somewhere else).

In my opinion midstock is the good solution for this micro/macro schisma. When some agencies charge unbeliavable commisions up to 80% and photographer does 90% of all real work and have to invest lot of the time and money, there should be some balance. For many buyers isnt real difference if they pay $1 or $2 or $5. Its still unbeliavably cheap! Getty charging $1000 for ordinary picture is another extreme.

While magazines/newspapers charge thousands of $$ for each page of advertising it shouldnt be problem for them to pay $2 per picture instead of $1 - but the impact for the photographer is huge.
Current race of "cheaper and cheaper" images is dead end (in my opinion). For many photographers already trained and skilled is more and more profitable to move to macrostock or direct sales rather then working more and more to earn less and less. Im pretty curious how will this microstock business evolve, thats in fact why I  started with it

Kodak and Sony are biggest sensor producers so I think new 24MP sensor from Sony is pretty good for sure. They started very aggresively and Canon/Nikon * are pretty overpriced simply because there is no competitor. Dont be fooled, Sonys cameras are maybe not the nicest but still impressively powerfull and cheap.

They clearly revealed how much they value their contributors...