« on: Today at 10:17:08 PM »
At least it is great to see Canon innovating. Hopefully we'll follow the success of Pentax with an ever increasing range of colours.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
While I have an RB67, and just got a 140mm Macro off of ebay, I wouldn't exactly say it's quite the same style. Not having used a Rollei, it still strikes me as, with a good shoulder strap, much easier to hold & shoot than an RB/RZ. And much lighter, and much quicker shutter response without the huge mirror having to fly up out of the way. Not that I'll get rid of my RB67 you understand...True - the RB67's are a little awkward to use. Its just a fraction too heavy. After I purchased a Mamiya 6, my RB67 just started gathering dust and I ended up selling it about 18 months ago. The 6 is a great camera, but sadly lacks the "belly shooting" capabilities that the OP seeks.
PS.: As a side question: except of the obvious advantage of the Medium Format resolution (is it really equivalent to 60 Mega pixel picture?) is there any advantage to the film (35mm or other) over a full frame DSLR (which I can't compare to)?Discussing advantages / disadvantaged of film is difficult. Its like arguing the benefits of oil paints vs watercolours vs doing pottery. Its just a different creative process, and one isn't necessarily better than another. I shoot a lot of film because I like the results I'm currently getting with films like Portra 400. I also have a darkroom set up and occasionally enjoy the mad scientist side, mixing chemicals, and making prints. But, if you were looking at technical specs, measuring things in megapixels, or like convenience, I find it hard to think of an advantage to film.
- I really love the "whole format", the "belly shooting".Just pick up a nice Mamiya RB67 or RZ67. A fraction of the cost, and you can even buy new / near new lenses and accessories. Much more functional and practical. You can even add a medium format digital back to them and have the best of both worlds.
Question: Based upon what you mentioned above. In those instances if the OP wanted to include the photos they took in a portfolio or as an example of their work they would have to gain some form of written permission of the pro, or maybe even have to pay the pro, to be able to display the photos they took?
Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.
Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.
The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.
The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.
The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/
Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters
[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]
I'm curious to see the IQ difference between the 28-105 and the L, haha.
I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability? Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?Adjusted for inflation, many fixed lens MF cameras sold for more than $3k. Given that there was interest in the past, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some interest now. Still, I'd do it differently. People buying MF are after two things - the "look" and the improved image quality. Drop the zoom and put the best, widest aperture lens you could build for that price range. Rather than one camera, release an ultra wide, wide and normal lens versions.
Well it's certainly feasible to pack a square sensor within the 35mm full frame image circle and that would yield about 20 % or so more pixels at the same density....Interesting idea, but only a limited number of lenses might currently work with this. Most lenses are optimised to cover the existing rectangular sensor shape with image quality falling dramatically outside of this area.
No, the X100S does not have a speedy AF system. It's really great at some things, but that's not one of them. That said, anyone else with an X100S want to chime in on this?