Messages

376

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: George Eastman's Kodak dream is over

« on: January 20, 2012, 03:03:43 AM »

Some things just run their course.  But its not surprising.  Have Kodak been the leader in anything in the last 20 years?  When was the last time they did anything important or were relevant?  Is anyone really shocked that Kodak is joining the ranks of Confederated Slaveholdings, Transatlantic Zeppelin, Amalgamated Spats, Congreve's Inflammable Powder, and U.S. Hay?

Kodak lost most film users in the early 90's when most people switched to Fuji Provia, Velvia and Astia.  With Superia vs Ultramax, there's probably not much difference, but Superia is usually significantly cheaper.  By the time Kodak had something competitive with 100VS people had started to switch to digital or were too familiar with Fuji.   For a company that put so much faith in film, why were they so far behind for so long?  Why did they pull the pin on digital sensor development?  Why did they think people would still keep buying film in developing countries?  Why did they decide that a low-cost digital camera strategy was the way forward?  How come they weren't better able to use their chemical processing know-how? 

Sadly, I'll miss their T-Max films, of which I've been a happy user for the last few years.  But like their other offerings, there are several viable (some would say better) alternatives at cheaper prices.

377

Street & City / Re: Etiquette of Street Photography

« on: January 19, 2012, 08:48:43 PM »

On the legal issue, in most civilised places around the world, you can take a photograph of someone in a public place, publish the photo and sell that photograph without the consent of the people in the photo.

However, if you take a photograph for a commercial purpose (which generally means using the photograph to market or advertise something other the photograph itself) and you don't have consent (ideally a written model release form), you could be liable for damages.  The damages would generally be the financial loss suffered by the subject.  This could be the income you earned from the photograph.  It could be a reasonable modelling fee.  You would be liable for more damages if the use of the photograph led to emotional distress, injured their reputation etc.  For example, you used the photograph to advertise your local adult shop.

No sane person would start a legal action if there was no prospect of reasonable damages (unless you really annoyed them).  Therefore, you just have to be worried about the defamation side.  The good news is that you control this risk by deciding how to use the photo.

FYI, stock photography sites will require you to hold model release forms.

Also, there are a lot of landmarks around the world that will require you to have authorisation if you want to take photos for commercial use.  Otherwise you might face copyright problems.

Therefore, from a legal perspective, generally if you do it for fun, or to sell the photographs you take, there's no real problems.  If you have identifiable landmarks, or use the photos in advertising or promotion, you should have approval. 

Different people have different views on the ethical issues.  I always have reservations about uploading photos, but I'm not really into street photography and I'm very privacy conscious.  Whereas my sister uploads page after page of random people.  She's probably got half of Australia on there.

378

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?

« on: January 19, 2012, 07:18:17 AM »

My first camera was an AE-1 with the 50mm 1.8 ...

Me too! 

I'm not adverse to using other cameras.  For example, during a lot of the 90's / early 00's, I was using a Mamiya RB67 just as much as my Canons.  Even today, I do almost as much shooting with a little Mamiya and an Olympus as I do with my Canon.  In recent years, I've considered switching to Pentax (I think their small lenses are cool), and Sony (after reading reviews on their 24mm, 85mm and 135mm).  Sometimes I even think about switching to Nikon (my sister shoots Nikon and we could share lenses).

But ultimately, other systems have problems and compromises.  Whereas the Canon range is almost perfect.  I'm happy with the camera and lenses that I have.  I don't think that switching to another manufacturer will really add anything.  Or to put it another way, my photos would suck just as much if they were shot with a Nikon as they do now.

Of course, if Mr Nikon came and offered me a lucrative sponsorship deal....

379

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Classic/Mark 1 - Still worth the buy now?

« on: January 18, 2012, 12:00:53 AM »

Buy it.  As long as it doesn't break, you shouldn't lose too much when reselling later.

But unless you had a pressing desire to have it now, I'd wait a bit.  Every day brings the 5D3 closer.  If it is a well spec'd camera at a good price, I imagine that there would be a lot of used 5D2s hitting the market.  Maybe they'll be within reach?  Realistically, a 5D2 is better suited to your needs. 

380

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, range finder to medium format.

« on: January 15, 2012, 10:38:49 PM »

Your idea has merit. Contax made quality cameras.  Plus, apart from the G2, there aren't many other autofocus rangefinders around so there might be some technical know-how that could be useful.  But I doubt that there would be enough to make acquisition attractive.  If Contax had a modern, medium format, digital back production plant, it might be a different story.

The Contax G2 was an excellent advance in rangefinder cameras but never found a marketplace for a technologically advanced version of a 1930's design with excellent but expensive proprietary lenses.

Wow!  I just checked and Contax closed up in 2005.  About two years ago there was a spate of very positive G2 reviews, which made me a little curious.  I'm 99.99% certain that B&H etc were still stocking them.  Obviously, very few people were keen to drop a lot of money on 35mm film cameras by that time.

381

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX pricing in Australia

« on: January 15, 2012, 12:04:50 AM »

There are several high profile Australian businesses that import grey market bodies and lenses.  Lately, the prices have been on par with the USA - especially if you are able to claim back the GST.  They generally offer warranty options.  Its only by buying from overseas, or buying grey market that Canon Australia will realise that we're part of a global economy and pick up their game.  Personally, I've never bought any Canon from an Australian retail shop.  In some ways, I feel a bit sad about that.  But for me, the price mark-up is too high.

If you don't own your own business (and can't claim back the GST and claim depreciation), discuss salary packaging it with your employer.  Provided that you can show that it is:

A tool of trade (after all, I assume you take photos at work??);
That it is a "portable electronic device" (it could be - it fits the definition, but this section was intended to cover laptops and phones and I haven't had to look if cameras are included); or
Is otherwise deductible (because you'd be able to claim a deduction on your personal return),

Then, a $9900 camera will actually end up only costing between $4815 (if you're on a 46.5% tax rate) to $6,165 (if you're on a 31.5% tax rate).  This makes it a bit more palatable.

382

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?

« on: January 13, 2012, 12:01:46 AM »

Keep it.  The only people who get bad karma are those who doubt Canon's superiority in every field.  I've even seen some people suggest that Canon could do some things better.   Recently, there was even somebody complaining about noise on a 7D!!  We need a way to identify such fifth columnists! 

383

Software & Accessories / Re: Starting out: Flickr? Picasa? PBase? Other?

« on: January 12, 2012, 11:51:53 PM »

Another vote for Smugmug.  But its $60pa if you want to upload videos.

One advantage of a paid account with Smugmug, flickr etc is that there is no limit on the number of photo or video uploads per month.  I use my account as an offsite backup method.  This can also be handy while travelling.  Why risk your gear being stolen or breaking and losing your photos?  Provided you have a reasonable internet connection, you can upload your favourite photos.   

If you ever build a website, it is often easier to incorporate a flickr gallery compared with smugmug.  For example, I'm a wordpress fan and I just did a quick check.  Searching for Smugmug brings up 13 plugins, whereas flickr brings up 245.  But I'm sure the smugmug ones work great. 

Lightroom and most other software supports both Smugmug and Flickr for easy uploading.  If your using software, I'd suggest checking to see what it supports.  This isn't essential, just makes things easier.

I've got a smugmug program on my phone which I like.  This allows me to show photos to anyone, anywhere.

Therefore, if I was deciding what to use, in order of importance I'd give some thought to how many photos I'd be uploading and if I'd be uploading videos.  I'd choose a site that integrates with my existing software.  Then I'd choose a site with easy sharing options, mobile phone programs, ability to incorporate into a website etc. 

384

EOS Bodies / Re: Is there an advantage to still having a mirror on a dslr

« on: January 12, 2012, 10:48:43 PM »

The mirror means that you have an optical viewfinder (rather than an electronic viewfinder, which is a small LCD screen).  I find this much easier on my eyes to look through.  However, electronic viewfinders have their benefits.  What you see is what you get.  The photo comes out exactly as it appears in the viewfinder.  Also, with the press of a button you have instant magnification.  It's easier to see if the focus is correct (which is very useful if using older manual focus lenses).  But virtually everyone would prefer a good optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder if you are using the camera a lot.

A typical SLR also focuses a lot faster than a mirrorless camera.  But mirrorless camera are said to focus more accurately.  Mirrorless cameras are also improving on their speed. 

Getting rid of the mirror has advantages.  The main one being that it decreases the size and weight of the camera.  There are some other thoertical advantages.  Without a mirror, there is less vibration when taking a photo - possibly leading to sharper photos (but being lighter, they are a bit harder to hold still).  You should be able to design great wide angle lenses (but apart from Leica - and do they count? - nobody has really done this).  With less moving parts, you should also be able to build a tougher camera (but once again, nobody has actually done this).  The Nikon V1 also shoots at 60fps.  I don't think that Canon SLRs currently do this (but in theory they could add this capability by operating in mirror up mode).

Oh, and then there's batteries.  I think I'm currently getting over 1500 shots per charge with my 1Ds MkII.  I'm lucky to get 300 with my EPL-1.  To keep the camera size down, the batteries are tiny.  Its easy to carry a spare, but just another thing to consider.

For what its worth, over christmas I took a few weeks off and hit some typical tourist locations.  As always, nearly everyone had a camera of some sort.  But this was the first time I'd noticed a lot of the Pens, Panasonics, and new Nikons.  Its not reflected in the sales figures, but it would seem that the people that actually get out there and use their cameras tend to like the new breed of mirrorless cameras.

Therefore, if you are looking for a light, portable camera for general photography and aren't interested in a lot of lenses, I think its a dead heat.  In fact, assuming similar sensors, image quality would be the same.  If a non-camera person asked me for a recommendation, I'd give the nod to the mirrorless camera. 

If you are after something with fast focusing, that you will be using all day, with a lot of options for lenses, then the traditional SLR is the clear winner.  At least for the next two years.   

385

Lenses / Re: Canon's incredibly short warranty

« on: January 10, 2012, 07:40:52 PM »

I'd be more interested in an international warranty.  No matter where you are, or where you purchased your lens, the local Canon repair shop should fix it.  Canon can then run there own internal arrangement so that the cost of the repair is picked up by the regional distributor that initially sold the lens (which they should be able to identify via the serial number).

386

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon promises a 'mirrorless' camera in 2012

« on: January 08, 2012, 11:50:05 PM »

I think the "official" announcement is tomorrow.  But its been listed on Amazon and there are pictures all over the net.  It looks nice, but no reviews yet.

The pre-order price on Amazon of the body was $1,699.95.  There are three compatible lenses, a 35mm f/1.4 ($499), an 18mm f/2.0 ($499) and a 60mm macro ($599).

387

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon promises a 'mirrorless' camera in 2012

« on: January 08, 2012, 11:15:52 PM »

Some sites have put an interesting slant on this.  Essentially they see it as a plea for customers to delay buying an Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Samsung mirrorless until they can see what Canon has in store.  Assuming Canon has something in store.... 

By the way, has anyone noticed the new Fuji X-Pro 1?  I can't wait to see some reviews on that.  It looks like it might be a great, little camera.  This is the sort of thing I hope Canon brings out.

i think mirrorless is for most "normal" customers

That's a good way to think about it.  Sometimes you just want to go out and take some photos and micro four thirds is "good enough".  Plus, mirrorless cameras have some beneficial features.  I took my children to the Brisbane Planetarium and Botanic Gardens yesterday.  What did I take?  An EPL-1 with kit lens and a Minolta 135mm.  The 135mm effectively becomes a really compact, light, image stabilized 270mm f2.8 in micro four thirds talk.  Great for carrying around all day and ideal for photographing slow moving turtles and lizards.  Is the image quality as good as my Canons?  Maybe not.  But with a well exposed photo, I can't see any real problems.   

Given that Canon has such market dominance with P&S cameras with such a wide variety of models, I'm amazed that Canon doesn't have a model that is ideal for people like your parents.  That is, better image quality than a P&S, but with a good fixed / zoom / kit lens for people that wouldn't want to buy any additional lenses or accessories.  Let's see how the G1X does. 

388

EOS Bodies / Re: Do you REALLY need a new camera?

« on: January 06, 2012, 04:51:11 AM »

Need?  No.  Want?  Yes Please!

It's a lot of fun to play with new toys!  Sure, I agree with most of the previous sentiments.  Don't automatically expect a new camera to make you a better photographer blah blah blah.  But, it's a lot of fun to think about buying new gear, checking out Canon Rumors to see what's coming out, and picking up the occasional new lens or body to see what they can add.  I'm sure most people who visit this site would have a dream list of things to buy.  I can't see anything wrong with that.

389

Lenses / Re: Travel advice - which lenses?

« on: December 29, 2011, 02:23:13 AM »

Don't worry - we've got plenty of beer over here.  Plus Newcastle is near one of our big wine regions, the Hunter Valley.   Its not a common tourist destination, but it will be a nice place to be based for five months, especially if you enjoy a bit of driving on weekends.  Its got some nice beaches and is surrounded by some great national parks.  I'm sure you'll like it.  Being a Queenslander, I can't really help with the best places to go around Newcastle (plus, as everyone knows, the best places are in Queensland, anyway!).  But post a new topic is you're ever visiting Northern NSW or South-East Queensland and after some suggestions.

390

Lenses / Re: A set of lenses for around the world travel.

« on: December 28, 2011, 01:18:08 AM »

I've also got a carabiner hanging from one of the straps on my camera bag.  If I'm in a busy cafe, I'll click it around the leg of a table.  Makes it a little harder for someone to pick up your bag unnoticed.