October 24, 2014, 05:21:32 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 53
421
EOS Bodies / Re: Iconic photographs
« on: October 21, 2012, 04:10:53 AM »
Very good point....except that at least two of your photos were taken with Leicas!  :)

422
Australia / Re: Legal question on photography
« on: October 21, 2012, 03:23:01 AM »
Scott above has it right.  Its a legally binding contract.  If you breach the contract, Cricket Australia, would be entitled to damages.  The damages would relate to the level of income they might have lost by you posting on facebook to damages for defamation if you post an image that has a negative impact on a players reputation or standing.

By making the photos publicly available, there is always a risk that someone else might take your pictures and use them in some profit making venture - eg a Calendar in India, cricket bat ads in South Africa.  If they can trace the photo back to you, then you would be in a very awkward spot as far as damages go. 

However, I'd suspect the chances of this would be very low and for all intensive purposes, Cricket Australia would not suffer any damage from you posting photos on facebook etc, therefore they wouldn't receive any damages (maybe $1) and therefore they're not going to commence expensive legal action against you.  And if they were concerned about anything you're doing, I'd suspect CA's first action would be to write a letter reminding you of the ticket conditions and ask that you remove the photos.

PeterJ, I think you're confusing a series of court cases from the 80's and 90's.  Typically, they'd involve a business like a carpark.  You would drive in off the street, go through a boomgate and get a ticket, and only then see the rates or conditions.  Because you had no opportunity to see the conditions before entering the carpark, they weren't valid (and is why you now see them outside of the carpark as you enter).  Banks and other financial companies are also subject to a number of credit and lending regulations and they also have a higher standard of equitable conduct to meet.  Many of these came into place after banks thought it was a good idea to sign 80 and 90 year old's up as guarantors for grandkids' loans, lend money to people from overseas who couldn't speak English and didn't really know what they were doing etc etc.  Therefore to avoid possible accusations of unconscionable conduct, they go through all of the conditions, make guarantors seek independent legal advice and now even have to ensure that borrowers can comfortably repay a loan. 

As Ticketmaster make their conditions available before buying the ticket, they are valid.  And I assume if you buy them at the grounds, they'd have the conditions listed in the ticket office for reading before purchasing.  Anyway, I'm off to the Gabba in a few weeks - where did I put my vuvuzela?

423
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I need some help my Canon friends!
« on: October 18, 2012, 10:23:00 PM »
And in additon to higher prices, my local lab has gone from daily E6 processing to weekly processing.  Not that that's a major inconvenience, but its all addded up to me becoming primarily a B & W photographer. 

But back on topic, have a look at the Mamiya RB67 and RZ67.  People are practically giving these away.  The Mamiya 645 is also a good option as it has some faster lenses and some models have built in light meters.  Some even autofocus.  If you're ever thinking of adding a digital medium format back, the 645AFD is probably the best option.  But you can also fit digital backs on RZ67s, too (but with a crop factor).  Personally I've switched from an RB67 to a Mamiya 6 as it is a lot lighter.  But for any critical work, the RB67 and RZ67s are almost as good as they get as far as medium format system cameras go - Hasselblad being the obvious leader.

And black and white 120 film isn't that expensive or difficult to process yourself.  Even printing is reasonably easy at a basic level.  Darkroom equipment also sells very cheaply.

424
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I need some help my Canon friends!
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:49:35 AM »
Don't forget that it is widely accepted that film shooters are just plain sexier.  Seriously, every cool character who is taking photos in a movie or an ad is carrying a hasselblad, Leica or other film camera.  Only computer geeks shoot digital.  Getting into film might lead to having your own darkroom - If you meet someone at a club, you can invite them back to your darkroom to see what develops.  And if you want to be taken seriously as an artist, well...   There are a lot of pros to shooting film.

But as a negative, you do know most medium format cameras have 0 AF points?

Anyway, not sure why you think medium format is so expensive.  You can pick up a nice Mamiya kit for a few hundred dollars.  It might cost $1 to $1.50 per photo, but the reality is you probably won't shoot as many as photos as you would with digital - With the manual focusing, manual film advancing, and the cost per shot, you think twice about each photo.  This keeps the cost down a bit.  And think of how superior you'll feel to those people using tiny, miniscule FF sensors.

Personally, I go through love/hate periods with 35mm film.  Whereas I like the look of medium format and shoot it a lot, for the last couple of years I've preferred digital to 35mm and my trusty Canon film bodies have been gathering dust.  But a 1v is a nice camera.  Its probably the best film camera Canon will ever make.  It uses your current lenses.  Apart from still being a bit pricey, what's there to lose?  If you get bored with it, just sell it.

BTW, a 1Ds3 is suggested above.  A 1Ds2 won't break the bank, give good image quality and give you the 45 point AF and 1 series feel and build quality, but then a 5D3 will also do all of this and is also probably better.

425
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm tilt and shift
« on: October 14, 2012, 07:09:51 AM »
They announced the development a long time ago, so I'm hoping that its release is imminent.  I'm also very curious about its pricing and quality vs the Canon.  At $2k+, I haven't rushed out to buy the Canon lens.  But if the Samyang is comparable at half the price, it might be next on my list. 

426
Lenses / Re: Which lenses for cricket?
« on: October 11, 2012, 05:41:12 AM »
I've taken a 70-200 f/4 IS to the Gabba a few times.  (200mm is the cricket Australia limit and I've never wanted to push my luck).  But 200mm just isn't long enough!  Each time I've wished for something with longer reach.  I'm thinking the 70-300mm on a 550D would be a good choice if you want to travel light with just one lens.  But have you considered going even longer with the 100-400?

427
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 05:04:02 AM »
DxO Analyser is not made for the photographers. It is for the engineers and technicians.

If you think, that a sensor (and I said sensor, not camera) can be fully described with an overall score in 0-100, you are silly. That is only an advertisement stuff for people, who are not educated in this topic.

And I think that's where the problem lies.  Very few people care or want to know about the technical side.  They just want to take great photos.  To do this you need a camera and if you're doing some research you will come across the DxO site.  How awesome is this!!  Not only do they rank all of the cameras but you can also do a comparison between them.  Despite disclaimers and fine print, you really get the impression that the DxO Mark is an objective assessment of one cameras overall ability vs another.

Anyways, I'm only anti-DxO because my camera gets a lowly "73".  Whereas my Nikon D5100 wielding sister gets an "80".  Yet my camera is sooooo much better....



428
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 11:07:49 PM »
Some valid points above and its been interesting reading the discussions about DxOMark in recent months and gaining a better understanding of their tests.  I used to find them very influential - A year or two ago, I was considering purchasing a little Pentax kit for travelling (DSLR and a couple of pancake lenses).  But DxO gave their lenses such bad ratings that I gave up on the idea.  And I've got almost a basic understanding of things.  I don't know what complete beginners make of it all.  Imagine how good Canon sales would be if they were competitve in DxO rankings.

429
Software & Accessories / Re: Needing a primer on batteries
« on: October 08, 2012, 11:34:02 PM »
In Australia, a genuine NP-E3 battery is almost $300.  That's a bit excessive for four AAs and some plastic casing.  Given that you can get an almost identical third party battery for $35, choosing the third party option isn't that hard. (For anyone interested, I've found the ones from Aussie Battery to fit well and have a high shot capacity).

Although I've never had a problem, I am a bit more paranoid about the third party batteries.  I charge them on a granite benchtop with nothing nearby that might catch fire.  And I tend to check on them more regularly.  I don't know if the instances of failure are higher than OEM, but there are enough stories to make you a little wary.

430
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 07, 2012, 06:04:03 AM »
A prime lens collection that is "good enough" is a difficult question.  I'm reasonably confident in saying that there aren't any "bad" lenses in the Canon collection.  Most are good and more than adequate for most things.  Some are very good and fill in the gaps for special needs. 

Even the cheapest lens - the 50mm f/1.8 - is actually quite good once you've stopped it down a bit.  In fact, virtually every cheap option is almost essentially as good as the "L" option except that they generally aren't as sharp at the widest apertures, feel a little flimsy, and their out of focus backgrounds aren't as nice.

For most things, the non-L 35/50/100 lenses will be almost as good, and you'd have to look closely to tell the differences.  And even then, "differences" doesn't actually mean "better" (although, admittedly, generally it will).  And as mentioned above, the 135mm f/2 is a very good lens if that's a focal length that interests you.  Its worthwhile saving up.

431
If you're looking at a more affordable option for occasional use, I've been using a carbon fibre Triopo tripod and ball-head for the last few years with success.

432
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 07, 2012, 02:45:40 AM »
I won't try to say that I fully understand the article.  However, real world results suggest that there is no such problem.  The 5Dii has more than 19mp and has been considered an excellent landscape camera - I don't recall anyone noticing odd colour shifts when stopped down below f/8.  And those with a working D800 seem delighted with their cameras too.

433
Lenses / Re: Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens
« on: October 02, 2012, 10:47:42 AM »
Thanks, should have mentioned that my interest is mostly astronomy related.  Currently using a 400mm with two 2x teleconverters on an m4/3 cameras (to give me an effective 3200mm).  But getting annoyed with noise and my photos could be sharper (and probably my tripod more stable).  Plus the small aperture doesn't help with getting sharp images.  Its not a bad set up for bright objects such as the moon, but planets look like tiny fuzzy blobs.  Just daydreaming about other options.  Maybe a telescope is the solution.

434
Software & Accessories / Re: Who uses a handheld light meter?
« on: October 02, 2012, 08:52:06 AM »
Maybe look at the second hand market.  If you can do some simple maths, then the older Pentax and Minolta spot meters are well regarded.

Nearly every serious photography book I read advocates a spot meter and the zone system or similar including sketching the scene and pencilling in all of the readings to determine the exposure and look that you are seeking.  To me, it seems overly complex and cumbersome....but then, my failure to do this consistently (and my fear of snakes!) might explain why I'm not a world reknown landscape photographer.  I suspect that one of the main benefits of using a light meter is that it makes you think more about what you are doing.  That alone might lead to better photographs. 

Actually, I have an RB67 too hence my reason for one....

You've never been tempted by the metered prism finder?

435
Lenses / Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens
« on: October 02, 2012, 07:42:22 AM »
Was just checking the Samyang site and see they've got an 800mm mirror lens and a 650-1300mm zoom.  A second hand shop near my work has a Meade 1000mm f/11 mirror lens for sale.  And I see a lot of similar lenses for sale on eBay.  A quick google search suggests the image quality from these lenses isn't great.  Unfortunately...it seems you get what you pay for.   

But my question is this: -

If you had a 300mm f/4, would your cropped image appear sharper than a cheap 1000mm+ lens?  What about a 300mm with a teleconverter or two?  Is there any point to buying a cheaper, longer lens?

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 53