September 02, 2014, 09:26:43 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 50
Sony's problem is that cameras are a fairly mature product.  Apart from some minor tinkering, there isn't a lot that is going to make a large segment of target purchasers (ie those who will likely buy multiple lenses) sit up and pay attention.  This new Alpha 77ii is a classic example.  It looks like a nice camera and seems well specc'd.  But I struggle to see how it differs noticeably from, say, a 70D.  Given that most serious camera buyers have an entrenched "Canon (or Nikon) is best" attitude, the new 77ii won't win a lot of converts.  In many ways, its no different to the Pentax K3 - another nice camera which few people seem to care about.

Although, if you were starting afresh, it might be a different story.  The Sony "G" and "Zeiss" lenses are very nice and the lenses can be used (with an adapter) on the a7/a7r.  And almost everyone seems to like the image quality from Sony sensors.  I can see why people would be interested in buying into the Sony system.  But if you had the budget for their top of the line lenses, would you really be buying a 77ii?  I doubt it.

Canon General / Re: $10,000
« on: April 22, 2014, 06:26:00 AM »
...still, its a fun exercise.  I'd go with: -

Fuji X-t1 + 56mm - $2180
Fuji 14mm - $772
Fuji 23mm - $919
Used 1Ds Mkii - $1000
Canon 40mm - $169
Canon 135mm - $1204
Tamron 150-600 - $1226

That's $7470.  With the balance, I'd pick up some flashes, tripod, printer, filters, flash triggers etc.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases Some New Lenses
« on: April 19, 2014, 01:35:19 AM »
The "T" looks like it could be a powered zoom... But all things indicate it will be the 50mm f/1.4 everybody has been waiting for.
Samyang have mentioned that it will actually be a 50/1.2.  It's coming out this year, and could be a very interesting lens.  But whether this is it...

At least it is great to see Canon innovating.  Hopefully we'll follow the success of Pentax with an ever increasing range of colours.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 15, 2014, 03:23:40 AM »
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. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 14, 2014, 05:12:54 AM »
- 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.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 650-1300mm
« on: April 14, 2014, 04:56:45 AM »
Good to hear some others like the SX50.  I mentioned that I was pleasantly surprised by the IQ in another post  and was laughed out of town.  I'm not saying the SX50 is the be-all and end-all, but for those who are severely focal length challenged, or don't want to carry a 400 to 600mm lens around, or don't want to spend a lot of money I think it is a great option for getting to 1200mm (in 35mm equiv.).

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?

The OP would need to determine who the copyright owner was and get their permission.  Unless the agreement between the bride and groom and the pro specifies otherwise (and you'd need to review the contract to find out), under Australian copyright law, the bride and groom would own the copyright and as such the OP would need their permission.   Given that the Bride and Groom like the photos, the logical step would be to get their ok.  If he was to get the approval from the pro, too, there would never be any risk of problems.

And then there is a grey area.  Just because the Bride or the Pro might own the copyright, it doesn't mean that they own the OP's photo files.  I'd have to think about this more, but if the Bride and Groom own the copyright, that just means that they have the right to reproduce or use the images taken by the pro and the ability to prevent others from copying or publishing the photos.  But it doesn't necessarily give them ownership of the files produced by the pro.  They are the pro's property.  Similarly, in the absence of an agreement between the OP and the pro, the photos made by the OP are the OP's property (even if he might not own the copyright).  If the OP simply displays the files on his computer for prospective clients, he's not reproducing them and there might not even be a copyright issue.  We also allow people to convert things they own to different formats for personal use without copyright issues.  Arguably, the OP could also print the images and have them displayed in his home for his own personal enjoyment, and if potential clients inadvertently see them, well...

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:

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

Once you've got a few years' IP law under your belt, you might see things differently.  I'd argue that the OP took the images as an agent of the pro photographer (as he would have been under the supervision and guidance of the pro and his attendance at the event would have been under the pro's direction), and consequently the pro owns the copyright (subject to the contract with the bride and they are the client, depending on the wording of the contract, you might find that they already own the copyright - take a look at s35(5) of the Copyright Act.)

Given the circumstances, I have a hard time seeing how the OP could own the copyright.  I suspect he'd argue that as the person pressing the shutter button, he was the creator and therefore the owner.  But given that this would have been a private event, with the OP attending under the direction of the pro photographer, if this ever became a serious issue, I'd suggest the pro (or the bride and groom) would have the winning argument. (Law degree and 20+ years experience.)

Back to the OP, I'm happy that you discussed it with the pro (even if it wasn't 100% your desired outcome).  We'd have 2 or 3 people come and do work experience with us from high schools and universities each year.  And while we're not in a photography related industry, everyone that works with us always acts on their best behaviour and we're delighted to have them, even though a certain percentage will ultimately become direct competitors.  But we like doing it.  Not only do we identify potential employees, but it is always useful having contacts in other firms or different specialities.  Hopefully, you've kept the relationship with the pro on a good footing as you never know when your paths might cross again.

I've got the same as the OP - the Intuos pen & touch.  Mine is the small one (CTH-480).  For me, even the small one is too big and I've decreased the area being used. 

I'm a recent convert to Wacom tablets.  I have no idea why I didn't buy one earlier.  The pressure sensitivity of the tablet and stylus when used with tools such as brushes and the eraser, allow me to do much more precise adjustments.  The quality of my post production results have improved dramatically.  (But then, I like doing a lot of PP.  If you're a straight out of camera shooter, this might be less important).

FWIW, I purchased the tablet after watching a couple of YouTube videos in which a photographer, Terry White, showed how he used it for portrait adjustments.  It was one of those - "Wow! can do that?  And so easily?" moments (As anyone who has ever struggled to do really fine, small adjustments with just a mouse, can appreciate).  Since then, I've come across a number of other videos to help refine techniques.  Not being a professional photographer, I'm out of the loop when it comes to the equipment that many people use.  But I'm surprised that you don't see more people recommending tablets.   

Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 19, 2014, 12:57:15 AM »
I'm curious to see the IQ difference between the 28-105 and the L, haha.

The 28-105 was my first ever lens that was wider than 35mm.  When I bought it, I couldn't believe how wide it was  - my first thought was "wow!".  Before buying some L lenses (and switching to digital, which turned me into a pixel peeper), I used to think the 28-105 was pretty good, but in comparison, it struggles at the wider end.  Still, mine served me well for 10+ years.

C'mon, the guy is over 70 years old.  Give him a break!  At least he's getting out and doing something he enjoys, and if he's got the ability to have other people do the hard lifting, good on him.

Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 04:13:48 AM »
You're settings look fine to get a sharp, high quality image (1/1000, ISO 400, F8.0).  But I'd still suggest trying to bump the shutter speed up.

I've often thought that Canon cameras have trouble focusing on furry animals.  (At least they do for me...a quick google search suggests that I might be the only one...).  But, like you, I  use lenses with smaller apertures and know that the camera's AF system is not at its peak - I suspect that is the reason I get more than the occasional improperly focused photo.  Using AI Servo mode and taking a few shots helps with getting a higher number of keepers.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 14, 2014, 12:53:42 AM »
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. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 50