Its been confirmed a bunch of places as 50mm f/1.2, so, that at least saves them the embarrassment of a lens that wont sell. Now, we'll see what the price is.
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.
Consider a photography workshop led by a professional guide. The guide sets up all the stops, times the trip to hit the indigenous ceremonies at the right time, makes sure all the students are standing at the right overlook at the right time of day for perfect light, then steps back and lets the students point-n-click. By your reasoning, copyright of their photos would belong to the guide, not to the student who took the photo because all they did was play and click.This is probably the most useful analogy I've seen; and it shows why "creating the conditions" is a pretty vague and useless criteria to use. It matters who framed the shot (the monkey) and who snapped the photo (the monkey)...and that's pretty much it.
For a crop sensor? Who would pay that price?Seriously, people would just by a 1DX at that price point.
I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.What is the point in going mirrorless and keeping the EF mount? I get the lens compatibility, but by keeping the EF mount, you basically limit the size of the camera to, at best, be the size of the SL1. Can't really make it smaller than that, and if you want more processing power (many point AF, etc), it'd have to be bigger.
Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.This is an interesting concept, but, I have to imagine that technologically it'd be pretty complex. And, since those speedboosters all run in the $4-600 range, you're talking a big price addition to any body.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have
Don't agree with you on the usable aperture of 2.5. It's the best lens I own and virtually never take it off 1.8 for professional portrait work - it's a belter of lens, I reckon by far the best bang for buck in the Canon line up.Agreed, can't say I ever really use it above f/2.8, it stays pretty permanently in the f/1.8, f/2 range.
Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright.Yep, unless he has asserted his rights to other publications, it may not ultimately matter. Copyright partially relies on your willingness to defend it.
And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.There's also the interesting argument that he created a derivative work (which he would own copyright to), and people are stealing that.
We may argue whether the monkey or the photographer are the author of the photo, but since the monkey has no will of creative production, nor it can legally hold copyright, the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.I agree with all of your other conclusions except this one, and it depends greatly on how a court would interpret Slater's intent. If he intended to get those shots, then yes, he would own copyright. If they believe he didn't intend and it was sheer luck, then nobody would own the copyright, and Wikimedia would be right in claiming them public domain. If he had set up the camera on a tripod knowing the monkeys would go to it and take photos, then he'd have a reasonable claim. But that doesn't sound like its the case
I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do. I certainly can't see them even imagining starting a new, cheap kit lens product line when they have a successful one already, and backlogs on lenses that need updates.
I'm assuming this has zero bearing on the (rumored) upcoming 100-400mm ii... I'd feel more confident if there reports of the current 100-400mm being discontinued like the 7D.If anything, it basically confirms the 100-400. It won't be a new 200/300/400mm prime. It wont be an update to the 55-250, 18-135, etc (all just recently done with STM). So, what does that really leave?
Waterproof doesn't mean it's only for underwater. There are lots of scenarios where it's very useful. That said, it must be as small as the D30 series...Yep, plenty of outdoors people that will never actually take the camera underwater (unless they drop it in the river), but who need the ability to use it in the rain and need the "tough" build approach.
Just mailed check to State Farm - for just over 25K Personal Articles - Cameras. Worked out to $16.17 per thousand. Last year it was $12.80, but they sent nice (sic) letter sorta apologizing for increase. Letter also indicated some elements of Coin, Stamp, and Jewelry coverages eliminated. Located in semi-rural California and this is my only State Farm policy. My homeowner's wouldn't even quote; quietly recommended State Farm.Mine didnt increase, but I did get the same notice on them not covering certain elements (coins, jewelry, etc) which didn't affect me.
Really?Check the comparisons at 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, and 200mm. It's undeniable that the f/4L is better mid-frame and in the corners at those distances. Not sure why the 135mm comparison doesnt match, but, TDP sometimes has some mismatches.