October 01, 2014, 03:07:47 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:45:42 PM »
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.

That said, if he does have the copyright to this photo, Wikipedia could be sued for quite a bit of money. They willingly subverted his copyright (multiple takedown requests, now articles on it), which carries a much heftier fine that unknowingly violating copyright.

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.

But, the act of cropping, color correcting, and rotating are probably not enough to make that claim

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:41:10 PM »
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

Obviously a monkey cant own a copyright, but, that doesnt mean the copyright goes to the next in line. As there was no contract, and possibly no creative intent, its quite possible nobody owns the photo

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:08:07 PM »
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.

Likewise for anything like the 28-200/28-300. Just too hard to get it down to a reasonable price that people will buy it, knowing it inherently has IQ and performance trade-offs

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:53:07 PM »
2014 is the Yeah of the Lens!*

*disclaimer: may actually be next year

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?

I guess they could update the 15-85 or 17-55, but I'd doubt that. And they just re-did all their wide and mid-range zooms, so it cant be those. Basically only leaves the 28-135 and the 100-400. And since there really isnt any room for a 28-135 update...

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 45x Zoom for Waterproof Camera
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:35:11 PM »
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.

That said, if that f-number is correct, this thing would be DOA. It'd be a 10x zoom that becomes a 45x zoom on one the sunniest of days. The current waterproof cameras already struggle on cloudy days, can't imagine making that worse and getting people to buy it

Reviews / Re: Gear insurance? Check is in the mail
« on: July 11, 2014, 07:45:08 PM »
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.

I think mine is in the $14/1k gear range, in the Northern Virginia area just outside the beltway. If you were in a higher crime city, I'd suspect that what you were quoted ($18/1k) is probably accurate.

Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:13:49 AM »

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.

But, for $780, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for auto-focus or DOF reasons, I agree that the f/4L IS is a damn nice lens. The savings in weight and added IS will make up for almost every use case.

If I was redesigning my site for a portfolio, this is what I'd be using: http://demo.herothemes.com/?product=moda

That said, it depends a lot on what you want. If you're just showing off your work, there are a dozen ways to do that. If you're trying to make a business out of it, you'd need a completely different approach

As awful as a lot of Microsoft software is, this is pretty much a win-win. Canon doesnt have to use any of Microsoft's patents if they don't want (and vice versa), but, this means they dont have to engineer their own solutions that one of the largest tech companies in the world has already solved.

Means less money needed on R&D for those issues and more money dedicated towards things Microsoft cant solve (lenses, sensors, etc).

If Canon and Microsoft had merged as companies, it'd be awful for software/UI reasons...but patent sharing is very different

It's a CR3 about the fact that the NDA/embargo will expire. That's really it. I wouldn't call this a CR3 about the 7D "replacement" (cleverly worded ;)) itself. Don't get your hopes up too much...all this is is reporting the fact that Canon will be lifting NDAs and allow people to speak freely about certain upcoming products starting in Sept., however we still don't know what those products are. Just that it's the 7D "replacement"...whatever that is...7D II? 3D? 4D? 2D? Something still APS-C? Something maybe APS-H? Something with 10fps? Something with more FPS? It's all still the same old questions...we still don't know anything. We just know now that we WILL know more clearly, but possibly still not for sure, in a few more months. :P
Fair, but it does confirm that the 7D replacement is coming in September...something that had only been CR2 until this point. And as we've learned with CR2's in the past, that could mean something is years away.

At least now we know when the forums will be flooded with people complaining

Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 27, 2014, 04:35:04 PM »
Why anyone does business with that company is beyond me.
Because prior to them pulling the rug out on video editors with Final Cut X, they had the most accessible and simplest workflow. Then, as they seem to be doing with Aperture, they decided those customers dont matter in the immediate.

Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 12:11:39 PM »
My requirements probably extend further than I initially wrote, but they are secondary to the size/IQ priority (ie: I'll need something to take underwater and probably need 1080-60p too!). Landscape has always been my niche but I'm expecting much more reportage-style and even video opportunities coming my way too.
You might be able to kill two birds with one stone and consider a move to something like a Panasonic GH4. You get all the video features you'd need while still being able to landscape work, etc. And Panasonic actually has a decent upper end lens system (certainly not L's, but very good), not to mention all the legacy lenses you can use.

I use a GH2 and Canon FD lenses for all my video work, and a 60D with various canon lenses for my photography. If I had to shrink down my collection, I'd go exclusively Panasonic because its more versatile with video. And with all the speedboosters available, you dont even lose that much by going micro four-thirds over full-frame.

To a certain extent, I'm not so bothered by body recommendations; only if it is intrinsic to recommending a particular lens. As mentioned, my primary lens is a 24 T/S L II, followed by 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 100-400 L, 100 macro. I'd never forgive myself if I dropped these in favour of some that were massively inferior.
That said, you could easily get away with a 6D and shrinking your lenses. 16-35 could be downsized surely, as could the 100-400L. 24 T/S is hard to downsize, but if you were ok losing the T/S part, you'd be easily able to save a lot of weight. Heck, the 24-70 f/4L IS would cover the 24mm and macro in one, lighter lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 10:24:49 AM »
I love it when machines are able to absolutely nail the translation.
I'm also a fan of this

I get the visible light
I get the ultraviolet light
I get the infrared light


Lenses / Re: 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:28:01 AM »
Another option. Get the Tokina 11-16...while you lose a little range, having the f/2.8 gives you flexibility in low-light. As an added bonus, it works pretty damn well at 15-16mm on full-frame

I would skip all the aps-c and just go straight for the 5DIII and some L glass.
So nice to spend someone else's money.

That said, there is a MAJOR difference between 16mm and 10-11mm, so, if you're gonna be shooting a lot of landscapes, it's worth getting an ultra-wide to really open up your options. The 10-18 would cost you $300 now, and you can sell it for $200 at least a year from now. Is that $100 loss really worth missing out on hundreds of shots? Same would be true for the other ultra-wides.

I thought I would move from APS-C to full-frame about a year ago. I still havent. Turns out that, aside from night photography, APS-C isn't really holding me back in any of my photography

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:38:40 AM »
"holding back" could mean that production has started and they are waiting until they have sufficient stock produced and in place around the world for the release. Don't forget that it also takes time to get electronics certified in various countries and they cant ship until they can put that CSA, UL, or whatever certification on the units.
Not to mention they've been known to have major production delays in the past year or two. It's entirely possible that the 100-400 was supposed to be done at the start of the year, but it got delayed or had issues, thus "holding back".

Seeing the features that are left off Canon cameras that are clearly there (as Magic lantern has unlocked) or that would have been simple to keep (AFMA for example), holding back could also be a marketing decision, as they want the lens and camera launched in combo for sales purposes

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53