October 24, 2014, 11:08:47 AM

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
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:46:17 PM »
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.

32
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 20, 2014, 10:24:00 PM »
50mm f/2 would actually be pretty boring; I'm not even sure the VDSLR community would buy it. Their cine lenses are great for a collection, but I'd rather spend the $100-200 on a 50mm f/1.4 that's Canon FD or Nikon AI.

But based on this teaser, it's either a comically overly large 50mm f/2, or it's actually f/1.2

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10616519_768446066534647_5481792888875332563_n.jpg

33
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 09:29:11 AM »
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.

Arguments about who owns the equipment, who set up the creative conditions...they all lead down really slippery slopes that, as photographers, we shouldn't want to go down.

Whats funny is that Slater went out of his way to claim this was a selfie by the animal, and now he's trying to backtrack that story to assert copyright. You can't have it both ways

34
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 02:17:46 PM »
For a crop sensor? Who would pay that price?
Seriously, people would just by a 1DX at that price point.

Remember, the original 7D was nearly indestructible and had the build quality of the 1-series at the time, and it came out at $1699 retail. I think its far more likely that the 7DII comes in at <$2k, with the worst case being low-mid 2's.

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:23:30 PM »
Apparently the D610, Df, and D810 aren't enough in the $2-3000 range.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

36
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: August 09, 2014, 04:41:22 PM »
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.

So, if you're not gaining size, I'm not seeing the point in going mirrorless and EF mount.

Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
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 8)
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.

if they implemented that, it'd have to come in a prosumer or higher level body, as they wouldn't be able to price it <$1000 most likely.

37
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:48:22 PM »
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.


38
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.

Quote
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

39
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

40
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

41
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...

42
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

43
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.

44
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:13:49 AM »
Really?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
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.

45
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

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