August 27, 2014, 09:38:00 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 188
46
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:01:02 PM »
If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, please re-read it.

Yes and you're wrong.

47
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:21:55 PM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.
I would beg to disagree with respect to the automatic response.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423788#msg423788

Quote
To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up

There are several more as well.  Search for "trip" or "timed."

If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

Rinse and repeat with any other automatic activation that includes the cause of the activation.

48
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:42:46 AM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.

Ok.

If you set up the camera to take photographs automatically, do you own the photograph?
Or is it because nobody pressed the shutter button that therefore the picture is unowned?
(Think intervalometer, etc.)

What about when a picture is taken automatically in response to a sound or light?
(Think about devices that people use to take pictures of lightning that are automated.)

If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...

I would beg to disagree with respect to the automatic response.

49
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Photos used without permission
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:17:34 AM »
It's recently come to my attention that a business in my area has taken one of my photos from an editorial piece,

What venue was your photo used in an editoral piece?  When you submitted it to the venue, was there something in the fine print that gave this venue some rights?  Some venues are sneaky like that.

You also need to know whether the company took the picture from the venue or did the venue give the picture to the company.

This is important to establish.

Quote
I agree with the other posters.  Contact all the parties and in a civil manner ask what happened. It could have been a simple mistake/misunderstanding.

But don't let them get away with it for free. Offer to let them use it for (say) $5000 or something like that - for that purpose alone. To a big organisation, that sort of money is trivial and will be cheaper than lawyer's fees if you take them to court.

50
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:05:16 AM »
Ok.

If you set up the camera to take photographs automatically, do you own the photograph?
Or is it because nobody pressed the shutter button that therefore the picture is unowned?
(Think intervalometer, etc.)

What about when a picture is taken automatically in response to a sound or light?
(Think about devices that people use to take pictures of lightning that are automated.)

If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...

51
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 12, 2014, 03:47:43 AM »
...
Took the chance to test some copies on a Tamron booth in a local shop in Frankfurt (Germany). I brought my 7D and 5D3 with me, my wife her Nikon D300S. With the Canon mount test copy  + no AFMA, my 7D focused acceptably well, my 5D3 not (both in AI servo mode). Checking the test images later (mostly walking people), I could see that the full frame combo had a severe backfocus on the long end. The Nikon test combo did overall well. My wife bougth a copy which later at home displayed a massive backfocus, too, so we had to calibrate it with the Nikon.
...

This is because AFMA is there to deal with inconsistencies between both lenses AND bodies. Ultimately your discovery here means that no lens should have the same AFMA value on both of your cameras.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 05:21:19 PM »
wifi is little use for field work (sports and wildlife).  Wifi is only useful in the studio where a base station can be available.

WiFi gets used a lot in sports. Remote controlled cameras that sit where the photographer cannot or simply using the camera to shoot in bursts of 20fps every minute or so, direct to your laptop, without wanting the distraction of needing USB cables.

53
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 05:18:58 PM »
Can someone explain something about wifi?

I have read that build quality (metal body?) precludes incorporating wifi. Yet, the wifi card manufacturers say their product works with the 5DIII in its SD slot. If that's the case, then why would camera manufacturers be unable to design a camera body that doesn't have the ability to use wifi. It seems they should be able to simply shift the wifi portion to another part of the body.

Honestly no reason at all, coming from a career in the IT world before I have worked on many laptops at board level and most have the wifi "chips" in a central location and the antenna is located elsewhere on the board for best performance. This is also the case as some of you may recall with the iphone and the issues they had with the metal body and wifi/3g when you covered a particular part of the phone body with your fingers etc.

So in reply, they could well design a metal body for the camera and pipe via a cable to an antenna external to the metal shell for best reception purposes....and this does not mean it has to remain an internal antenna...

In laptops, the WiFi antenna typically runs around the perimeter of your screen, well clear of any metal boxes. The WiFi antenna for laptops is quite long/large. The iPhone issue was because the exterior of the phone *was* the antenna and when you touched two parts of the exterior at the same time there was a "shorting" (through your body) of the antenna.

Add into this that the paint on camera bodies does wear off, using the case as the antenna could lead to the radio circuit being shorted or not functioning properly. I don't like to think how it would work if it got wet.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 10:57:27 AM »
That will send the price north and won't be quite the same deal that the 7D was originally. That's bound to upset some who will then need to look at the 70D or 80D as their upgrade from the 7D.

Maybe the thing to do is think of the 7DII as the "upgrade" or "replacement" for the 1D4 (non-FF sensor in a pro body.)

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Suggestions of a Canon MF announcement at Photokina!
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:33:32 AM »
How much of a demand could there be for such a camera?  There is all this talk and hype, but anybody have a guess at all?  With the cost of them and perhaps new lens designs etc., I can't see this as a huge seller.  I may be way off base here.  What segment would want them.

Maybe Canon thinks it can herd all of its studio shooters on to Canon MF where it will be harder for them to shift?

56
Hey, can you post some high DR wildlife images, please? I'd like to be able to visualise what you're talking about :) Like I said way back in this thread, I assume it's partly cos you're going for big mammals rather than tiny songbirds, but I may be wrong.

I'd be happy to. This image just got picked up for a textbook run:
...
This was one of the rare instances when my 7D did okay. The shot is ISO 200, and obviously I'm trying to get the sunset exposure nailed perfectly while bringing up the bison shadows later in post. You can't fix a blown sky, but you can lift shadows. Well, sort of.  ;)    When lifting the shadows, the 7D annihilated detail with severe banding and noise. I was able to fix much of it with tedious post processing, but a superior sensor would have delivered a cleaner image capable of printing much larger.  I had my 6D with me, but it was attached to a 300mm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy, but it could have been cleaner. 

Come on Michael, stop pulling everyone's leg. You shot that on a D800 didn't you  ;)

The D800 would have allowed him to get detail in the shadow of the bison's fur that is otherwise a dark blob.

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 07:29:34 AM »
My guess is a D620.  It'll be what the D610 would have been if the D610 hadn't been what the D600 should have been.   ;D   I.e., they'll give something like the D810 treatment to the D610.

Yeah, that's what I figure as well. Nikon and Canon definitely take different approaches. Canon, given the 7D II saga, definitely seems to take their pretty little time designing a camera they thing will last for years. Nikon seems to iterate, make little improvements every year and release a new model.

Personally, I am not sure I'd want the camera I spent several grand on to be updated a year after I purchased it...it would be rather irksome, to think that I spent so much money on something that...wasn't done right the first time around... But, that's just me.

Marketing strategy from Nikon. The company is under immense pressure from Mitsubishi to pull its weight and sell more units. Personally I agree that at this cost level it's more likely to irritate people.

If they do bring out a DSLR between the D6x0 and D8x0 (say the D710), then they will have a FF DSLR in the sub $2000 price range, one in the $2k-$3k and one in $3k-$4k. How much would you like to spend on your camera?

Lets look at how many APS-C cameras Canon has: 7D, 70D, 700D, 100D, 1200D.

Quote
But look on the bright side; think of the forums. We constantly get people posting about waiting for the next model: 'should I buy the 6D now or wait for the 6DII' etc. well with Nikon it would actually have some meaning.
...

Or look at the threads and comments about where is the T6i...

58
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 07:00:03 AM »
...
Personally, I am not sure I'd want the camera I spent several grand on to be updated a year after I purchased it...it would be rather irksome, to think that I spent so much money on something that...wasn't done right the first time around... But, that's just me.

How soon after you bought your computer was it replaced by something better?
And your mobile phone?

Cameras are now bound up in the electronics race and are made up of components that are obsolete the day they are announced.

59
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:34:24 PM »
And how do you get more electrons in the pixel? By making it bigger.
Irrelevant - it's the number of electrons hitting the sensor that matters. Seriously - how many times?

To use a window as an analogy (and it's a perfectly workable one) it doesn't matter whether the window is made of one pane of glass or 16, it's the surface area that matters, not how many pieces of glass (or pixels) it's made up of.

A legitimate question might be: "what if there's a lot of window frame between the individual panes? Surely they will limit the light?"

Yes,. But in terms of sensor construction, microlenses explicitly, specifically address that point.

So one more time, sensor size matters (other things being equal); pixel size is essentially irrelevant: and indeed, even DxO carries an article on its website explaining that not only do more/smaller pixels/sensels/photosites not hurt noise performance, but they actually improve it.

The article's conclusion:
Quote
For equal, normalized SNR, a high-resolution camera is still better than a low-resolution camera
And for a given sensor size, the only to have more pixels is to have smaller pixels.

No, sorry, you're not drinking the Canon rumors kool-aid correctly. You should be saying that more megapixels is not good because noise increases and image processing on your PC will take longer.

60
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:31:51 PM »
...
Like I said, you contrive situations to make Canon sensors look bad, there is no need to, Canon sensors do have limitations that others don't, but I listed several 100% legitimate reasons why however good a sensor Sony produce SoNikon will never be a suitable replacement (unless they address their system limitations), my needs for other system wide features far outstrip the limitations in DR.

Ok, I'll put your argument in the "its the system, not the camera" basket that neuro now sits in (after having abandoned the better SNR at high ISO.) And no, I don't contrive situations to make Canon sensors look bad, those situations exist everywhere, all the time.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 188