April 16, 2014, 02:14:01 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 - unfocused

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 117
1
Canon General / Re: "MAP" pricing....How long will it last????
« on: April 15, 2014, 05:36:35 PM »
I think I understand why they try to enforce MAP pricing. They are trying to protect their dealer network; not necessarily the large retailers, but the smaller shops that can't compete on volume and can't stay in business on the small margins that internet dealers accept.

Intellectually, I am sympathetic because I see the downside to massive internet retailers like Amazon, that have little to no investment in the community. They don't pay the taxes that support schools, roads, police, etc. etc.

On the other hand, like most consumers, I am interested in maximizing my purchasing power.

So, I am conflicted.

Two points though to keep in mind.

First, MAP pricing does not affect the manufacturer's price to the retailer. When Canon or Nikon or Sony enforce MAP pricing, they aren't earning any additional profit, the higher margin goes to the retailer. They continue to sell the product to the retailer at the price they've always sold it.

Second, MAP enforcement never works. Ultimately, the market sets the price regardless of  MAP.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: B&H or Adorama
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:28:39 PM »
Shows up in black on Internet Explorer. Doesn't show up in Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari.

3
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 04:23:27 PM »
LEICA is always the ol' rusty nail that deflates the whole argument against the profitability of niche markets, aren't they?

Who's arguing that niche markets are unprofitable?  They can be quite profitable, if managed (aka exploited) properly.  The 1-series bodies are a niche market, the 1D C even more so – and they're priced for Canon to profit from them.

I was about to respond to this, but you said it better and more succinctly than I could.

One additional thought though: people shouldn't confuse niche market profitability with large company sustainability. The 1-series bodies may be very profitable for Canon (I really don't know if they are or if they are a marketing loss-leader), but they couldn't possibly sustain the entire company because there just aren't enough buyers.

The Rebels, on the other hand, may be a small profit item, but I suspect the t3i contributes more to the overall bottom line than all the 1-series put together.

Point being -- large companies must pick and choose which niche markets to enter and sustain. Canon and Nikon remain in the flagship DSLR market in part because it aligns well with their prosumer, enthusiast, consumer and entry-level marketing.

Neither Canon nor Nikon have ever shown much interest in medium format cameras. I suspect it is because the small dollars available won't allow sufficient return to justify the investment and they can put those dollars to better use in other niche markets that align better with their overall mission – cinema DSLRs for example.

You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

Additionally, the jury is still out on whether the Japanese and other Asian markets are the leading edge or the trailing edge. Just because mirrorless currently seems to be doing well in Asia, too many people assume that's the future.

But, the evidence can be read in just the opposite way – mirrorless might be just a temporary infatuation for a market that could ultimately end up following Europe and the Americas into the DSLR love affair.

Okay, I know it's very risky to combine the Japanese market with the rest of Asia. Japan is a mature market and mirrorless seems primarily focused on generational and gender-based preferences in Japan.

But, China is an emerging market and ultimately may be a much more important one at that. As the middle- and upper-classes expand in China, they may find DSLRs just as appealing as their European and American counterparts.

So my point remains -- we really don't know if mirrorless is the wave of the future or not, even in Asia.

Side Note: Looks like the HTML might be screwed up on this post. Can't find a way to get in to it to see what the problem might be. My apologies.

4
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:42:58 AM »
...Yes, the reflex mirror will go away at some point, some time after the point where performance of EVFs meets or exceeds that of OVFs (that's a ways off), and image sensor AF performance meets or exceeds that of a dedicated phase AF sensor for both static and moving subjects (we're getting closer to that)...
...Cameras that are similar in size to today's dSLRs, but don't have a reflex mirror, will come along eventually.  We won't be able to call them dSLRs (technically), but they won't fit today's definition of "mirrorless" either...

I don't disagree with the essence of what you are saying. Although I do think the jury is still out on whether or not EVFs will ever outperform and replace OVFs.

It seems to me the Optical View Finder is a pretty elegant solution that's been around for a long time (over 100 years in some form or another and well over 50 as the dominant format for 35mm). It relies on physics, not electronics, and has lots of advantages.

When people complain about Optical View Finders, they generally focus on the mirror movement and size. The slapping of the mirror is one of those things like dynamic range, shadow detail, etc. that a few people fixate on, but which has little practical effect for most users.

It's true that a camera without a mirror should be smaller than one with. But, it's also true that size is only a factor in modest focal lengths. Get beyond the edges of the normal range and lens size quickly trumps camera size. Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras are the height of irony -- small form factor but then, let's carry around multiple lenses. What sense does that make?

Canon has demonstrated with the SL1 that DSLRs can be small too, and still retain all the advantages of an optical mirror.

Not taking issue with you, Neuro, because you get it. Rather just with the mindset that electronic viewfinders will inevitably replace optical simply because they are the latest thing.

Which may be why I'm skeptical about the future of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: DP Review's 10 most popular camera list
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:59:53 PM »
No worries. Just go to Amazon's best seller's list to see what people are actually buying, not what they are reading about.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

As of this a.m. 14 of the top 20 are Canon and Canon has three full frame configurations in the top 20 while Nikon has one.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:43:26 PM »
Unfocused...What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ?  Is it maybe that this voice is getting louder? Maybe?

No. It means exactly what I wrote in my post. Someone convinces themselves that there is some feature that they absolutely have to have and then they make the leap that if they don't get it, Canon is making a huge and costly mistake. So they start a thread on this forum to whine about it.

You are fixated on the AA filter.

This same thread gets repeated over and over again with the only difference being the obscure feature that the individual has fixated on -- dynamic range, shadow banding, sensor size, number of megapixels, the list goes on and on.

The only voices getting louder are the imaginary ones in people's heads.

Canon is a business. A very successful business. There isn't anything anyone on this forum can come with that Canon has not considered and researched in far greater detail.

If it comes to a point where a business case can be made for changing the AA filter, they will change it. But, starting a forum thread and shouting "Hurry up Canon" isn't going to change anything.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 08, 2014, 06:20:00 PM »
CANON!!! Please come up with a 28+mp AA FREE CAMERA!!! How long do we have to wait? ...DO IT NOW!!(in my best Arnold voice).

Okay. Here we go again.

People get upset when told this, but the truth is, it all boils down to economics.

You believe there is a market for the product you want. But, is that market large enough and sufficiently competitive to justify Canon to take the action you request? The only one who knows for sure would be Canon and they are not talking.

No company can survive going after 100% of potential customers. There are always customers that have to be left on the table because it just isn't possible to serve them and make sufficient profit – the people who want to buy a 5DIII at $1,200; those who want a Medium Format body at half the price of current competitors; etc. etc.

Companies have limited resources and a responsibility to put those resources where they will offer the best return. Canon has emphasized cinema in recent years. They obviously have determined that the market justifies their investment. That may be why they haven't released a high megapixel camera yet...the market may not justify the investment.

The hard truth is this: What we as individuals want is irrelevant. What we in the aggregate, comprising tens of thousands or even millions of like-minded consumers want is all-important.

Killing off the AA filter just isn't important enough to enough consumers to justify it at this point, regardless of whether or not it might improve image quality.

8
Before this conversation veers too far off-topic, a general observation:

As annoying as many of the forum participants can be (and I don't exclude myself from that category) when discussing trivia like sensor size, dynamic range, ISO performance, etc. etc., I find it comforting that over eight pages of discussion the vast majority of comments reveal persons with reasonably strong moral compasses who know right from wrong regardless of legal technicalities.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 06, 2014, 09:54:39 AM »
Personally I miss film like a hole in the head.

My sentiments exactly. I find that it's much easier to be nostalgic about an era if you didn't actually have to live through it.

10
First, let me say that I'm impressed by the forum community. About five pages of comments and only one person suggesting he take the money and run.

First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience...Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website.

Okay, let's take your second point first – you had an oral agreement with the photographer that you could post the photos on your website. So, that was your contract.

There was no agreement that you could sell the photos. Only an agreement that you could post your photos on your website. Anything beyond that, you are obligated to discuss and renegotiate with the photographer. It may not hold up in a court, but it is a contract and you should honor it.

Now, to your first point. Do you, as a portrait photographer, allow other photographers to accompany you when you shoot portraits? If you do, do you allow them to sell their photographs to the clients?

This is clear cut. There is no grey area here. I agree with virtually everyone else who has weighed in. Your first responsibility is to the other photographer. You are trying to rationalize unethical behavior because your ego has been flattered. Your first mistake was even talking to the bride without going through the photographer. That should have never happened.

If you had just told her that you were there with the other photographer and that all pictures would need to be ordered through him, that would have prevented a lot of grief for everyone involved. Now, the situation has been hopelessly confused and, frankly, there is probably little you can do at this point to make amends to the photographer who was kind enough to take you along. Still, you should try.

11
But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.

I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's  hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.

Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.

On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.

I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.

12
Photography Technique / Re: Shooting and model release form use
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:50:45 PM »

Quote
Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to understand the ambigiously and sometimes contradictory legislation on this issue.  Many of the laws are vague and, post 911, can be interpreted far stricter than in other times. Unfortunately, the courts have been inconsistant in their rulings on many cases.

I disagree with this notion as it concerns the need of model releases, defining of a public or private space, and what defines uses of images for commercial or advertising purposes. Local courts may try to interpret existing laws but the Supreme Court is pretty clear about these issues and as far as I have heard has ruled consistently.  Can you state cases that show ambiguity?

In my experience it's pretty b&w as to when I need a model release and how I can use an image that I take. I've never had a problem. If you need further clarification I would recommend checking out ASMP as they will have resources that will provide the definitive answers concerning these issues.

Yes, it isn't as difficult as people make it out to be. As I explained previously, people confuse right to privacy with appropriation.

Right to privacy is almost never an issue with photographers (unless you are into taking pictures with hidden cameras in women's shower rooms – in which case you have more serious problems). Right to privacy only comes into play if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- as in the shower case above.

If you are in a public place there is no assumption of privacy and therefore you can't demand privacy. Anyone can take your picture and there isn't much you can do. (It is possible that a picture could libel someone, but it is very difficult to prove and generally would involve an image that has been manipulated to defame someone. A picture that is merely unflattering is not libelous. This is for ordinary citizens. If you are a public figure, you have even fewer protections. And, public figure can be broadly interpreted. For example, if you have been accused of committing a crime, win the lottery, survive a train wreck, etc., you are likely to become a public figure, whether or not you want to be.)

Model releases aren't really of any value for privacy issues. In fact, just having a model release wouldn't necessarily make you immune to charges of libel, because libel has more to do with the use of the image, not the circumstances of how it was taken.

Model releases are transactional in nature. They are designed to assure that the person posing for the picture receives fair compensation for the use of their image, name, etc. They are not needed for editorial content or artistic works. Magazines, Newspapers, television stations, etc. do not need model releases. Artists – and that would include street photographers – do not need model releases. Publications and artists are free to profit from their works without any model release. And, remember, the Supreme Court has applied the term artist very liberally so that it even includes strippers.

Model releases only come into play when images are used for commerce. The example I used before was the case of someone at a car show waxing their car with "Brand X" wax and you selling the picture to "Brand X" for an ad campaign. That requires a model release.

Confusion does arise because people don't know what is or is not a public place. Shopping malls are private property and they have a right to restrict or forbid photography on their property. I have seen shopping mall security guards run news crews off their parking lots. Disneyland is private property so they have a right to restrict/regulate photography on their property. Obviously Disneyland takes a more liberal view, but remember you really don't have any "right" to photograph on their property. They are allowing you to do so, but if you violate their rules, they have every right to stop you or remove you from the premises.

In recent years, some entities have become more restrictive in what they allow people to photograph. Again, this comes down to what is or is not a public place and whether or not you are "appropriating" their product for private financial gain. This is the area where things can be rather nuanced, but they are also very specific situations that most of us are unlikely to encounter on any regular basis.

There are any number of quite good resources available for reading up on this topic. But, generally, people make too much of it.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR and PowerShots in May [CR2]
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:32:17 AM »
Reading some tea leaves:

  • May is not a good time for the 7DII: too close to Photokina, but yet, not quite close enough.
  • If it is a Rebel/XXXD it will almost certainly have the 70d sensor.
  • They've milked the T3i for a long time, yet it is still the number one selling DSLR on Amazon. Seems like a dilemma to me.
  • Canon is disappointed by the SL1 sales. A safe approach might be to make the SL2 the next camera with dual pixel sensor.
  • If it is not the 7DII, then I think that increases the odds that the 7DII will have a new sensor.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces Acquisition of Samyang
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:41:13 PM »
stop it... it´s lame.

I don't know which I find more unbelievable: 1) that someone thought this was funny in the first place; or 2) that someone else thought it was funny enough to re-post it on CR.

15
Photography Technique / Re: Shooting and model release form use
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:06:47 PM »
Distant Star's answer is correct. To expand a bit.

This is a common topic and lots of guidelines are available. Here is the simplified explanation.

If you are in a public place, you don't have a right to privacy in the U.S.

Thus, images for editorial or artistic purposes can be used without release and generally courts have provided a broad interpretation of editorial or artistic purposes. 

But, you do have a right to your name, your face and your reputation. Someone can't appropriate these attributes for financial gain without compensating you, no matter where you are.

Therefore, images of a recognizable person cannot be used without a release if the purpose is to sell or endorse a product, service, person, etc.

Example: I go to a public car show held at a local park. I take pictures and later post those pictures on my website without anyone's permission. No problem.

Joe Smith calls and wants a print of one of the pictures for his study. It happens to show a car owner waxing his Ford. I sell him a print. No problem -- artistic purpose.

John Smith is editor of Ford Lovers Digest. They are doing a story on the car show. They saw my picture of the Ford and its owner online and want it to illustrate the article. They pay me $100. No problem. Editorial purpose.

Smith Car Wax sees the picture in Ford Lovers Digest. Their wax can is clearly visible. They want to use the picture in some ads. They pay me $1,000. Problem. They are appropriating the car owner's reputation and image to promote a product without compensating him. He can sue and I'll be a defendant in the lawsuit.

However, to get technical, the person isn't suing because of any right to privacy. They are suing because someone is making money off their good name without fairly compensating them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 117