40daystogo: HOT OFF THE PRESS.
The sonyalpharumors.com website has reported that Sony will be bringing uncompressed RAW to the A7RII and A7SII.
And the best part of the announcement is USER SELECTABLE. Thankfully, we are not all subjected to monster files due to the whining of a few. I have yet to have a client complain about the compressed RAW photo and their check didn't bounce.
Here is an idea. Twitter, Facebook and all others, quit loading our post up with obnoxious advertisements that 1) we don't profit from, and 2) I can say that I have ever bought anything from a push ad. When will merchants wise up. The ones getting rich are the ones pushing the ads that sucker you in with their sales hype.Perhaps John Q Citizen should be held responsible for posting personal vacation pictures on social media, but those who convert it into a commercial product - Twitter, Facebook and others. Watch the ads suddenly disappear.
Meanwhile, back in the USA...take a picture of Cinderella's Castle at Disneyland or Disney World and use it for commercial purposes and Disney's lawyers will be all over you. There are several others buildings in the US that are trademark (technically, buildings and other sites are not copyrighted) but Disney is probably the most famous. Similarly, National Park Service allows photographs for personal use, but commercial use requires payment of a fee.
LuckyEight: Sony F.T.W. ...... :)
The WTF would be the Hasselblad "premium" version of the Sony a7r - obsolete before even available.
B1ackhat: This shouldn't even be a question. The only reason any officer would not want to be record is because they are violating the law. Moreover, they are performing their job in public and as such, there is no reason why recording them should ever be prohibited.
Usually, the "in your face" is the police officer violating the 15 foot barrier to confront the photographer and attempt to confiscate the camera. Now they can claim the photographer was within 15 feet and technically be correct.
Just FYI, While I normally shoot in manual anyway, TTL is nice to have...and simple to switch with PW. My Nikon SB910 (or lighter SB600) fit on wife's A6000, the mount foot is much smaller with about 1/4 hanging off. It does fire in manual mode though.
One thing to be aware, the Mitros+ flash supports BOTH Odin and Stratus transceiver protocols. So it firing another flash attached to a Stratus receiver it will work, however, only in manual mode. The limitation is not due to the Mitros flash, rather the Stratus protocol was not designed for TTL so it doesn't suddenly gain it in a mixed Odin/Stratus system. With me it doesn't matter as I usually shoot manual - both camera and flash. The only reason I got full Nikon SB600/900/910 rather than the much cheaper options is for backup where if at a job and have problems with PW's, can switch to Nikon's CLS system. Only happened once as forgot to throw the PW's back in the bag after 'lightening it" for some landscape/travel shoots.
Definitely looking at them as about to sell my Nikon stuff and switch to Sony A7II. In terms of flash, never use on-camera and typically use 3 off camera with Pocket Wizards and AC3 module allowing at camera adjustment of flash rather than running from flash to flash. PW doesn't support Sony, period! Others, including the Odin are Sony Minolta mount only, requiring an adapter to the trigger to the camera and well as an adapter to attach Sony ISO flash to the Minolta based receiver - both of which increase both cost ($25 for each adapter) and bulk/positioning within diffusers/umbrellas. This Mitros+ is the best of both worlds. The $100 difference between the non+ model which doesn't include the transceiver is cheaper than buying a separate transceiver and avoids having to carry two items around - flash + receiver like I do now with TT5 + SB910. Even less bulk as only the flash is mounted to the pole. And for the 5% of time mount on camera, direct fit.
DPJoe2: Is there any detailed book on how to use all the functions of the a6000? I have the camera, but something is preventing me from getting large burst rates. What setting am I missing?
I have to agree. Two instruction sheets provided with the camera is pathetic, particularly when you consider the time lag between announcement and the product shipping. One is the ultra basic quick start - charge and load the battery, insert SD card, change lens, turn on, install photo software. Nothing operational. The other sheet is dedicate to setting up the wireless. Worse, if you go into Sony support, there is not a legitimate manual to download.
Marty4650: This A6000 is a really nice camera, but so is the NEX-6, which can be bought at a huge discount now. Amazon is currently selling it for $520... with lens, and $440 without.
Sony continues to amaze me with their incredible values in camera bodies (but not so much for lenses.)
They have so many irons in the fire right now (SLT Alpha, E mount, FE mount, FF SLT, high end compacts, etc) that you wonder if they risk becoming a jack of all trades, but a master of none?
I think so far they have done a pretty good job of offering innovation, performance and value. I just hope it all works out to profitability for Sony, so their users can look forward to another decade of great cameras.
The "sale" on the NEX-6 is a bit misleading. If you want just the camera/lens, yes there is a savings. However, if you also want a full kit with the 55-210 that Sony only discounts with camera purchases but never independent of specified camera purchases, then it is not a good deal. There is no discount with the NEX-6, but there is a $200 discount if purchased with the A6000. Reviewing B&H, NEX-6 with lens $519 + $348 for the 55-210 = $867. The A6000 with lens $748 + $148 for the 55-210 = $896. I think I would splurge the $29. Similar savings available with other lens like the Zeiss prime.
Interesting, did Nikon abandon their standard setting CLS flash system? I don't see it anywhere in the specs for inbody master control - and haven't researched if will function with an SU-800 (or master flash) in the hotshoe. CLS is my backup to PW's since I don't use on body flash which is required a master if not using and SU-800 controller. When used as backup, I use the in camera master and pop-up flash (missing on DF) as trigger, but set to -3 for minimal on camera flash impact since can't turn off and just use pre-flash.
Now when will Leica rebadge dome of the Panasonic 4/3 cameras. That is a gaping home in their lineup.
Garry35: Even without this latest debacle I have always felt that Adobe have held their customers to ransom in many ways including software price, ACR not be updated for older versions of PS etc, this why I have retained a healthy respect for Corel Paint Shop Pro. After downloading the fully functional trial of PSP I was left wondering why I needed CS6 and have now decided that I don’t. As for Lightroom ACDsee Pro is a much better option for me. Amateur users of PS must outnumber professional users by the hundred if not the thousands. I haven’t spoken to anybody in the last few months who can contemplate using Adobes cloud service. PSP has far more useful tools for photographers than even the latest version of PS and is a fraction of the price. Goodbye Adobe.
I have to agree. Paint Shop Pro is a very powerful program and probably the reason Adobe created the Elements version with the advanced features they have to compete at that pricepoint. I have been a Paint Shop user since the shareware days and updated to the JASC and Corel versions. While it does 95% of what Photoshop will do, when I transitioned a hobby to pro, clients expect Photoshop skills. That is when I bought Photoshop. However, when I retire in a few years and faced with a monthly subscription, I would go back to PSP in a heartbeat! PSP is far more polished than Gimp...and relatively inexpensive for upgrade or initial purchase.
danny006: I think they try to stop the illegal download of photoshop, a smart move I must say.
I give the software pirate programmers 2 weeks. The do it for the challenge, and the gauntlet has been thrown. A DLL file here, an intercept registry script file there all giving the "false positive" message telling the software to continue functioning...and even receive updates.
dougster1979: This is very worrying. What if Apple, Dxo....do the same. The worlds economy is going down the pan, businesses can`t be sustained. Hence the introduction of compulsory subscriptions. This is a very bad president. It wouldn`t surprise me if Adobe is the first of many.
Microsoft also started with that model with their Office subscription for up to 5 computers. While you can still buy the individual package, they did away with the 3 user family/student pack - now limited to 1 computer. While the regular Office retail boxes have historically been 1 computer, don't know if the eliminate the 1+ option where same user could install on PC and laptop. Just trying to force everybody with multiple computers to the web and send Microsoft $99/year.
Scottish Kev: Forgive me if this has already been covered but I spent a long time looking for a backpack that would carry camera gear and hiking gear, as when you are out in the wilds you dont have "just" your camera gear and then wear everything else. This bag like many out there only does camera gear.
Why dont more bag manufacturers actually design bags to carry camera gear and personal gear.
Oh and I did find a 1 or maybe 2 manufacturers who do what I think is a sensible back pack for hiking/carrying personal gear and I bought one but it was stupidly expensive (such is this camera/hobby/addiction ah well) but it does an awesome job!
richard cohen - Also add the Lowepro sport 200 aw to the list of those with hydration. While I earlier described it as a "negative" with small items sliding down the narrow part, what I should have said is that that area was designed to accept a Camelback bladder. It is without that bladder in place that it leaves the space between the back and camera compartment that small things can slide down. Also, without the bladder in place, an iPad or small laptop (14' or smaller) fit nicely in that area.
For Christmas, I got my daughter the Lowepro Sport 200 AW backpack (not the sling). It has dedicated camera compartment with side access and an upper compartment for other gear with top access. The only complaint is the top compartment goes all the way with a thin channel to bottom behind camera compartment that small stuff can slide down into. HOwever, while rear access has security concerns, flipside requires removing - slowing own her hiking friends who would not wait. Slide access allows on the go access, and with skill can swing backpack forward with one de-strap for front access and platform for lens change, etc. Currently she uses it for snowshoeing treck through the Alps, works well, and she doesn't get left behind. Plus, high visibility orange is nice.
D1N0: She put it on the internet, there is no copyright information in the exif. Still not and the pic is still No. 2 hit for "Strathmere Weddings" If this is theft then she is criminally negligent by putting the picture on the interwebs this way. Facilitating theft.
When you read her messages you get the image of a middle aged woman who has created her own private reality and who steam rolls anybody who gets in the way of it. You know the type when you ever worked for a customer service. Evil clients from hell!
@D1NOFacebook was only a reference. I was going by the radio stations's comment "The image was captured innocently during a Google image search of “Strathmere Weddings.” On a Google search, it could have come from anywhere. The fact that it came from her website or blog, doesn't excuse it, but makes it worse. Red flags and alarms should be going off at the radio station...this is a professional photo and the photographer probably knows something about copywrite - unlike what you read from the general public here. Even worse, if the company really intended to pay for it, they wouldn't have done a google search, but gone straight to stockphoto.com (or similar) amd purchased a license.
Also, you don't purchase a photo, you purchase a license for specific use. The photographer, by default, retains the copyright unless passed over in writing.Finally, "It's a jpeg, you can put exif in it" technically wrong. I am in the process of scanning decades of slides. Straight from scanner is jpeg.
1) What do you mean SHE put it on the internet (so therefore it is somehow OK). You don't know that. Perhaps it was her client who posted it on their Facebook page with text about her wedding in Strathmere. Then Google, through it's web cataloging algorythm pulls and catalogs it off the Facebook Page. The photographer may have had nothing to do with it.
2) What is it about copyright and EXIF/watermarks that you don't understand? Copyright is always assumed...PERIOD. There is no requirement for EXIF or watermarks. In fact, I know one world famous wedding photographer that only takes medium format film - no digital. EXIF doesn't exist with film and when you scan film to digital, it doesn't manufacture EXIF data. That is why back in the day, you carried around a norepad to manually record exposure information.
missitnoonan: Wow this woman is a nutter and basically a copyright troll looking for an easy payout. Station was wrong, admitted it and tried to rectify the situation. She just lost her mind.
If you're that concerned about misappropriation of your work post a copyright notice in the exif and watermark your image, both are easy to do. Not doing this, getting bent, and asking for a high payout is trolling.
Adding to the above...While I don't know the specific laws in Canada, laws in the US are typically two tiered.
1) First is the automatic copyright granted to every photographer - professional and amateur - as they take the picture. In this category, they are free to claim, and use small claims court if necessary. Lawyers typically won't touch it as little in it for them. $2000 seems reasonable, but the court would ultimately decide.
2) Prior to it's unlawful use, register the photo with the copyright office of the Library of Congress for $80 - per registration event and multiple photos can be included. Maximum penalty by Federal Law is $200,000 PLUS attorney's fees. And yes, lawyers will work with you on that one...particurally when the offender has deep pockets. Typical awards are in the $10,000-15,000 range, but $200,000 is the max.
Now you know why each quarter I register my customer's photos for the most recent quarter.
I find it amazing that people confuse "nuttier" and other descriptive adjectives with assertively standing up for ones rights. There is a huge difference - and it didn't degrade until the the radio company countered assertiveness with name calling "extortion." Basically, they don't have a leg to stand on. "We pay $40" is pure BS as 1) they farmed Google and in the email noted found several others they presumably didn't pay for, 2) forget farming Google, they could have bought from StockPhotos but elected not to.
Internationally, the copyright belongs to the person taking the picture, with the only exception - if they were the employee of a company and taken as part of their job, then their employer owns it. PERIOD! No need to embed in EXIF data which is easily erased - and sometimes non-existent if original was film/slide and scanned for digital product. Also, no requirment to deface with watermark easily removable in Photoshop.