designdog: It occurs to me, in reading these posts (and the responses to mine, WAY down there) that the folks with the most to gain in preserving the DSLR market should look at the same comments and develop a new range of DSLRs in response:size/weight/viewfinder features, etc.
So the ratio of a FF camera and high quality lens is somewhat fixed, for "equivalence", light gathering, whatever. Take the best FF sensor, the best FF fast lenses, the best in body stabilization, the best processors, etc. and package them in a new generation of lighter weight/ higher strength materials. (My thinking is that a lighter weight camera will need stabilization.)
With this strategy the investment side is on the packaging, not the sensor and lens technology. Hey, the result could be a mirrorless DSLR similar to the large Sonys, but lighter and smaller...
I don't disagree with you on this - though there is part of me who suspects the impact of it is stronger in older parents who grew up an an era of "big means better". It seems that in a number of product markets, the younger generation seems to value compactness, elegance and, to a a certain extent, simplicity. And just to be clear, in this case I kind of draw that line of older/younger around 35 or 40. That's a totally unqualified opinion, of course, but I would really love to see data on camera buying preferences by age group. I wonder if there are marked differences between the 18-35 and the 35 and older groups.
neil holmes: Her contract for photography is what it is and similar to many big name artists and bands.If you want to photograph her performance you have to agree to her terms...if not you don't take photos there. She doesn't need you (plus she can always hire her own photographer who will agree to her terms).
IF the performance is in a public place where photography is permitted then sure ....shoot away but then it almost never will be.
What if fifteen photographers want to shoot someone's wedding even if the couple hire a photographer? They going to be allowed to do that just because they want to?
As for her music, well it is her choice if it stays there or goes and when she made her choice Apple blinked. Two very different things to me.
Correct - the concert hall is not really a public place. Yes, it's a public facility but your admission ticket is a license; and the venue and the artists performing within it can set whatever reasonable terms they want. Your attendance (as a photographer or as a spectator) is entirely optional.
As for her music, I don't like it. However, in principle, I agree with her. Yea, she is rich... she is successful... but does that mean that a rich and successful company should be able to use the product of her efforts without compensation just because they have made a business decision not to recoup those costs from the consumer? Hell no.
For every Taylor there are 1000 Mikes. Mike is the front man for a local band in my town. He's been recording and performing for more than 25 years. He's even opened for bands such as REM. He does not make a living at it, he makes a living as a general contractor. The music industry is full of Mikes scraping by.
Shmuel Goldberg: When the mirror is up, in DSLR there is nothing between the lens and the sensor. It is mirrorless. The mirror is there only before and after taking picture. It contributes nothing to photography. It was OK to use a mirror in the fifties of the last century. Now the world is digital, and it is much better.
I am sure someone once said the same thing about the coupled range finder 8-)
I agree - for many years, people bought DSLRs (particularly entry level DSLRs) simply because they were the only thing capable of capturing pictures of a rapidly moving kids. The low end DSLR kind of became the mini-van of cameras. From about 2000 on, it seems every soccer mom on the block had an entry level Cannon or Nikon DSLR with a bulky speed lite attached. Some of them may value quality interchangeable lenses, but most will go out and buy some 6-10x zoom so that they don't have to carry a lot of stuff along. Compact mirrorless systems have started to show they can do this too.
Yes, they want a good image... but 1" and m4/3 can produce a "good" image under a decent range of conditions. They also, however, care about compactness, convenience and how well it integrates into an ecosystem of online services (social media, etc).
pleytime: Using a camera without an optical viewfinder makes no sense. Especially on those bright days when the sun is always interfering with what you see. Oh sure, for the amateur 'point and shoot' crowd with their iPads and iPhones, looking through a viewfinder is passé. My Olympus OMD lets me do both and on those dark, moody days, I go with the screen shot (so to speak). But otherwise, the viewfinder is my choice.
Even my 8 year old has figured that out. She got my NEX5N as a hand-me-down when I moved to an A6000. After 2 months she's already figuring out that there are situations where not having a view finder really sux. We picked her up a summer art camp 2 weeks ago and she wanted to take some pictures of her teachers and fellow campers... it was a bright sunny day and she was really frustrated. Eventually she started seeking the shady places as her shooting vantage points. Makes me want to go out and buy her the accessory viewfinder... I never did when I was using it because I had an A700 - but it's death was the impetus for the move to the A6000. Even though I had primarily used the 5N for the last two years, there were times I just *had* to have a viewfinder.
Now, my mind is not yet made up on optical vs EVF. I do a lot of manual focus and Sony's focus aides work really will with the EVF. I am, though, still getting used to actually having to turn the camera on to use the view finder. 8-)
Tungsten Nordstein: Why does a range-finder need live view, anyway?
If the live view is monochrome, then another advantage of having it is the ability to see the impact of filters on the image. Since you cannot manipulate the spectral sensitivity in post-processing you have to use traditional color filters. Being able to see the effect of that before you capture the image is a bonus. And the same can be said for color filters when using polarizers.
martindpr: What is the purpose of having a B&W camera in the XXI century?
Shoot color and then desaturate! Or let me guess: If you have a B&W project, you leave your D810 (or your 5D3/5Ds) at home, go buy one Leica and do the job 100% better than you would have done it with your D810??
"brings the black-and-white-only concept up to date", they should have said "brings the date back to the old black and white concept"
ProfHankD: would there be some functional advantage to having a spectral filter between the lens and the sensor as opposed to the more traditional method (i.e. in front of the lens).
I can see some advantage in that one would not have to carry different filters for different size lenses, but there are practical solutions for that already. Inserting a filter behind the lens makes impacts of dust on that filter more significant than one in front of the lens. In addition, the insertion mechanism would likely just be another path for dust to get on to the sensor itself.
Jason Haven: It's not the greatest bang for the buck, it's a luxury model basically.
And I'd be lying if I said I didn't want one. As it is, I secretly hope Fuji releases a monochrome X-Pro or X-100 series.
So differentiate between Leica glass and Leica bodies. For most Leica bodies, I could take it or leave it. For me, I would must rather mate a Leica lens to a Sony body... what makes this particular product stand out, though, is its specialized approach to monochrome image capture.
I am kind of ambivalent toward Leica bodies, are they the best in their class? Not so sure... this one, though, is currently the only in its class. I just wonder if this market (dedicated monochrome bodies) is big enough for there to ever be something for it to be so high and mighty superior to.
AlanG: Converting from a color capture gives one much more control over an image than one can get by using a monochrome camera with filters.
Despite this camera being targeted to serious b/w enthusiasts, it seems to me that this would be quite an inferior way to produce b/w photos for those who really want to control the way various colors are depicted in grayscale.
In absolute terms, possibly. With a color sensor you have practically unlimited ability to manipulate color sensitivity in post processing. You don't have that here and are forced to turn to more traditional methods - i.e. black and white contrast filters. Those do not provide nearly the range of possibilities.
Its a tradeoff, though - the resolution and clarity is superior, the ability to manipulate tonal relationships between colors is more limited.
Honestly, it's even more limited than with film. In the old film world, you were stuck having to use color filters to perform such manipulations but you had one other dimension: film choice. Different films had different spectral sensitivity. Sometimes these differences were subtle, sometimes they were remarkable.
Still the resolution and clarity that comes from a dedicated B&W sensor is significantly higher and that might be worth the loss of detailed control. The key is to understand the tool, it's capabilities and its limitations.
InTheMist: Kind of a major screw-up, Apple!
@Illah Borg I suspect that in the final analysis there will be fault on both sides and both sides will patch their software. To Leica's credit, the are being open about the issue no matter how evasive they may seem to be about where blame should be placed. You will not find similar openness from Apple. Go search their support website for the key words "Leica Monochrom" and the the most recent thing you find are articles proclaiming support for it in their digital camera raw software.
Honestly, stuff happens - the only way to write bug free software is to not write software. Every line of code written is an opportunity for a defect. What matters is the response. Do the companies involved take ownership of the resolution (ownership of the blame is not really that important - unless someone is looking for compensation for loss).
On a practical note, ultimately both the Leica firmware and Photos need to be updated. Patching Photos is a far less complex distribution problem.
So Leica produces a DNG file that is not 100% compliant... with all due respect, so what. Yea, the probably need to fix that.
Things like this happen all the time. Consider this - there is some standard for information exchange. I have written a utility that conforms to that standard - it has been exhaustively tested with just about every permutation of valid input that can be conceived of.
One day, someone discovers that when presented with input that is out of spec in some minor otherwise inconsequential way, instead of rejecting that input my software behaves oddly and exposes the host system it runs on to an exploit that allows a hacker to gain full control of the system.
Yea. the hacker gets some blame... but the market place is going to roast me for having produced software that was so vulnerable in the first place.
No, this isn't a security exploit... but lets be real, Apple's software is doing something really bad when presented with marginally non-compliant input. Bad.
Texinus: Does that mean that all footage from nature reporters/scientists etc (N.Geographicdf,BBC) where the shooting is triggered by a sensor, TripWire, IR, whatever, is now in public domain?A lion triggering a picture through a motion sensor is the author of the picture?
I hand you my camera, with all the settings and such pre-set... let's just say full programmed auto-mode. You go off and take some really neat pictures - I didn't tell you what to take, I didn't tell you when to take it. I just gave you the camera and you started snapping. Who owns those? I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with me if I claimed ownership. Even if it wasn't full programmed auto-mode.
No, not at all... in the case of a camera on a remote trigger or even a self timer, the act of composition is the essence of authorship. The photographer composes the shot - its just that initiating the recording is indirect.
NZ Scott: I think that Slater should not have any rights to the images. Copyright is an acknowledgement of intellectual property stemming from the owner's creative endeavours. In this case, the framing and composition of the images was controlled exclusively by the monkey and Slater did not have any creative input. It does raise some interesting questions about ownership of tripwire-triggered images. In my view, those images should belong to the person who set up the camera/tripwires.
oh, and before you bring up works for hire, for which copyright does rest with the financier (the employer), that is a special case in the law. Generally in the absences of an employment relationship, or a specific contract stipulating work for hire, copyright rests with the creator.
Simple, because under copyright law in almost every country, the copyright rests with the creator - not the financier. The act of taking the picture is the creating act - not the act of purchasing the camera, not the act of turn the camera dials to a particular shooting mode, aperture, shutter speed, etc. Pressing the shutter release at just the right instant is the creative act. Now, in this case, since a monkey has no rights, then no one does... thus the image is in the public domain.
Had the photographer gone out there with the intent of giving the camera to the monkeys just to see what would happen, there might be an argument for him to have copyrights. However, in this case the camera was stolen - there was no intent on the part of the photographer, so how can anything he did her be considered creating a work?
No one is claiming the monkey owns the copyright... they are saying that no one does; that the is in the public domain. I won't dispute whether what the monkey did was creative... it could have (and probably was) the result of random animal behavior. There was no intent to create on the part of the monkey. Even if you want to argue there was, that really isn't the issue. You could get into so many animal rights arguments about whether or not a monkey can even own copyrights... but again, that's not really the point....
The point is that Slater does not. He set up the equipment, took the financial risk associated with putting the camera in the monkey's hands, but he didn't compose the image. The question is not whether or not the monkey owns anything, but whether Slater does. Wikimedia apparently thinks he does not... and since they too are not going to go down the rat hole of arguing the intellectual property rights of a monkey, they assume no one has rights - that it is pubic domain.
dinoSnake: Yes, I believe Slater should be allowed to claim the copyright. If Wikimedia's argument is correct, then corporate copyright ownership should *also* be questioned as the construct of "person" is completely artificial and strictly a legal one - there is no individual behind a corporate copyright claim, only a legal entity that exists in paperwork. If multi-million dollar corporations can claim a copyright for works created in their name, by (sometimes thousands) of other individuals, why can't an individual claim copyright for this single work 'created' in his name (without the input of the photographer, Slater, the images would not exist - Slater created the opportunity via the camera, the placement, the editing AND the public posting).
Again, it looks like money allows the system to work one way - protect the monied construct - but hurt the individual.
The parallel is not the same. As an employee of a company I am bound by an employment agreement and implicitly or explicitly agree to assign any work in the course of my employment to my employer... in exchange for which I receive fair compensation. The fact that my employer is a corporate entity is really not important. I am assigning my copyrights to a a group of people who have a shared ownership interest in the work I have produced.
If I were a contractor, things could be a little different as I would need to be bound by contract which specified any work I was doing as a work for hire and agreeing that I would assign exclusive right to use in perpetuity to the group of individuals with shared ownership interest (i.e. the corporation)
They are tools, that's all... it's how they are used that matters...they can be used to add "atmosphere" and impact to an image that might be otherwise dull. They can be used with forethought... many people come upon a scene and do think about how it would look if processed through their favorite filter. That's creative...
But, like anything else they can also be used to say "hey look at me! I can make my crappy pictures look just like the crappy pictures my mom took in 1972!"