Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.
Step 0: Learn to readStep 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completelyStep 2: Interpret what you readStep 3: THINK what you readStep 4: RE-THINK what you have just readStep 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is writtenStep 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...
And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT
Using a picture commercially would include any website I own which also has advertising. Several million people do the same.
I am not exploiting their copyright because I had no choice but to include what is in public view. That is the right of panorama.
If I sell ANY shot taken anywhere in London, I am potentially going to include thousands of copyrighted structures. In most cases I would not even know.
It is absurd and unworkable.
As is the issue with cars.
AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.
Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.
Architects don't work for free.
These works are not being copied. They are in plain sight.
I did not grant the copyright holder the right to spoil my view, so they have no right to demand payment when I take a picture of it.
Besides, a photo of a building is not a copy or facsimile. It is simply an image of a building. It bears no relation to copying written text or images which can substitute for the real thing (a poster of a painting, a photocopy of a book, a recording of a song.
Technically, all car designs are copyright. Do you propose that I have to ask BMW, Ford and Toyota every time I include cars in my images?
Tungsten Nordstein: What is not clear is whether an artist can take a photograph/film of a building and then display and sell such a photograph/film. Would Warhol's film Empire be allowed under such legislation?
In general, I don't think anyone who puts a building or artwork up in full public view (i.e in our living environments) should be able copyright and restrict its image and uses of. Developers should be forced to waiver all such rights on grant of planning permission.
RichRMA: So some multi-billion $$$ bank is going to ask some photo (avg. earnings maybe $30k.year) to fork-over money (perhaps) or beg to use a skyline image with their building in it? What is WRONG with Europeans? Another good reason Britain should maintain a distance from the odious EU.
The upside is that you don't have different versions of all those stupid odious laws in each individual country which makes selling anything in Europe a complete nightmare.
This bill has not been approved and is unlikely to be in it's present form. You can write to your Euro MP, though if he or she is a UKIP MEP, they won't be there to vote so it won't help.
And please try and distinguish the EU from the Eurozone. We are in the EU, but not in the Eurozone. Monetary union was indeed premature, but it is not the same thing.
Stephan Def: I am trying to understand what the compelling argument for Fujifilm is, scratching my head. Megapixels matter, if its just only for the cropping capability alone. 16MP seems not to be cutting edge stuff anymore, except if they are on smartphone camera.
I used to think what matters is what the image looks like that comes out of the Camera. Strangely for me, so many here are going on about if the Camera itself is nice looking or not. And so on.
Megapixels only matter to marketing teams and people who think they matter. Really, how big do you have to print before 16MP is limiting?
Marty CL: I think this a very interesting announcement and as Sony and other companies introduce other advancements--it's good for consumers and good for the industry as a whole. Since the 1920's---we've seen photography advance in similar fashions and we've seen winners (surviving companies) and losers (those who went out of business or were merged into bigger companies). It's just the way advances in technology works.
What is distressing is the increasingly angry posts--both in defense of mirrorless and criticism of DSLRs and the companies who make them.
As a user of both DSLRs and mirrorless---I appreciate BOTH systems for their respective advantages. But to claim that DSLR makers are in a death spiral is a bit premature. According to CIPA.JP, Jan- April DSLR shipments out number mirrorless by 3.8 times. With a smaller base, mirrorless will naturally show larger percent changes.
Some people can only think in binary. You either have to love something or hate it.
I use both as well, but I disagree with you in one respect. Mirrorless is at an early stage in its development, DSLRs are about as developed as they will ever get. There is no fundamental need for both.
Any practical differences are likely to be overcome within a couple of years. After that, they will start pulling ahead.
What killer feature will move people to ditch DSLR? I don't know. I suspect it will be the next generation of EVFs, which have the potential to make even a full frame OVF look small and dark.
This is not something to be celebrated or regretted. DSLRs are a film era carry over in a highly conservative market, but I am pretty convinced they are not going to be around forever.
However, I am pretty sure that Canon and Nikon have a few models and designs in development, and that they will protect the lens investment of their existing customers. They are just judging the market.
Sony finally get serious. Looks great on paper, for sure. Didn't expect a full frame BSI sensor, but I guess it was inevitable, and it may solve the light falloff issues on the 24-70.
justmeMN: CIPA's latest (January-April 2015) worldwide figures don't show any great surge in mirrorless shipments. To the contrary, they show mirrorless shipments falling slightly faster than DSLR shipments.
By value, DSLR is 98.2%, and mirrorless is 91.0% for the January-April time period, compared to the same time period last year. By units it's 93.4% and 91.6%.
Lower DR than the D7200 because of the low bit depth.
And why not have the option of lossless compression? Landscape photographers don't care about a few large files.
When all added together, issues like the compression, clunky shutter, shutter vibration, lack of lenses and relatively poor performance of the standard zoom don't make this a prime-time system. Not yet anyway. It's a spec sheet princess.
Sony make good sensors, so why can't they get as much out of them as Nikon manage?
57even: Mother Theresa was not a psychopath....
Sorry, just thinking about the idiocy of defining something by what is isn't.
iPhones are "mirrorless" cameras too.
It is NOT a technically specific term. It is a word that has been lazily co-opted by marketing twits who don't think further than next quarter's sales target.
SLR and SLT are technically specific. So is 'Rangefinder' or 'View Camera'.
What do you call a Fuji X100?
See, we now can't even define many existing cameras!
No, the word mirrorless means 'with no mirror'. You may read between the lines to add a lot of qualifications, but the term is meaningless to anyone who doesn't know much about cameras. Its does not alter the meaning of the word.
It is a term that is literally true for all cameras other than SLRs and SLTs.
So in 20 years when we have neither, I suppose you are just going to call them 'cameras', since mirrorless will be even more meaningless.
Wait until 2030 when someone says 'granddad, why are some cameras called mirrorless?'
It is just idiotic. Every other type of camera ever made in history has been named after what it was, what made it unique in design terms, not some vague general term that defines what it isn't, and which is not unique to the type of camera it refers to.
I think if I fully expressed how profoundly dumb this idea is I would be banned, but if the person who made that decision is reading, I hope they get the idea.
None of which makes this categorisation any less confusing or any more intelligent. It's like defining electric cars as gas-less.
It's a completely stupid form of categorisation. It would make more sense to define cameras with mirrors (which are only one type) as the exception, which they already do - they are called SLRs. Every other camera in current production is mirrorless.
SLR defines exactly what the camera IS. Mirrorless, as both of you pointed out, does not.
The word mirrorless implies nothing other than the fact there is no mirror. Which means it could just as easily apply to any camera without a mirror (rangefinders are also mirrorless ILC cameras for that matter but no one called them 'mirrorless', they called them rangefinders).
Mother Theresa was not a psychopath....
57even: I think I am right in thinking that larger photosites generally have more read noise and less shot noise. They will look better in mid-tones, but if you push the shadows in post, noise will show up.
This would normally mean that the 5DR would be better than the 6D, if it were not for the noisy ADC that Canon's use. However, high ISO (ISO variant) shots indicate that upstream read noise is actually really low. What's messing up the low ISO pushed shots is the downstream read noise.
In other words, the DR problem is only an issue at low ISO, and the reason is the same as for all Canons, namely they don't use dedicated column ADCs like Sony do on the smaller pixel chips (D750 and D810).
Hey Rishi, thanks for the long reply. Bill Claff's data shows a definite step for sure. Useful resource, must bookmark.
And yes, Canon's ISO cap is probably a marketing decision ;-)
Thanks for that. Yes, you are right. But the difference seems quite large. Could it be due to other factors as well. For instance:
The D810 is ISO invariant above ISO 1600, the A7S is not.
The A7S may have switchable gain on the photosite, reducing upstream noise at some point (higher ISO). This seems to be true of the Nikon DF.
The trouble with sensors is that there are so many design considerations that it's hard to make any assumptions.
I assumed the 5DS was capped because the ADC is trying to cope with such high data rates, but there could be any number of reasons I guess.
But I am not sure I see the advantage of a high resolution sensor with limited low ISO DR and amazing high ISO performance!!! The Sony A7R and A7S seem to have the balance right, with the A7 right in between. Same for Nikon D810, D4 and D750.
I think I am right in thinking that larger photosites generally have more read noise and less shot noise. They will look better in mid-tones, but if you push the shadows in post, noise will show up.
Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.
Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.
Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.
Yes, I know what gamma correction does, but it doesn't have the effect you are thinking of in this case - the conversion expands the encoded shadow values, but the quantisation has no effect on the accuracy of the values because the bit depth is much higher than the number of noise limited tonal values - there is no accuracy loss. Besides, it is compressed again by the display anyway. Zero net change.
I think you should read it again....
16 bit editing space gives 65,536 possible values to interpolate however many tones there in the actual image when you apply a contrast change. That's a lot of possible interpolation.
Don't know where gamma comes into this, as Iliah explained. The regular tone curve compression only exists in the raw editor output, not the raw image, and if you mess about with it, a 16 bit editor has plenty of possible values to fill in the gap.
In terms of tonal range there are actually far fewer data points than the bit depth can record. It is massive overkill. Even 10 bit quantisation doesn't reduce the number of tones. The number of data points is limited by signal noise.
Quantisation only matters, a bit, for dynamic range because of quantisation error, but that is usually not much higher than the inherent read noise, so the real loss in DR from quantisation is mostly theoretical. The problem is largely ADC noise at low ISO.