It's interesting that Winogrand disliked the term "street photographer". In the recent interview featured on dpreview (31 Jan) with Don McCullin he said he did not like the term "war photographer" and didn't want to be remembered as that.
tmurph: As already mentioned, could you get away with photographing people in that manner today?The answer is yes, in a city like New York or as seen in the film around the Los Angeles/Hollywood area because of it being a tourist attraction. Try doing it in your local town and see what kind of reaction you get. Of course it's all down to the way you approach the subject and it's also a question about confidence but even so, today it's become harder to go about taking pictures without someone causing a fuss and calling the police.
I think this is more common. Maybe city folks in dense areas are also more focused on just getting from A to B by their routine, whereas with more space photographers lifting a camera stand out.
I've also been approached by security in a shopping centre here in the UK. I was just taking general photos not necessarily of people (testing out a new lens as it happened). While it's a right to take photos in a public place, most shopping centres are privately owned and they are within their rights to ask you to stop, although they still can't confiscate your equipment or ask you to delete anything.
kwa_photo: It may not be Aperture 4...but it's a full .x update with a lot of bug fixes and some new functionality. I think they must be saving upgrades/updates to actual photo processing until the eventual version 4.0. It's taking quite a while, so I hope the wait will be worth it. I've been tempted many times to go to LightRoom but the Aperture workflow and tight integration keeps with with 3.5 :-)
In the Apple keynote Phil Schiller referenced a new version of Aperture that the Mac Pro, coming in December, took advantage of.
I am sincerely hoping that that means Aperture X coming by the end of the year, and not this relatively insignificant point release...
Robo2k: Well Aperture is one of those products that Apple gives as much attention as to the iPod classic. Seriously, why should anyone bother using it when Adobe is doing a much better job?
Yeah @smorti, I tend to agree. The problem is that as you can see by a number of comments that people who would otherwise have stuck with Aperture if it kept pace have instead jumped over to LR.
Personally I generally do very little post processing on my photos so Aperture's other strengths e.g. in cataloguing and integration have kept me on board.
praktinafan: I still use the boxed version of Aperture (comes on a DVD) and so I can not upgrade to 3.5. This update only works with an AppStore license! Bummer
I still use the boxed version of Aperture (came on DVD), and I'm now running 3.5. This update worked fine! Awesome
Except the update is a fairly minimal maintenance release. Where is Aperture X??
george2013: The name of the game is wide depth of field. People today watch tv, and on tv you see no out of focus areas. When people look at photographs, they expect the same. The winner will always be the camera that creates clear focused pictures with no out of focus areas.
Did I miss a huge amount of sarcasm here? Sorry if I did, but if not, then not only is it untrue what you are saying about TV shows being shot entirely within depth of field, but achieving large depth of field has always been far less challenging for cameras than narrow depth of field, with the proviso that in low light the photographer needs to be able to either slow the shutter or use higher ISO. But that has forever been the case. I also fundamentally disagree with the comparison between moving images and stills.
Biowizard: Beautiful camera - lousy English ...
"and no FEWER than 1000 prototype parts."
@epo001 Biowizard wasn't correcting "nearly 1000" at all, he was correcting "no less than" from the first paragraph. As it happens, it's an idiomatic usage which isn't incorrect, though normally Biowizard would be quite right. But epo001 you have pointed out a factual contradiction where the article initially states more than 1000 prototype parts, then subsequently that it was fewer than 1000.
buongustaio: any news about the sooo much craved body that would better handle top-pro 4/3 lenses?17mm aside, this is all i'm asking from this stand :)
Yes, I was waiting for some follow-up on that too. I recall there was some interpretation required as to what exactly the earlier statement meant, so maybe all the expectations were wrong. And given day 1 of Photokina has passed without further announcements, I'm not hopeful that anything else will come up, because after all if they had something to show it would make no sense to reveal it half way through after some of the media will have left.
The XZ-2 looks nice, but given the 12mm black is essentially an existing product, the 60mm macro was announced months ago, and the PEN cameras are getting updated with existing components, you would really think they would have *something* attention grabbing to say about their high end products. A 17mm lens "in development" doesn't amount to a great deal. This is Photokina after all, not CES or a Friday afternoon press release!
Thomas Tien: I own both Panasonic GX1 and Olympus OMD-EM5 w/ 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, both camera are nice w/ good IQ (for its small sensor size), but I will not invest anymore of my hard earn money on M3/4 systems for one good reason, "the price for M3/4 lenses are just way too high", YES, it's small and weight less, but the small sensor just can't compete with a FF camera, while the price of FF cameras are getting much more reasonable, I don't see a future on M3/4 systems.
Hi Thomas, I'm not sure I agree that lens prices are way too high.
I'm selling out of FF and going m4/3 or Fuji X. My 100 macro got £600, the new m4/3 Oly 60 macro will be $500 (£400?), and my Zeiss 50/1.4 got £400, and the PanaLeica 25mm/1.4 will be £450ish. I was surprised how much some lenses cost (e.g. 12mm Oly), psychologically I expected smaller should mean cheaper. But if the lens quality is *similar*, then there's no reason the cost should be so different.
FF and m4/3 are different in many ways but while m4/3 will never render like FF, at least the sensors are improving rapidly so next year's m4/3 IQ may better last year's FF.
So the question to me is, at what point is m4/3 good enough? You may give up too soon, then again I may buy in too soon. But lenses outlast bodies so I'm prepared to invest because I *do* see a future for m4/3.
Regardless; even if FF bodies are getting cheaper, lenses definitely aren't!
Light Pilgrim: I think these Zeiss lenses are not relevant anymore. They do not work properly with modern DSLRs and Manual Focusing is extremely complex on bodies like 5D MKIII as an example.
I think Canon will introduce 135 F/2 very soon and it will have AF...will be cheaper. The existing Canon lens is just stunning and is costs 50% of what Zeiss is asking for this lens.
I think Zeiss will need to change their business model very soon....of offer AF.
Light Pilgrim, I'm sure you said f/16 just to be inflammatory. Given when you're focusing manually the aperture is at f/1.4 anyway, then yes of course you can nail a street shot wide open. Just because the lens has f/1.4 doesn't mean you use it for every shot. You can stop down a couple of clicks if the composition needs it or to give a bit of margin for error. It's about having the ability to use the tool.
And I think that is part of this MF vs AF discussion. People who have never learned and practised MF will find it difficult and then say it's impossible. Those who have will know it is far from impossible. The 5DIII is a particular case where Canon has decided not to make a focusing screen that is better for MF. As Zeiss said in their reply to you though, there is someone else who does. And your quote from Zeiss also said AF is not good enough at f/1.4 anyway. So I'm not sure what your point there was?
Light Pilgrim - on the one hand, how did you manage in the days before AF then? On the other hand, it's fair to say that people should use the right tool for the job. Those that need AF to nail a shot should use it. And given a 50mm manual was my walkaround lens, I did a lot more street shooting at that FL than landscape. If by saying having "eyes in focus" you mean everything else isn't, then that is a particular style of portraiture that doesn't define street shooting by any means. If you just meant that the subject had to be in sharp focus, well you really don't need AF for that even with only a second to react, if the manual focus action on the lens is a good one. And that is one of the strengths of Zeiss lenses.
liquid stereo: How do people manual focus? I can't imagine doing it with the default finder/focusing-screen.
On the 5DII you could use the EG-S focusing screen, but even the standard screen wasn't so bad.
However, with lenses like the Zeiss ZE, focus confirm still works so you can if you want use the AF system to check your manual focus. Or you can use Liveview and zoom. The workflow is little different from using AF, with the focus confirm step happening before you take the photo rather than after when most people using AF seem to.
OK the point about the 5DIII and its focusing screen specifically is a fair point. But it is disingenuous to broaden that to "modern DSLRs". And it is by no means impossible to manually focus on the 5DIII, or use Liveview and the rear screen magnified, which is what people effectively do with autofocus when they push the shutter, allow AF to do its stuff, then playback and zoom in to "check focus".
Quite frankly, manually focusing means you normally have it right first time and there is no need to check focus after.
I'm not sure why you think they don't work properly with modern DSLRs? Have you ever actually owned one? I've just sold my 5D MkII, but before I did the Zeiss 50mm/1.4 was by far my favourite lens. It wiped the floor with the Canon 50/1.4 which I owned for a month or two before selling on.
I also owned the 135 L and to be honest if I was in the market for a 135mm and the Zeiss was closer in price then, assuming it renders like some other Zeiss lenses, I would probably go for it rather than the Canon.
Autofocus is a convenience but the first thing I do is take autofocus off the shutter release and put it somewhere else, so I can do a quick AF to get close and then manually focus for the photo I want to take without the camera interfering. Maybe it depends on your perspective. For my first 20 years of shooting I didn't have AF and focusing has always been a natural action.
ET2: Battery as low as 180 shots per charge in live view?
Gosh that bad ... Even A37 with tiny battery has over 500 per charge
Honestly, if battery life is the best cheap shot you can make, then you really need to just get out a bit more (with whatever camera you choose). Battery life is a problem that was solved for every camera years ago by getting a spare, in case you hadn't heard.
jayblue: Firmware definitely works. I was having the lockup problem but no more.
Firmware fixes are absolutely standard for new cameras. This is a positive, not a negative. Every manufacturer does this, fortunately. I'm sure there are more to come for the d800.
@Josh152 well it would be interesting to know what QC looks like in the job you do? Is *everything* you *ever* produce 100% perfect when it leaves the door? In some jobs you are lucky that there is either no contractual obligation to be "perfect" or defining what "pefect" means is so difficult or subjective that it is not enforceable. Professional photography would seem to be a clear example of the latter.
ccd100: If manufacturers tested untill all problems were found they would never release the product. This is the same in computers, cars or cameras. Is it frustrating? Of course but when your an early adopter you must expect teething problems and this is just that.If you want a problem free camera go back to a fully manual film camera.
I don't think you get ccd100's point though. It doesn't matter about cost. It doesn't matter what the product is. It doesn't matter whether it was manufactured today or manufactured 30 years ago. In many ways we are *lucky* with electronic products because they can be updated at home in a few minutes. In the "old days" when products were more mechanical, a fault (which, yes *did* occur from time to time) might mean either you had to live with that fault forever, or you might be able to send it off somewhere to be fixed and get it back in a couple of weeks.
rb59020: I guess there are few around here who have built computers as a hobby or as a trade in their lives, or even had a smart phone? Most electronic devices require firmware upgrades in their lifetimes. I've delt with motherboards that needed half a dozen or more firmware upgrades over the span of a couple of years.
Why would electronic devices like motherboards, videocards, cellphones and cameras have flashable EEPROMS, NAND or NOR memory chips in their design if you were never expected to have to update them?
Get over it, quit whining and flash your damn camera.
That's kind of irrelevant. You might drive a 10,000euro or a 100,000euro car but they both may need the engine servicing, adjusting, and *gosh* even the engine management chip updating.
aruk5: what he is saying sad and also true of times! I think to a certain extent digital cameras are to blame for death of photojournalism. Ever since digicams became smaller and affordable almost everybody out there has one and usually they manage to click pics of some happening event and send it to the media even before photojournalists can reach that place to shoot the said event! Plus there are a truck load of amateur photogs whose skills match up to the pros and manage to click some great pics of an event and send it to the media!
I agree that digital cameras, or more specifically the ubiquity of cameras, have a lot to answer for. And I say it like that, because cost pressure on the media means they will pay less money to a random member of the public who "happened to be there and took a photo" than a professional photographer who goes/is sent to cover an event.
Sure, some amateurs have good skills. But taking money out of a more or less fixed (or declining) pot means less for people who make their living from photography. The exact same can be said of bloggers and internet amateurs taking attention away from professional writers and broadcasters.
Unfortunately, the end result is a fall in standards overall.
PhilPreston3072: This is very unusual for Canon to introduce a new lens without IS (apart from Fish eyes and tilt shifts). IS is one of their big marketing features.
I suspect the improved 24-70L has been rushed out without IS to satisfy the growing commercial DSLR cinematographer market, where optical corrections in Post aren't practical, and IS isn't as critical.
For the rest of us, we should demand that Canon release an IS version soon as no modern standard lens should be without it. Canon will lose customers if they take too long to release an IS version.
Given how long talk of the Mk II has been going on, I don't think there is anything "rushed out" about the new 24-70.
I wouldn't say IS is any more of a marketing feature for Canon than it is any manufacturer these days. I can't say I agree with the price point they've chosen for the lens though; for the higher price, sure people might have expected the inclusion of IS. Alternatively, a same-price upgrade concentrating on optics without IS would have satisfied me a lot more.