I gave up long ago on digital image rights when I sell my services download and sharing rights are always part of the deal. I think it is an uphill battle for photographers to try to stop this practice. At the very least they should offer low res digital photos for sharing. Of course I don't do high volume low profit senior pictures either.
Having said that as long as they are clear about what is included in a sitting or shoot on the contract they can sell how they want to sell and it is theft to steal from them without paying.
I love the idea of an interface unit- it adds tremendous flexibility. Hopefully this idea will spread to Canon whose cameras I use for video currently. 60p is also an awesome addition.
It is rarely a good idea to work for free. Typically if the client doesn't pay they won't value the work and it will be hard to get paid decently from them in the future. When you start out you might be eager enough to do it and it might work out but do not count on it. When I was starting out 10 years ago I did some free and some heavily discounted work and none of those clients became well paying clients. You have to learn to walk away from work or you will not progress and get paid well for what you do.
I like some of these images a lot (I looked at the site) He is doing the most important thing which is using your feet and eyes to find beautiful and interesting photographs. He also seems to know how to capture some great light. I do think he is overdoing the gopro fisheye shots though, some of it is style without substance. While the camera and lens are secondary to vision which is the most important element they are not irrelevant. Also this is a bit gimmicky in that the article and photographer seem to talk up the unconventional technique more than the vision of the photographs.
Credit for trying--but this didn't really add much for me. A good videographer would have gotten all these shots and done a much better job.
Seems like a good idea. As a working professional photographer though I use JPEG 95% of the time. JPEG's can be edited fine for most of my editorial, corporate and event work.
JoshKline: Where is the EOS? Obviously there will not be autofocus or aperture control but it seems there shouldn't be an issue with adapting otherwise? I have an EOS adapter for my Sony NEX that has a built in aperture ring that works great.
Yes I understand this but they have Sony adapters you just use the lens wide open and adjust the aperture ring built into the adapter. It works really well on my NEX 5n.
I think it is remarkable performance especially JPEG which I prefer (mostly due to time restraints). I think honestly that noise isn't really a big issue anymore overall. I am a big fan of using high ISO's for my event and wedding work (love using ambient light with a little strobe) I have the Fuji and Canon 5d Mark 2 and I think they are very similar in noise which is remarkable given the larger sensor of the 5D 2. Fuji is clearly using noise reduction but I think it is used very well, look at the fuzzy color balls. I think the NEX cameras are awesome also and to my eyes it is very similar especially when you consider the NEX 7 is much higher resolution so that when matched pixel to pixel it may be better. I prefer the Fuji for the superior lenses and IMO better controls.
Where is the EOS? Obviously there will not be autofocus or aperture control but it seems there shouldn't be an issue with adapting otherwise? I have an EOS adapter for my Sony NEX that has a built in aperture ring that works great.
bradleyg5: That makes no sense, why would a 12-24mm need IS? motion blur from people moving would be a problem before hand shake would be at that focal length. If they make that, it's going to be like 2 grand, I mean what, it's going to have to come with a view finder as well. These ultra zooms manufactures are releasing are too expensive, you gotta keep it under a thousand dollars. It's not a luxury lens it's a necessary part of the kit.
It only makes sense for landscape or things that don't move. If the price premium for IS is more than a couple hundred dollars I agree.
AlbertFleurman: This looks a great camera. Something I've been waiting for for several years. What would appeal to me is a Contax G legacy mount. Can you imagine this coupled with a black Zeiss Planar Contax G 45mm?? Portrait perfection. My XPro1 + standard lens now on order - although I guess there may be a wait to couple the old Contax G lenses.
How would the lens focus? I have Contax G lenses, they focus through a special screw on the camera body.
As a professional with a diverse group of clients spanning editorial, commercial and wedding this camera hits almost all the right marks. 2 extra stops of low noise performance in jpeg mode, is huge for event and wedding work. I am very glad that Canon decided to add professional level focusing to the 5D series. I think this feature set justifies the increase in price, at least for a pro user like me considering returning to the 1D line. I also shoot video and the improvements are all very welcome. The big miss is the HDMI out not being full spec like Nikon, I am not sure if there is an engineering reason for this? The increased speed makes this camera perfect for everything except the fastest sports action. Canon claims to have reduced moire and other video problems common with DSLR video- we will see how much this is true. I also welcome the HDR modes, if they work as well as promised they give the photographer a great tool in camera. Biggest miss is HDMI not being full spec out.
Lytro isn't trying to create anything conventional they are making something different. Is their a markplace for it? Time will tell- but it is thinking differently from which all great innovation comes from.
Eyes: I agree that most wedding photographers are abusing this special moment with an expensive price tag. Sure they want to use or have the best equipment they can use. Having 2 FX bodies and two zoom lens cost nearly $10.000, no car no flash. But they will have a big competitor soon.In Europe Chinese Photographers 3 person will do a complete Wedding reportage including Albums and a video Disk for €1200,-And it looks Professional ! and they come all the way from China!Don't ask me how? That's the price tag and product delivered in 2 weeks time.
The it isn't the camera argument is extremely valid yet not a black and white matter. Of course a given photographer can produce better work with better equipment. The point is that the tools are merely tools and the value really lies in the eye of the artist not the gear. Put more simply: a good photographer with a point and shoot can get better shots overall than a bad one with all the best gear.
Gordon Urquhart: Should these people be sued as well?
C'mon! it's in plain view! Plus, the images do not even look the same! Concept - yes. Accurate reproduction - Absolutely not.
Copyrights are limited by time. Not sure of exacts for English law but there is always a limit on protection usually the authors lifespan plus some period of years. The Mona Lisa is clearly public domain at this point even if copyright law existing in Da Vinci's time.
I think this is a bad decision. A selective color treatment is not that unique and Big Bend and a double decker bus are some of the most photographed icons in London. I don't think having white sky makes it special either. I am not very familiar with English copyright law but this decision is dangerous in its' implications. Let's face it all of us steal ideas we are influenced by thousands of years of artistic expression. We try to put our own mark on things but nothing is 100% unique. Hopefully they will appeal.
Jonathan Skrimshire: I notice that Nikki Wagner lists an expense of $200 for a second shooter. Maybe the disgruntled bride should just hire the second shooter. ;-)
What a silly point, how about you just pay some factory worker in China for your computer why do you need Dell or Apple! A bike and a Rolls Royce may do the same thing getting you from point a to point b, but does that mean they are the same?
Stan LS: He shoots 20 weddings a year and claim that he spends 28-35 hours on each one (8-10 hours shooting, 20-25 post processing). Come on! That's at the very most 35 hours. If we are to be generous and assume that he spends 35 hours on every single job, that means that he only works 700 hours a year. In terms of a 40 hour work week - that's 4 months and one week. Give me a break!
As for him listing his expenses as far as the equipment goes - it's not as if he's buying new camera bodies and lenses every year. 5DMII is what? 4-5 years old? Same goes for his workstation.
"She" 28-35 hours is ridiculous I don't spend that much time on a $6000 client with a 50 page book. Again though the market decides the price it isn't arbitrary.
nikos theodosiou: Well done Nikki! As a pro wedding photographer of 12 years I hear this a lot!Trouble is now days that digital cameras have devalued photography somewhat and because everyone thinks they are a photographer these days their perception is that is should be cheap! Wrong!Professional wedding photography is a skilled art and if a bride wants everything that a pro comes with then she will have to pay for it!If she wants a Weekend Warrior for $600 fine and good luck to her!I get regular calls from bride saying I'm too expensive or how can I justify charging $1000 for the copy right disc, well for just the same reasons you stated in your reply.I can usually tell now who is the amateur photographer as they always give away their copyrights within their package, why? because they hold little or no value to their work!Professional photographers should charge more for what they do in my opinion.
Very good point Aleck, you are right you can't have it both ways support free markets advocate for the value of your work and stop bitching about the competition!