sgoldswo

sgoldswo

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Solicitor
Joined on Jan 14, 2012
About me:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

Comments

Total: 310, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

Vlad: "these kind of issues are decided by the copyright laws."
As a scientist I'm sure you have some basic understanding of IP law.

I'm a lawyer. The terms of this contract are extremely one sided and stink as the basis of what is effectively an employment relationship. Is that succinct enough for you?

"on a show stage the photographer has no control over the presentation. In a park the photographer is in charge of the creative process"

You realise that the former actually makes it harder for the photographer?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

Vlad S, the problem many had with the original contract is that it paid by use of the photo, but effectively removed all IP rights from the photographer and gave a right for Taylor Swift's management to dictate further use of the images. Photographers were expected to turn up, take photos and afterwards learn if they were getting paid according to a discretion out of their control.

So, in effect, if you think the original contract is fair and the complaints were unfair, you must think it is fair for people to work for free. You don't need to write that if you've endorsed the principle.

I haven't even got into the point others have made here about the fact there is as much art in a great photo as there is in the performance of a song, which makes it curious why Taylor Swift (and/or her management) thinks it OK for one rule to apply to performance artists and another to photographers. They've realised the contradiction makes her look like a hypocrite, hence the change in contract.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 09:40 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

Vlad S, so you would be happy to work for free. Thanks for clarifying that...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

That's simply irrelevant, to the extent the previous contract effectively created a situation where photographers might have to work for free. Vlad, would you be happy with that in your job?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 22:32 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: I believe I can carry a 20/1.8G and 35/1.8G for less weight than the Sigma and perhaps have better IQ. We'll see how well it does.

Have to agree with @jhinkey as the Nikon 20mm and 35mm F1.8G lenses are excellent optically. I guess we'll see on price, but the F1.8G line isn't expensive. Build quality may be another matter.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: Nikon should be kissing Sigma's feet for producing those awesome lenses. Innovative and excellent lenses like this at affordable prices are helping to keep some of us from abandoning the dinosaur formats completely.

Probably not as Nikon make most of their money from lenses...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 10:17 UTC

Sigma's interpretation of the Leica WATE. Hmm. I'm sure this is great, but I'm still a bit lost as to why I would use it ahead of either of a combination of a 24-70 F2.8 or a 35 F1.8 and a 24.

I would have liked to see some more primes (85/135mm F1.4-2 etc) or a 24-70 ahead of this.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 10:21 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I think is neither.
I respect those you put their money for this camera and enjoy it, but in my humble opinion the difference between the M-Monochrome files vs the M240 BW conversions are small enough to prefer the M240 and have the option of shooting color as pleased. But I still prefer the old CCD sensor look like the one on my M8.

Everyone's entitled to their views, but having spent quite a bit of time now with the M240 files, I'm not convinced they give results that are than different from a CCD. You can choose for a HDR like picture with no shadows and highlights, or you can choose for the kind of deep global contrast you see on M9 files. If you want endless highlight recovery, you have that too on the M. Your choice...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Kempen: I have an answer for this one:

When DPR announces a Leica product, just add: "this article is not for people who cannot afford Leica"

All the haters can then look elsewhere and comment on their usual 'blah-blah' I can get something cheaper and have fun, even while they admit that they have never used or tested Leica kit themselves - I believe they are selling more Leica kit with their BS than any marketing that Leica can do themselves!

Happy M240 user with Leica glass

Rick, just a thought but all of the R glass is now old. Leica has moved on too in the last 10 years.

Having used quite a bit of the M mount glass, it isn't magically better than that available for other brands (in some cases there are optical weaknesses too, see the inconsistent field shape of the 35 Summilux for example), but it does have a very attractive combination of contrast, resolution and retention of colour information that's only seen in a few lenses for DSLRs. Another factor is the feel or haptics of the lens in use, which is top notch, only the older Zeiss ZF/ZE glass comes close to it. This year I treated myself to an APO-Summicron 50. It's excellent and, having used it more, I rate it more highly than my 50 Sigma Art on the D810 (the Leica is sharper at wider apertures, has much better bokeh and more importantly puts more emphasis on local contrast).

Other amazing lenses from Leica include the 21mm SEM, the 35 Summilux and the 75 APO-Summicron.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

Paul, thanks for your comment.

It's certainly true that putting a rear element closer to the sensor can (not will) result in optical issues such as mushy corners or coloured shading, as anyone who has tried to use wide angle M mount glass on a mirrorless camera will know. However, it's also the case that moving the lens away from the sensor as happens in DSLRs makes it harder to correct optical aberrations and makes certain designs less practical (e.g. sonnar type designs for WA lenses). In particular it's harder to build a sharp, corrected WA lens that is sharp in the corners with a larger flange back distance such as seen in DSLRs. A great deal of correction is required and this is evident in comparing to lenses such as the Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30. This accounts in part for the very large difference in size between rangefinder and DSLR glass.

This is one of the reasons that WA lenses for the Sony FE system can also be relatively small and light compared to 35mm equivalents.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

Be sure to give 100% crops...

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 11:45 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

speaking as a Nikon and Leica user rangefinder glass has different design pros and cons to DSLR glass. Could I always tell the difference from results taken with DSLR lenses? Not always. Is the colour magical? It's certainly different, but different brands of DSLR glass (e.g. Zeiss vs native Nikon glass, show that too). The main differences are the extreme loss of size and weight vs DSLR glass, sharper corners at all apertures (similar to mirrorless its simpler to design a lens for sharp corners if its closer to the sensor) and extreme central sharpness at optimal apertures matched only by the best DSLR designs (which will be considerably bigger and heavier in order to match the performance of the relevant rangefinder glass). Aside from that, the haptics and build quality are only really matched by the likes of Zeiss and the few AIS lenses Nikon still manufactures.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 11:00 UTC

Looks very interesting, would love to own or trial this lens. I'm a big fan of the 28mm focal length and the existing summicron 28 f2 asph is a work of art, but perhaps not capable of the absolute heights of resolution the newest 35mm summilux lenses can manage. The most interesting question for me is field shape, especially wide open, given the 35mm Summilux FLE's performance in this regard.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 06:51 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

the decent exposure: I'm really a Leica fan, I like the design, "Leica way" of taking pictures. But I would never buy a d-leica. Back in teh days I always wanted to own a M6 but didn't have the money at that time. Now I don't have the mony for the digital ones but even if I would have the money I would not invest into the Leica because, I don't see the Leica way in the picture.
Sorry to say, I can't see any Leica colors, in these days the colors are coming out of LR or C1 and you can say this or that is a Leica picture because of the colors. No way! The same with the black and white version. I have seen a lot of examples of the new and the old black and white Leica. And people are comparing it with the Bayer sensor and the huge visible difference, sorry I don't see this difference. And if you are a pp expert you can get wonderfull b&w pictures out of every sensor. Same with the super duper sharp Leica lenses, there is no way that you can see on a print a difference to the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm for example.

If you think Leica's colour rendering is the same as other manufacturers based on pictures you see on the net, you are sadly wrong. They can end up looking similar, but the rendering is not the same. Speaking as someone who has used the Sony lens you describe too, its a nice lens, but not really in the same league as some of the Leica glass. All the best.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: If I catch someone holding a Leica M out at arms length like a goddamned tourist, I will steal it from them.

Liveview replaces the assortment of VFs people used to put into their hotshoe. Nothing wrong with using it with wider than 28mm lenses and TBH I use it with my 28 and 35 as well when I'm wearing glasses, as noted above, for framing, not focusing.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

UnitedNations: My Nikon DF has better sensor than this camera...and better low light ISO ability...... Leica sure is expensive.

I own both too. I'm with Mark on this.

PS the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZF.2 isn't even a very good zeiss lens (I prefer the 50mm F1.2 AIS). The Otus 50mm gets close to the APO-Summicron but is obviously, larger heavier and much more expensive.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: I'm always curious, who buys this stuff?

Photographers who enjoy photography:
http://wp.me/p2wMAg-FA

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

sgoldswo: It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

Rishi, those are lovely photos and good examples of a style of photography. I'm still not persuaded that the A7 series needs an F2 UWA lens, but that might be because of my use case (largely landscape), I accept that. However, I do feel (strongly) that there's a trend away from optically excellent slower small primes from all manufacturers (bar Leica) which I see as a negative generally. What's wrong with giving people a choice of speed or size?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

sgoldswo: It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

Rishi, call me old fashioned, but I don't get trying for subject isolation with a 25mm lens and a F2 aperture. It's hard enough with my Nikon 24mm F1.4. I get the wider aperture for astro, but F2.8 is OK for that purpose. Also, one of my favourite 25/24mm lenses ever is the Zeiss Biogon 25mm F2.8 ZM. I marginally prefer the Leica SEM these days (because I'm a bit more 20/21 than 24/25), but slow but small UWA lenses can be really great when paired with small cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Only twice as much as their Nikon counterparts. That's progress, I guess.

@Sangster, Nikon make an optically excellent 85mm F1.8 that retails for approx $500

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 16:38 UTC
Total: 310, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »