SteB: Considering the monkey definitely didn't upload the photos to the internet or download them to a computer they were certainly stolen i.e. at some point they were definitely taken by someone who had no authorization to use them or spread them. This is a mistaken and ill thought out decision by Wikimedia. What about camera traps or where an artist lets animals capture images. An assistant might physically press the shutter for a well known photographer, but I'd doubt they'd succeed in claiming copyright from the well known photographer. As pointed out there's more to a photo than merely pressing the shutter.
Thanks for that. I think the problem is the way this matter has been reported, which gave the misleading impression that the macaque simply grabbed the camera and took a photo itself. I've no reason to disbelieve the photographer's account because he does provide photos and text about his interaction with them.
A week ago I gave you a link to how David Slater took these photos. A macaque did not simplistically steal his camera as you claim. He clearly spent some considerable time following them and interacting with them. He is self-evidently a skilled photographer and knew what he was doing.http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
falconeyes: Oh boy, never use a programmed trigger to take a photo. Because no indirection seems allowed to keep the copyright ;)
Err, the photographer has written about this, and you appear to be slandering them.http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
The analogy was very relevant. David Slater who took these images was interacting with the macaques after observing them. This is what you do with camera traps. It would appear to be the problem is you simply don't know anything about wildlife photography. So stop trolling.http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
"Have you not read the thread?"
Didn't you read my comment? "Camera traps" were just one of several analogies I used i.e other scenarios where often the main taking photographer doesn't physically press the shutter, although it would still be usual to credit them with the image. Do you know what an analogy is, did you not see I had used several, and why did you cherrypick only one?
SteB: There's a couple of points I should have made.
1) Regardless of whether this is a real "selfie", I have seen similar wide-angle portraits of this species.
2) A lot of photos of animals taking photos are set-ups i.e. the animal is really searching for hidden food, sniffing at it, or licking it off something. The crucial point though is no animal will have had a sense or intention of taking the photo i.e. if they pressed the shutter it'd be by accident, or because they had been tricked into the action with food.
In non-human Primates this is usually called a "fear grin". It's not the same as a smile to a human i.e. a sign of pleasure or happiness. It's more of a demonstration of non-aggression to demonstrate they are harmless, to a possibly more powerful individual or animal. In my opinion the macaque was curious but nervous. In athropomorphic terms it looks to be grinning at the camera for a "selfie", but almost certainly that's not how the macaque saw it. The macaque will have almost certainly had no awareness that it was either taking photographs or posing for one. It was just interacting with another interesting Primate from its point of view.
There's a couple of points I should have made.
Considering the monkey definitely didn't upload the photos to the internet or download them to a computer they were certainly stolen i.e. at some point they were definitely taken by someone who had no authorization to use them or spread them. This is a mistaken and ill thought out decision by Wikimedia. What about camera traps or where an artist lets animals capture images. An assistant might physically press the shutter for a well known photographer, but I'd doubt they'd succeed in claiming copyright from the well known photographer. As pointed out there's more to a photo than merely pressing the shutter.
I think that's pretty impressive. Even taking into account down-sizing the other images it's clearly the cleanest from any FF sensor at high ISOs. I think this might have some potential from a macro/close-up photography perspective. Light is always a challenge, and often you have to use flash to freeze motion, or handhold. The big problem with flash in daylight is fall off over distance and black backgrounds. This means the background all has to be close to the subject to prevent it, which restricts how you shoot. I think this type of high ISO performance is maybe getting to the level where with noise reduction software, it might allow a type of photograph previously impossible in field macro photography. We'll have to wait and see if it's there yet. It'd be a lot better if it was A7 price.
I can understand the advantages of a curved sensor. However, I do think it may cause compatibility problems if it's widely adopted. Whilst a flat sensor may not be ideal, at least it is a common standard. If you made an ILC camera with a curved sensor it would make all pre-existing lenses obsolete.
I'm trying to work out the close-up capabilities of this camera. But I can't find any info yet on the close-up distances at relative focal lengths. Also does the macro function work on the whole focal length range, or just a portion, such as the wide-angle end?
Any info would be much appreciated.
Undoubtedly part of this reason is because of the marketing strategy of the camera companies. The DSLR and intechangeable lens camera market was a bubble that would always burst. This is because the sales were huge, and the amount of people who make proper use of this type of camera were small. In other words people were buying them, because they wrongly thought they would get photos just like the pros. When obviously photography takes a bit more effort than just buying a certain camera.
Initially when mirrorless cameras were released the manufacturers were claiming sales volumes several times that of all DSLRs. Such a thing was only likely to happen if they were cheaper than DSLRS. Unfortunately the manufacturers went chasing premium price sales. The premium price camera market as a money spinner for camera companies is also not likely to last. They have priced themselves out of the market. It has killed sales, and they will carry on shrinking with the current strategy.
Wonderful. I waited a long time for such a lens to show up for 4/3. I think it could make m4/3 the go to system for a lot of nature photographers. A 300mm f4 on a crop sensor is probably the most versatile lens for a nature photographer. It is the sweet spot between portability, performance and reach. However, Olympus do really need to produce matching 1.4x and 2.0x converters to go with this, especially the 1.4x converter.
_sem_: So what is the free working distance at 1:1? MFD 150mm - length 91mm - flange distance 18mm = 41mm, I guess (I assume it does not extend)
Yes I think you've got it right. This is what I've used to work out the working distance of newly announced lenses, and it usually gets you within a mm or so of the actual official figure announced later.
The MFD of 150mm indicates that this lenses dractically reduces its focal length at close focus distances, which is not unusual with this type of IF lens. This has advantages and disadvantages. It gives lower MFD but means that the same length of extension tube gives more magnification. It's a pity this lens is so long because a MFD of 41mm is a bit limiting. If it was closer to 60mm this would be much better. The Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro, which is an extending lens, has a working distance that is only 2mm less.
SteB: On the subject of lag and post locking. These are big problems in macro photography especially when you approach or go past life-size. It can be very difficult to frame something, because of this sag that occurs when you take your hand away. The best ball head in the world can only do so much to eliminate it because some of the sag that occurs after you take your hand away is because of flex in things other than the ball head, such as camera and lens.
However, there is a solution, a geared head. In this respect a moderately priced geared head such as the Manfrotto 410 is better than the most expensive ball head money can buy for macro photography, simply because you do not have that problem and have precise framing. The price you pay is more weight, and slower adjusments.
Yes, that's exactly how it works.
On the subject of lag and post locking. These are big problems in macro photography especially when you approach or go past life-size. It can be very difficult to frame something, because of this sag that occurs when you take your hand away. The best ball head in the world can only do so much to eliminate it because some of the sag that occurs after you take your hand away is because of flex in things other than the ball head, such as camera and lens.
Biowizard: Sorry, but as a biologist who loves and does everything he can to support the dwindling natural environment in which we all have a deep and profound share, I find an album of photos of collected-and-killed bees about as appetising as those dreadful cases of pinned, dead (some now extinct) butterflies, moths and beetles collected by Victorian "explorers".
@Biowizzard, I understand exactly what you mean. My first interest as a boy was butterflies. But the pinning them to boards bit turned me off. It was not squeamishness, it was just that dead insects lack the beauty of live ones. My mission in life for a long time has been to replace needless collecting of dead insects, with vibrant photos.
Having a bit of a life sciences background myself I understand the importance of collecting. Type specimens, DNA etc. Yet the reality is that most dead collections aren't used like this. In fact more can often be learned from live photography.
So whilst I accept the biological approach of this methodology, as a resource, I don't see how it can inspire. To anyone familiar with insects, these bees most definitely look dead. It would be much better if they also started a collection of live photographrs running in parallel, and it was these shown to the world's media.
Coliban: Are they dead?
Yes I appreciated that for scientific and technical purposes this is the right approach, and acknowledged it in my main comment. I've got a bit of a life sciences background myself in ecology so I'm familiar with collection and survey methodology. Also I appreciated that the methodology was primarily developed to be used by people that are first scientists and not necessarily experienced photographers.
I also appreciate the point about the dew.
However I still think that photographs of live bees would be a great adjunct to projects like this. In other words the background survey would used this methodology, but it would be supplemented where possible by live photos.
I've thought about his in depth as it is one of my big interests. I think the work around would be far more collaboration between expert macro photographers and researchers. Each utilizing the other's skill sets. With the pollinator declines I think it is essential to connect with the public.
Firstly, there's an error in the report and the pdf. The lens is in fact a 65mm lens, the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x lens.
I think this needs to be looked at from 2 different perspectives. Firstly this methodology is really for researchers who are not skilled photographers. Research and assay methods have always involved the collection of dead insects. So photographing them rather than mounting them on boards is a legitimate research tool, and resource.
However, from a photographic perspective the reporting of this story in the media around the world is somewhat misleading. There are quite a number of highly skilled photographers regularly producing big stacks of living insects, including bees. It would seem the media are simply unaware of them, although they have published their images.http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/
"All the bees are dead. Sadly, with present technology, it is impossible to take multiple stacks of living insects."
Whilst I agree with you that it's impossible to do big stacks of moving insects. It's certainly not impossible to make multiple stacks of living insects. You just have to look at the work John Hallmen and Thomas Shahan, to know that the regular stacking of live insect shots is possible.http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/
Having said all that I agree a large project to collate images of bees would be much harder with live stacking. The point being though, that live stacking is possible. I took this spider shot 4 1/2 years ago.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3429/3913186569_089220b715_o.jpg
I even took a 2 shot stack of a hoverfly in flight a few years ago. Although I did have to clone out the extra set of wings.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3299/3498856262_99ab567c92_o.jpg