Seems a very good deal for the price.
CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.
@sh, very very few artists get to that level. And they can afford lawyers to get a better deal out of the right holders. Or go independent. And actually earn the money, not give them somebody else. But even then, they still have the lawyers, attorneys, assistants and organizers who handle the daily routine for them. Or you think the musician himself wrote the contract?
I'm in no way trying to whitewash the artists. But in this case the wrath is misguided, and should be directed against his legal representatives.
> Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that.
Yes. But the rights to literally everything outside (and sometimes to some extent inside) the artist are owned by somebody else, so called "rights holder".
While artists and performers strive for the publicity, to reach a bigger audience, the right holders do not really give a damn about anything of that and are there only for the profit. That, while artists often live off a pittance payed them back by the right holders.
The problem with the entertainment industry is that artists can hardly make any (living) money or get to the national scene without selling themselves off to some agency/label/etc.
The Name is Bond: This is the fault of those prats who published unflattering pics of Beyonce.
The terms are reasonable, get over it.
> unflattering pics of Beyonce.
What is Beyonce? Link?
Top Dog Imaging: imagine being able to shoot a video without requiring someone to pull focus.
@Top: "imagine being able to shoot a video without requiring someone to pull focus."
There were talks in the past about light-field video camera. I'm not sure what came out of it.
JohnEwing: Gee, I didn't know people came with serial numbers. Is this another dastardly NSA plot?
They use S/N mostly to track where/how the camera was produced to handle problems of the mass production.
The fact that support demands the S/N - that is just plain laziness. The only thing they really need is the proof of purchase, to know when the warranty starts and ends.
I wonder how EU's consumer laws would look at that. It's not my fault that the S/N rub off - it is Panasonic's, and they should be dealing with it at their own costs, not mine.
Jim Salvas: Based on comments by DPR members, no lens manufacturer ever makes a rational decision on a new product. All lenses are too expensive, or have maximum apertures which are too narrow or are too wide, are the wrong focal length, or don't have necessary features like AF. And that's not to mention that other manufacturers may even be selling similar lenses, in contradiction to all the rules of commerce.
And yet, lenses get sold. And even bought by DPR members, at times. It's amazing.
Samyang, you don't know what you're doing. Just ask our experts.
Right! Darn those stupid consumers! How dare they expect that manufacturers would make products they actually want to spend their money on?!
ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.
2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.
"If you had ever actually looked through a viewfinder you would know exactly what we mean."
Wait. You really say that you compose on the viewfinder?! How??
I tried it, but stopped trying after pains in the neck. Not only that, but literally every interesting angle (low angle, high angle) is a "mission impossible" with the viewfinder.
I always do macro with flip-out (and now tilt) LCD: you get a comfortable angle, the live view and the focus peaking. And most importantly: magnification.
Now that you repeated several times that you do macro with the viewfinder, I actually start thinking that you are simply trolls who never actually did the macro. You can't certifiably confirm the focus with such shallow DOF using the tiny viewfinder screen. Unless, of course, you are fine with bunch of slightly OOF shots. And neck pains.
> f/2.8 makes a big difference to manual focusing
What difference?? That you can see literally nothing?
At any macro shooting distance, the DOF at f/2.8 at 100mm is so unbelievably thin (only 1-3mm at 40-50cm working distance!!) that even focus peaking sometimes fails to highlight anything.
The only difference for macro the f/2.8 aperture makes, is that the lenses costs and weigh much much more than they should.
I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.
SeeRoy: The EU primarily exists for the benefit of Big Capital. There may be some real benefits for some countries (like being able to **** off to a previously civilised country, in order to reap the benefits of centuries of social development) but primarily it's about ready access to markets and suppression of wages (for the working classes only, obviously) in order to maximise corporate profits.For most of us, especially in Britain, it's the absolute worst thing that has happened since WW2. At least in WW2 we managed to escape being invaded.This sort of legislation is just one more example amongst many.Let's hope the Greeks initiate stage 1 of the EU's disintegration. Stage 2 should be Britain's exit.For decades I supported the EU idea - but I've seen the consequences.
"The EU primarily exists for the benefit of Big Capital."
... says somebody from a EU country with the least corporate oversight, the least financial regulations, the least consumer protections and the least employment regulations.
And suddenly - can you imagine - it is the rest of EU who are "for the Big Capital".
RunningTurtle: This whole pan 'EU' nanny thing has turned into quite a monster. I'm surprised how Europeans can put up with so many bizarre and silly laws interferring with their lives.
@SeeRoy, I'm not sure how to even reply to that hollow demagogy.
EU is not a singular entity. And most of the work in EU right now is the harmonization. Just like it is stated in the DPR's article. And obviously all the present laws are looked at: from the most extreme to the most lax. Because they are all already existing laws inside the EU.
Considering the diversity of the laws, I actually think that full harmonization is likely to fail with the states on the extremes likely to abstain.
> certainly here in Britain ...> Consequently many people are frightened to utter any overt criticism.
You must be kidding? Right? Do you read your own press in the UK? watch your own TV? You made a scarecrow out of EU, which is very fashionable right now to openly throw rocks at. On public media. And you say you "frightened"?
luisflorit: I completely agree, anyone using commercially should pay to the copyright holder.
But only if, at the same time, the copyright holder removes it immediately when someone does not like it. Since we are not free to avoid seeing a huge ugly construction right in front of our noses, the copyright holder should remove it from our views.
Your proposal makes lots and lots of sense.
At least in comparison to the EU's one.
ThePhilips: To make the AF in video really useful, they should start thinking about developing some cheap parafocal lenses.
> Sony 28-135 is considered very cheap
$2500 - very cheap indeed. Only f/4.0 - but who can complain at this price.
ThePhilips: > We've certainly seen implementations of eye AF in other cameras ...
... which is why competition is so important.
Eye AF is just a refinement of the face detection AF.
Eyes are important feature of the face, and face detection already has to find them. The only thing changed is that camera now offers an option to the user to pick left or right or nearest eye. I doubt Sony needed much help from Olympus or anybody else to implement that.
> We've certainly seen implementations of eye AF in other cameras ...
To make the AF in video really useful, they should start thinking about developing some cheap parafocal lenses.
jabz: So can someone please tell me how I can achieve this with a Sony a7 II, which lens do I need?thanks
Well, you can't put the price on quality, as the Zeiss fans on Sony forums would tell you. :)
MeganV: I suspect Olympus is thinking about how to pre-empt and/or play nicely with this:
Every camera manufacturer should be thinking about that.
That disaster of an article is what happens when a non-techie tries to write about the tech stuff, s/he understands only on the level of the promotional fliers.