Tazz93

Tazz93

Lives in United States Pasadena, CA, United States
Joined on Feb 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Focal plane shutter at 1/125th... well, they will definitely have something to work on for the Mark II version if this makes it past this stage.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 16:17 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bobobears: No picture? Journalism at its worst

I don't think anyone wants to touch this pic with a ten foot stick. Sue-happy lawyer and a woman arguing she was taken advantage of, equals a healthy amount of precaution.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

DenWil: The plaintiff was a customer not a model and she refused to sign a release at the time the images were taken.

This is not a case of oversight but incompetence or fraud. The photographer should have deleted the images the minute the customer refused to sign a release. He had no right to commercial use of the images and he knew it right then.

All so incredibly absurd considering you can hire a commercial print model fitting exactly the type you are looking for, no issues for usage, own the shots and write it all off.

Quite honestly I am surprised at how low end Chipotle advertising is. Buying from a guy who shot a pic of a customer. A lot of thought went into that.

You're assuming this was a photo shot for the purpose of advertising. What if this was simply an editorial stock shot, then someone in Chipotle decided would go in their program/ad?

BTW for those asking what the image looked like, before this gained steam there was a pic of the 2.2 Billion dollar look... and honestly it didn't look to be worth even using in an ad... let alone $2 Billion in reimbursement. If the article I saw a couple of weeks ago was accurate, it showed a black and white scene of a Chipotle "assembly line" with two people behind the counter and I think one customer ordering. Honestly, I thought it could be argued that the model/woman wasn't even recognizable. At best it looked like an editorial stock shot, that honestly could have been taken with an iPhone and not lost anything. But again, that's assuming the article had the accurate picture in question.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

juvx: The amount is just a negotiation tactic, they will settle out of court for 200-300k One mil, tops.

Acidic, there is a difference... using someone's face on the actual product dispersed to millions of buyers versus a barely recognizable P.R. stock pic. I think it would be tough to prove (or argue) she made them 2 billion. Juvx is right, this will likely get settled, but I wouldn't suspect it will do any better than $1,000,000 (likely in the hundreds of thousands).

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

evogt500: So she knew about it 2014, but she waited till 2017 to make her claim...You know she just waited to rack up the doe.

She waited to make sure there was something to sue... they are finally recovering from the food poisoning claims. Had she filed for it then, it's possible the company could have gone up in flames before she got paid.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:14 UTC

Fine + two weeks in county should be suffice... and obviously, proportionately more aggressive for repeat offenders.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 17:46 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

Sony has been very "Disruptive" in recent years.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 02:14 UTC as 147th comment | 1 reply

Half a million in Canon glass... you would just think there is a more efficient way to get this done.

But it's definitely interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 16:44 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies

Wow, the 70-200's are getting up there in price... seems to be a trend.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 14:46 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

abortabort: I don't understand this article, the official price in the US is $2599. It was announced a couple months ago.

I think the article is saying Sony misguided on the price point. This should be interesting...

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 19:30 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Banhmi: I recognize the equivalency issue here with this being MF, but how come Hasselblad doesn't launch this camera with faster lenses -- like, say, at least F2.5 instead of F3.5?

Can't imagine spending all that money on a camera body when the lenses appear kinda 'meh'. From my perspective, this doesn't seem that much better than an a7Rii until better glass becomes available, but I suppose I'm missing something here?

Size and cost. That's pretty much par for the course with all lens makers. Faster equals bigger, couple that to the huge sensor that requires a fairly large section of glass all by itself and I can see how things get tricky trying to match up with 35mm speed. I'd also imagine the leaf shutter plays a part as well...

Sensor size alone will do things the A7RII can't, remember, the 3.5 lens will likely give a 35mm shooter what appear to be 2.4 look due to MF sensor size. Additionally, most will value the look of the MF file over the A7RII, but I'm sure there are many features the Sony has that trump the Hassy.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 13:53 UTC

I'm not a mirrorless guy... but if there is a future for the tech it lies right here, bridging of 35mm to 645 MF. At this segment, the size savings actually has a value, all while maintaining useful ergos. Additionally, as processing and pipeline bottlenecks improves, speed can be added without complicated and costly large MF mirror boxes. The only hurdle for the segment will be costs. Whether development cost or end user costs, the expenditure will be large for the system (lenses included).

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 14:15 UTC as 40th comment

I would like to try MF, but the tech just not compelling enough to justify the cost (and that's referring to the Pentax, let alone Hassy's and Phase One's). There's no doubt increasing the sensor size will add effects that NO 35mm format camera can match, but there's just so much that effectively all MF cameras can't do that the 35mm format does so well. Same goes for both system right now, whether you are on one system or the other, there WILL be a shot you literally can't get due to the system's limitation. Currently, the 35mm format is only limited to missing the "MF effect" of the shot and not the shot. The MF camera can literally cause you to not get the shot itself. That said, for those that remember, going from low bit crop cams to the original 5D seemed like a nice change... I can only imagine MF is that 2x.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:59 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

57even: For those that seem to find it hard to accept any criticism of Canon, I don't think it is this article that is 'unbalanced'.

Canon's sensor tech has lagged for years, but now they are doing something about it by moving the ADC on chip (about 6 years after everyone else). Previous mirrorless iterations were pretty lacklustre, and DPReview said as much, now they have done something about it (about 6 years after everyone else).

There is a whole emerging enthusiast market out there that is avoiding DSLRs, and Canon needed to give them an entry point. Finally, they have.

Nikon need to get their act together even more. The 1 series was a flop by all accounts. Even though the tech was pretty good, a 1" ILC is overpriced and under-specced. Good for a fixed zoom, not for a system.

It cost Canon very little to have a foot in both DSLR and MILC camps. If one takes sales from the other, Canon still get the revenue.

Or they could decide to spend time and resources on mirrorless tech only to see the market go a different direction, my guess.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

57even: For those that seem to find it hard to accept any criticism of Canon, I don't think it is this article that is 'unbalanced'.

Canon's sensor tech has lagged for years, but now they are doing something about it by moving the ADC on chip (about 6 years after everyone else). Previous mirrorless iterations were pretty lacklustre, and DPReview said as much, now they have done something about it (about 6 years after everyone else).

There is a whole emerging enthusiast market out there that is avoiding DSLRs, and Canon needed to give them an entry point. Finally, they have.

Nikon need to get their act together even more. The 1 series was a flop by all accounts. Even though the tech was pretty good, a 1" ILC is overpriced and under-specced. Good for a fixed zoom, not for a system.

It cost Canon very little to have a foot in both DSLR and MILC camps. If one takes sales from the other, Canon still get the revenue.

"It cost Canon very little to have a foot in both DSLR and MILC camps. If one takes sales from the other, Canon still get the revenue."

Don't forget, if Canon needs to R&D a mirrorless design to hold on to the market share it has, that's a loss on the balance sheet. Taking losses also takes a toll on other projects and the funds allotted to various R&D endeavours.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:28 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2092 comments in total)
In reply to:

zanypoet: I may be nitpicking ...
I use both Nikon and Canon gear; built-in viewfinder shutter should be a std. feature on camera like this. Nikon has'em on their D800 series.

Otherwise, increased DR on par with Sony and Nikon is a welcome change ...

Eugeniu, you're missing the point. Canon is holding out on this item. I believe its so they have more selling points for the 1D bodies... but Nikon has put it on nearly all of their advanced hobbyist bodies for years. Even worse, Canon also includes a provision for it with every camera, so they know it's needed. Personally, I'm not one to ask for the latest and greatest of innovation... but c'mon, for a $3500 body this should have always been a pre-req. The addition of a VF shutter just seems to be a given considering the provisions they and other manufacturers make for the problem. Nevermind the fact that the 5D series is supposed to be their landscape body.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2092 comments in total)
In reply to:

zanypoet: I may be nitpicking ...
I use both Nikon and Canon gear; built-in viewfinder shutter should be a std. feature on camera like this. Nikon has'em on their D800 series.

Otherwise, increased DR on par with Sony and Nikon is a welcome change ...

^ This is the type of feature you should feel "robbed" you didn't get (VF Shutter).

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

Tapper123: $27k is chicken feed for a business venture. Any company that uses Kickstarter for that little money probably has no idea what they're doing in the first place.

Asking the customers to subsidize and patronize their company brings a little light to "inventory issues" they always have had.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

alextardif: For anyone following F-stop drama... I wasn't aware of the issues until reading that article, but my last few orders from them that included Sukha and another ICU both were pushed through after I called and simply asked for expedited shipping. The backpack arrived after 3 weeks of wait in June, XL ICU arrived after 4 weeks of waiting... just yesterday. I've also noticed that they've bumped their prices just now - I paid $299 for the Sukha and it now listed at $339... LX ICU was $89 now $99... There's still hope these guys can come back to life - their bags are 2nd to none for many of us.

Yes, their bags are the best, but their service is garbage. One of the main selling points is the warranty on their goods... I'm cringing at the thought of trying to collect on that warranty. My bag took roughly the same time to ship, but I bought it back in 2013. If these issues still exist, there is obviously a management issue.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Institutional theft or misuse of Intellectual property should have a heavy fine. If it were just a fitting fine, it would benefit the institution to do as they want and simply account for a few suits here and there. When the cost of the misuse is great, they find way to not be involved in it.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 20:20 UTC
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »