perroneford

perroneford

Lives in United States North, United States
Works as a Govt. Geek / Photographer
Has a website at PTFPhoto.com
Joined on Apr 26, 2011
About me:

SysAdmin for money, Pro photographer since 1984 for love and money. :)

Comments

Total: 115, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Weerterbos: Real lesson #1.
Do not publish until paperwork is done. Or plaster it with watermarks until unusable.

It's the same as with music in the early days of internet. There is no lock on webcontent, so people will steal it.

Also note, that this is for only ONE client. I have numerous clients, all with different submission schedules, and different publishing methods and needs. The ballet company, the symphony, athletic wear company, film festival company. All different.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

Weerterbos: Real lesson #1.
Do not publish until paperwork is done. Or plaster it with watermarks until unusable.

It's the same as with music in the early days of internet. There is no lock on webcontent, so people will steal it.

I'll try to break this down so you and others can see the issues some of us face.

I am contracted to a large, division 1 school's athletic department. I shoot 12 sports for them. Football season is coming up. This is how my day goes:

1 Arrive at game, set up, eat press meal, head to field.
2. Shoot pre-game activities
3. Go to press room, send 5 pre-game activity shoots to school
4. Shoot first half.
5. Go to press room, send 5-10 first half shots to school
6. Shoot second half
7. Go to press room, send 10-15 second half and post game shots to school.
8. Eat dinner
9. Work on fully edited photos
10. Submit 50 fully edited photos by noon to school by Sunday, noon.

At any point from the first submission, my photo(s) may appear on the school's social media, the social media of the opposing school, a second party's social media, a newspaper, magazine, etc. I am not notified when, if, or how it is used. Multiply this by 12 sports, year round.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Part of the problem,. Everyone is in such a hurry to "share."

For some of us, our paychecks depend on us "sharing".

Thanks for your thoughts though.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

Weerterbos: Real lesson #1.
Do not publish until paperwork is done. Or plaster it with watermarks until unusable.

It's the same as with music in the early days of internet. There is no lock on webcontent, so people will steal it.

This does not help those of us who have to publish time sensitive works... like sports photographers, concert photographers, news photographers, etc.

See the problem?

And as I usually have to publish 50-100 photos several times per week, This ruling would essentially rob me of my ability to bring suit for wrongful use, and would costs me tens of thousands of dollars per year just to try to get all my work registered after the fact.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

Rdefen: Can you test AF performance with Sony lens on Canon 1DXMKII. Thanks.

good thing I don't shoot my movies with Canon...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Rdefen: Can you test AF performance with Sony lens on Canon 1DXMKII. Thanks.

Yes,

Let's test Sony's E-mount 300/2.8 an 400/2.8 on the Canon and see how they work...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: How about adapting Sony's A mount lense?

I've spoken at length about them in the past and don't wan to rehash that here. We can discuss privately if you are really interested.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: How about adapting Sony's A mount lense?

I wasn't referring to just stllls cameras. My experience goes back decades with pro audio gear, pro video gear, consumer video gear, etc. Sony stuff often cost more. Occasionally worth it, but usually not.

The a9 body is cheaper, but the lenses seem more expensive, and we will need to see about accessories. The body is also missing some features, so that somewhat mitigates the lower cost.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 14:50 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: The E-mount lens line up will surely be complete by Tokyo Olympics 2020, with an A9M2 released just prior. At the rate of Sony's improvements, we can surely expect the few weaknesses of the A9 to be ironed out by then.

That is their dream: to have pros use their mirrorless cameras at the Olympics. If the Pro Support is up there with Canon and Nikon, I can see it happening.

I think most of us are aware mirrorless is the future. I think the a9 has drawn the line between those who think mirrorless is ready now and those who don't.

I remain skeptical because my experience with Sony over the past few decades tells me to be cautious. I am as yet unconvinced Sony is really going to try to compete in this market space. I may be proven wrong. Time will tell.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: How about adapting Sony's A mount lense?

No, we are not brand loyal, as I have numerous brands of gear. BUT there really has to be a compelling reason for it.

While I will give Sony a lot of credit for many things, I don't think I could EVER say that I bought Sony to save money! They tend to always cost more than most of their competitors.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 14:29 UTC
In reply to:

SigZero: So much foreign factors that it's really quite expected. As A9 works marvelously well with Sony's 100-400 this simply means that this is pure converter or/and glass problem. Non of them was designed to be used in such conditions. I guess that converter is introducing significant lag in processing AF and lenses itself are designed for Canon's DSLR bodies that have narrow AF not covering that huge frame area of A9's.
I really doubt there is any sense in judging body performance by means of foreign lenses used on legacy adapters. That's not body performance but converter/lens/body and whatever else performance.

@rubberdials Perhaps you are right. Though I do have to say, pro sports shooters using A-mount cameras and glass seem to be as rare as unicorns. So perhaps this video was fair from the perspective of trying to answer this question from the bulk of the intended market.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

SigZero: So much foreign factors that it's really quite expected. As A9 works marvelously well with Sony's 100-400 this simply means that this is pure converter or/and glass problem. Non of them was designed to be used in such conditions. I guess that converter is introducing significant lag in processing AF and lenses itself are designed for Canon's DSLR bodies that have narrow AF not covering that huge frame area of A9's.
I really doubt there is any sense in judging body performance by means of foreign lenses used on legacy adapters. That's not body performance but converter/lens/body and whatever else performance.

But the review didn't claim to be judging body performance. The review simply asks the question, "Can a pro sports shooter do their job with the a9 if they need long glass?" Right now, that answer seems to be no.

Perhaps that will change in the future.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: How about adapting Sony's A mount lense?

You are generally going to have 1 of 2 scenarios here.

1. A person in the Sony system who is eyeing an a9 but needs glass.
2. A person outside the Sony system who is eyeing the a9 and likely has glass.

For person 1. you are asking them to spend $4500 on a new camera, a few hundred on an adapter, several thousand on a lens from a system they didn't want to get into (a-mount). For person 2, you are asking that they buy a $4500 camera, an adapter for a few hundred bucks so they can use glass they already have, but they would get worse performance than the camera they already own.

My question is why would someone in either of these scenarios think this is a good idea? Especially if they are being paid to shoot.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 13:27 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: ..... Just goes to show that putting the cart before the horse doesn't work in the camera industry either. Lenses make the system.

I'm only questioning a choice about something they ACTUALLY did. Not some pie in the sky. Sony DID bring out the camera and a lens together. The a9 and the 100-400. The question is, if they wanted to target pro sports shooters, why not the camera and a lens pro sports people actually use most days...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

Benny Hill: Don't see what the problem with 5fps is?
Perfect for Golf, Curling or Figure Skating. Even Tennis would just about pass with 5fps☺

Sure, you could shoot any sport with 5fps. I've shot dozens of things with lower fps than this. BUT, the question is, why buy into this system or adapt over this system, when other competing brands offer real advantages? I'm not talking about the future, I mean right now... today. I can buy faster cameras for a LOT less money from competing brands and not have to adapt any lenses. What would make me want to move into Sony if 5ps and adapted lenses was all they could offer me?

There are many places the a9 shines. The world of sports/action with long glass just isn't one of them for now. I don't think it should be so hard to say that.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: In short: "The A9 is NOT the D5 and 1Dx II killer Sony claims it is".

Which was fully to be expected.
No need to say that the A9 is aimed to be solely used with the electronic shutter.

When the mechanical shutter is needed it performs really bad, the viewfinder experience is then more then horrible with much blackout and no real good possibility to follow your subject and then its max speed of 5FPS is laughable for a camera that claims to be a sport and action orientated camera.

With its ES on it can't be used with flash, and with its mechanical shutter selected the sync speed of this A9 is nothing compared to what a D5 or 1Dx can do.

It is just NOT the D5 or 1Dx killer Sony and its fans claims it is. The A9 just falls shorts on everything except for its electronic shutter capabilities.

I think this is somewhat unfair. At least from the perspective of a sports shooter. While the a9 likely won't work for me, it's unfair to assess its performance using adapters and third party lenses. It's performance with the native 70-200 seems to be just fine, and I expect should a 300, 400, 500, or 600 show up in E mount, those will work just fine too.

Not as far as this being a "killer" of the other pro DSLRs, I think that's just marketing hype, but there's certainly room at the table for Sony if they get their system together at some point.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: How about adapting Sony's A mount lense?

But why?

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: The E-mount lens line up will surely be complete by Tokyo Olympics 2020, with an A9M2 released just prior. At the rate of Sony's improvements, we can surely expect the few weaknesses of the A9 to be ironed out by then.

That is their dream: to have pros use their mirrorless cameras at the Olympics. If the Pro Support is up there with Canon and Nikon, I can see it happening.

"The E-mount lens line up will surely be complete by Tokyo Olympics 2020"

I think this comment distills the difference between those Sony faithful and everyone else. Fans of the brand generally seem to believe this is true. Those who are skeptical of Sony simply do not believe it to be true. And the commentary seems to follow suit.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 12:10 UTC
In reply to:

OrdinarilyInordinate: Sony has 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 A-mount full-frame primes. Also 70-300mm, 70-400mm, etc. Strange that those are overlooked, but a third party adapter with fourth party lenses are not.

Even the initial reviews said that the A-mount lenses with adapters would at minimum drop the shooting speed to 10fps. I don't remember how the AF performance was with the A-mount, but it's not working "per normal".

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: ..... Just goes to show that putting the cart before the horse doesn't work in the camera industry either. Lenses make the system.

But the photographers who are left out are the ones Sony says it's targeting with this camera... so that's problematic.

So the real question to me is why Sony didn't bring out the camera and glass together? Or at least 1 lens. Instead of a slow 100-400 which very few pro sports and BIF people would ever use, why not bring a 300 or 400 2.8 which most sports shooters have as a staple of their craft? Hitch the cart to the horse and present them together...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 12:05 UTC
Total: 115, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »