EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 <a href="http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://images.digitalkamera.de/News/MinoxDigitalClassicCamera-M.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/15/06.htm&h=215&w=278&sz=24&tbnid=PY-ZX5g5HcoJ:&tbnh=84&tbnw=108&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleica%2Bm3%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DG ">Cool!</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 heh, only 40,000$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 OT, but I was shocked to discover how usable higher ISOs are on my 20D. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 yeah, no kidding eh Brad. but the higher the iso the more critical correct exposure is as raw + adjustment just adds more and more noise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 the noise is more monochrome in the newer chips, compared to the color noise of the older chips...which when pushed to limits looks more grain like than anything else...pretty tasty stuff...dont forget, digital is still a baby too...more to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 and i can't wait...i want 9 stops bewtween shadow and blown highlights with 16 bit printers on 15 shades of ink... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 <I>...dont forget, digital is still a baby too...more to come</I><P> That's the amazing part - how fast that technology has developed over such a relatively short period of time. Leads to the notion the surface has just been scratched... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 give it a week or so....patience :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 then film will be dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 that's was just for claudia to cite in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 24, 2004 Author Share Posted December 24, 2004 "pompous twit" Grant ? No one gave me any money, I didn't inherit it, or win the lotto. I don't pay for my gear any more, our clients do, just like every successful photographer I've ever hired to shoot for my ad agency doesn't pay for their gear either... we do ... it's a line item fee included in every estimate, and approved by the corporate client cost consultants that review those bids. I've explained this to you before but it seems you're too financially challenge to get it... so go see an accountant ... or not ... just trying to help a fellow artist avoid funding the bottom line of major corporations instead of their own. Question: One poster says this RD-1 has the D-70 sensor and another says it's the D-100. Which is it, and where's the info that says which it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 "The sensor used in the R-D1 is the same 6.3- MP Sony CCD that is also used in the Nikon D100, Nikon D70 and Pentax ist. It's a proven workhorse with very good all-around performance." From <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml">here</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 eric, the d100 sensor is different from the d70s, so thats incorrect...this cam came out before the d70 did....i'll find the link that mentioned the chip later.. <p><p> marc, you work for clients, clients pay you dont they? thats the same as me working at mcdonalds who pays me to make their cheeseburgers and i go out and buy an epson...could i say mcdonalds paid for my camera then? if you wanna call it a writeoff thats fine, its still an item you paid 3000$ for that youre just taking off for tax purposes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 There's nothing wrong with charging clients for the cost of your equipment. If you can't bill it as a line item charge you certainly should add it in to your fee anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 right al, i guess u and marc charge your wedding clients 8000$ for a canon 1ds and for a leica....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 all my stuff is free? cool. i'm ordering the d2x next week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipling Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 What's the big frigin deal how much marc spends on his equipment? This isn't some rich arse buying a new toy, it's a fellow photographer who is successful, likes rangefinders and can afford this new digi-finder. So what? <br> More power to you Marc. <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 24, 2004 Author Share Posted December 24, 2004 Come on Grant, you work in NYC. You should know that most commercial shooters charge an established fee for their photographic images based on use ... usually around $5,000. to $7,500. per shot (even $10,000 or a lot more if the shooter is at the top of the food chain) for national media, one year use depending on their level of talent and demand for that talent.... and completely separate line items for expenses which includes fees for studio rentals, assistants, stylists, location fees, lighting packages, and digital capture fees (in leu of film and processing these days). $500. per day is not unusual for digital capture. Hell, I even have to pay an extra $1,000 a day for a digital graphics guy to process as we're shooting. So, I started doing the same, and as a result have paid for all my gear for years now. I do not do this for weddings which comprises about 30% of the photographic income from my studio fotografz LLC. I get $200 per day rental for just the cameras. Figuring depreciation, and resale in 2 years of the specific camera, I only need 5 jobs a year to cover the difference for a 1DsMKII. Yes, you need the first up front investment, but I did that with zero interest loans at first (Hasselblad), so by year two I was getting everything free... in fact it's a small profit center these days because I have so much work. Hardly Mc Donald's there Grant.,, but if you insist on a simplistic take on business and making money for someone else that's your choice ... it sure the hell isn't mine anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 By Marc's logic, his clients are paying for him to troll the net too. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Intereresting discussion: even the forum fool has turned up to amuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 if they charge for a camera, its only as a rental. theres no way you are ever going to convince a client that they need to buy YOU a camera for the job theyre paying you already, and you get to keep the camera. just as you wont tell your wedding clients youre adding on 3k$ bc u need an epson digital cam to complete the wedding....same reason al didnt charge the newspapers to pay for his leicas... <p><P> believe me, id love for getty images to buy me all the latest greatest cams do their work for em, but it just dont work that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 <i>so by year two I was getting everything free</i> <p> oh and btw, if you hadnt noticed, working for what you have doesnt make it free...if you could sit on your azz and have it handed to you, then it would be free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 ok, my cookies are done...gotta put some more in...im mrs. claus this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 24, 2004 Author Share Posted December 24, 2004 "The forum fool" -LOL Grant, no one said it wasn't in the form of rentals. That's what it amounts to, a charge to use the gear over and above the photo fee. Expenses aren't part of the photographer's fee because each job may require different gear, and props, stylists, location, and so on. If I am the owner of the gear, I get the rental fee instead of a rental house getting it. The rentals amount to enough to pay for the stuff. What the hell is so difficult to understand? It's done all the time in all areas of business with all sorts of depreciable equipment ... even buildings. Merry Christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 how quiet is it Marc? maybe rf's will find their way into the hands of the unit stills photogrpaher once again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now