brian_tao

<p>I ordered a pair of VMLs with a second battery for each back on January 25, knowing there was a huge backlog. I e-mailed PCB on March 2 to ask for progress, and Tasha replied that they were working their way through January orders at the time, and to expect mine around the middle of March. Sure enough, I received an e-mail notice on March 15 saying my order had shipped, and should arrive the next day in Toronto. I actually received it two days later (UPS claimed I wasn't home for the first delivery attempt), earlier this afternoon.<br>

<br /> Obviously, I haven't had a chance to use it yet (they are still charging up), but I am very excited to add these to my kit. Rob Galbraith just posted a glowing review of the VMLs, and compares them quite favourably to several other bigger and more expensive (in one case, over 10x the cost) portable power units.</p>

<em>

> Nikon is already making 400 D3's per day and will be ramping up to<br>

> 12,000 per month by September / October<br>

</em>

 

But 400 per day *is* 12000 per month already! Great job on the reporting... but get some sleep, guys. ;-)

Dave,

 

I never interpreted John's quoted e-mail passage to mean "*I* imported the entire site myself", which is probably why everything following that makes sense to me and not to others. John simply stated that he was not aware the entire site was imported, and that the "help" he got was in the form of a student, not a software tool. I was scratching my head the whole time wondering why everyone assumed John was building his own site. Most professional photographers contract that stuff out, so I figured they would have understood.

 

Ah well... time to give these fingers a rest, and head to bed. :)

Eric,

 

You are right... I wouldn't even give you the time of day if I saw you on the street and knew who you were. ;-) John is not "passing the buck". He has clearly taken responsibility and acted accordingly. If John's response had been "Hey, go talk to my web designer, I'm too busy to deal with you guys", I would agree with you. But that's not what happened.

 

So now you say the issue *isn't* about one photographer using another photographer's images... you might want to verify that with Jeff, becuase I'm sure that's why he brought it up in the first place. ;-)

Robert,

 

Fully agree with you, and John did express his regret over the actions of his student. However, by the time he was physically able to respond in this forum (and others), the public tide had already swelled against him, and he was forced to offer further explanations to this misdeed. It is human nature to defend oneself if wrongly accused, and to set the record straight. Unfortunately, it was that process that caused tensions to flare even more. John has so far remained calm and collected, offering replies free of rhetoric and vitriol. That is a commendable trait.

John,

 

No, I think you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom each time. You should be able to hit the "End" key on your keyboard, and it will jump right down to the bottom. Likewise, the "Home" key brings you back up to the very top. Saves wear 'n tear on the mouse. :)

Eric,

 

IMHO, John is only guilty of sending in a non-professional to do a professional's job. ;-) His intentions were good... perhaps this kid is a good assistant during a photo shoot, and John wanted to give him a bit more responsibility. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

You say that John requested the addition of his bio and pricing PDF to site identical to Jeff's. You are implying that John also requested that the rest of the site stay identical. I'm not sure how you would know that. I'm sure you know that web site creation takes place over time. In fact, John even said that he requested that the photos (Jeff's photos, that is) be replaced with his own.

 

Had Jeff not noticed the anomaly in his sitemeter statistics, it would be reasonable to assume that in another week's time, there would be very little trace of Jeff's copyrighted content on John's site. We caught a glimpse of a web site that was still under construction. Again, I do not believe John was directly aware of his student copying Jeff's photography, and I certainly do not believe John intended to pass Jeff's work off as his own.

John,

 

Dave is referring to the tool that your student used to copy all of Jeff Ascough's site (text, images, layout... everything). There are legitimate uses for a tool like this (e.g., making a backup copy of your site, if you no longer have access to the original source material), and illegitimate uses (e.g., what your student did ;-)).

 

I believe Dave is asking this:

 

Did you instruct your student to use such a tool to exactly duplicate someone else's (copyrighted) site? Or did you make note of several sites you preferred, and the student (of his own accord) used this tool to duplicate the material?

Eric,

 

Try this interpretation:

 

John readily admits that Jeff Ascough's site was one (of several) that he admired and pointed out to the student. The student took it upon himself to suck down all of Jeff's site (which I'm sure we all agree was not the best thing to do). John's intention was to develop his own pricing sheet, put his own photos into the galleries (re-read John's explanation, if you conveniently forgot that tidbit), add his own biography, etc. John reviewed early mockups of the site with the student, and approved of the design and layout. I really really really doubt John said "hey, I love those photos you took from Jeff Ascough... let's leave them in! Nobody will notice!"

 

Until Jeff called John's wife at 2:00 am, John fully believed that the site was not live. In fact, it was not meant for public consumption at all. I accept this as a reasonable assumption. John, with his limited expertise in the field of web site marketing, did not understand that the content was in fact viewable by anyone who knew of the URL. The intention was to replace Jeff's photos with John's own, but Jeff discovered the nascent site before that could happen.

 

As I said in another forum, "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity". The student was stupid to copy an entire site like that, and doubly stupid to take a chance with hosting it on a production server. Those of us with more experience in this field are aware of techniques to separate developing, staging and production content. Clearly, the student was not of this caliber.

 

Now, you may choose to believe what you will. Perhaps John never hired the student. Perhaps John never was out of town on a commercial shoot. Perhaps John is just a newbie photographer who is trying to get into the wedding business by ripping off Jeff's photos. And perhaps the sun will not rise tomorrow either. ;-)

Dave,

 

We're not talking about investigative journalism here. This is more he-said-she-said. John is the single source of information here. Given the consistencies in his story so far, I have an easier time believing him than most other people contributing (and I use that term loosely) to this thread, who don't know him from a hole in the ground. What makes you think he is not telling the truth? Do you want him to provide the name, address and phone number of the student so you can verify the facts yourself?

 

Yes, people are getting all bent out of shape with the way John is answering his critics... that's the part that amazes me. He is addressing people's concerns patiently and methodically. But people are continuing to nitpick every detail and misinterpreting the "facts". Like I said, there will be no satisfaction unless John "admits" to the crime that the court of public opinion believes him to be culpable.

Thanks, John... again, your latest explanation is fully consistent with any assumptions I had made along the way. No insult to you whatsoever, but your lack of experience with how web sites are built and deployed can be easily be misconstrued as malicious intent (as has clearly been the case here). I have seen it happen many times in the past, just by the nature of my first career (Internet hosting).

 

To the others reading this thread: John is first and foremost a photographer... not an Internet specialist, not a web designer, not a computer techie. Some people find it impossible to believe that someone with 30 years of experience in commercial photography does not yet grasp the intricacies of the Internet. Believe me, it's a lot more common than some of you may think.

 

I have no doubt that John is well aware of copyright and ownership issues. John's intention was *not* to pass of Jeff's work as his own. John did *not* instruct his student to copy all of Jeff's site. John was *not* aware the site had gone "live". The web site was *not* completed and launched when Jeff discovered it via the sitemeter hits.

 

Yes, Jeff's photos were copied and re-uploaded on someone else's site. Swift and appropriate action has been taken (all pages were removed in less than 24 hours, and the student has been released from his obligations). Beating up on John for something he already knows accomplishes nothing at this point, other than satisfying the need to punish someone (and not necessarily the right person) for a misdeed.

 

Actually, I'm not sure why I'm even posting this on behalf of John... but since I took the trouble of typing it up, I'll just hit the Submit button anyway. ;-)

Sorry Dave, I didn't mean to tar and feather all users with the same brush (me being guilty of overgeneralization now!). I guess I just don't consider the inconsistencies you point out as smoking guns. I've already seen reasonable explanations for the points you raised. The explanations from John are consistent, believable and authentic. Everyone is free to ascribe a level of truthfulness to his statements, but from what I've seen here, most people will conveniently misinterpret his statements, no matter what he says. From what I've seen here, DWF, Digital Grin, DP Challenge, etc. those same people will not be satisfied until John capitulates and says that he did indeed knowingly download all of Jeff's photos and site design, with the full intention of passing them off as his own, for as long as he can get away with, yadda yadda yadda. And in the end, nothing valuable will have been accomplished.

FWIW, people here (and elsewhere) seem to lack the ability to think objectively, and separate fact from interpretation. As I see it, John Falk has acted to the best of his ability in handling the situation, given that the creation of his new web site was contracted out to an apparently inexperienced web designer. John must rely on the expertise of the college student, and trust that he has done "the right thing". Clearly, that student did not act in a manner that met with approval here. I believe John stated (perhaps in another forum) that the student is no longer under his employ. John, I do hope you hire an experienced professional for your web site work.... I'm sure you, as a long-standing professional photographer yourself, understand the value of that. ;-)

 

Hurling insults, making broad assumptions and overgeneralizations, and posting obviously inflammatory provactions (hello, Eric!) aren't needed. Frankly, I'm surprised that John has even bothered acknowledging some of the posts I've seen posted here. Had my site been the victim (and it *has* happened to me in the past), I would have long since considered the matter closed, trusting that John has dealt effectively with his college-student-cum-web-designer.

Except that the Nikon 5T (and 6T) diopters are only available in the 62mm diameter size. Blake would need the Canon 500D in the 77mm size for his 100-400mm lens. I'm picking up a 500D for my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses (same filter sizes).

<p>

Although I am completely in love with my 1D Mk2 and would never voluntarily give it up, the 20D does come very close in certain situations, and at one-third the cost (think: happier wife, or more lenses!). Having shot with a 20D for a few days when it was introduced, I would use it in the studio instead of the 1D Mk2, because of the better image review capabilities on the 20D.

</p>

 

<p>

Someone already covered the differences between the 20D and 1D Mk2, so I'll point out the similarities:

</p>

 

<p>

<ul>

<li>same CR2+JPEG capability

<li>same resultant image dimensions (3504x2336)

<li>virtually same ISO noise levels (1D Mk2 is slightly better past ISO 800)

<li>same maximum shutter speed (1/8000s)

<li>same flash sync speed (1/250s)

<li>same E-TTL2 flash metering

<li>same DIGIC II processor

</ul>

</p>

 

<p>

The 1.3x vs 1.6x argument should only apply if you already have wide lenses on your 1V that you want to preserve the field-of-view. But even then, it may be better just to get the 20D and attach the Sigma 12-24mm or the upcoming Canon 10-22mm on it. Stop it down to f/16 and away you go.

</p>

 

<p>

Take all the similarities and differences into account, and decide whether the 1D Mk2 (or used 1Ds) is worth spending three times the money over the 20D. Or to put it another way, think of what you could buy with the $3000 you save. ;-)

</p>

Jim,

 

Here's my two-word review of E-TTL2: It rocks. ;-)

 

I limited it to two words because I have only shot two weddings with a 550EX on my 1D Mk2. My usual flash (which I had purchased for my D60) is the Metz 54 MZ-3. E-TTL with its FEC'ing to get predictable results was just too much of a hassle, so I used the good ol' auto-thyristor mode on the Metz for excellent results. No fuss, no muss.

 

Now, with a 550EX and E-TTL2, I get great results without having think how the flash will react to the scene composition, or where my metering point will fall, etc., etc. It does appear to give much, much more reliable results than E-TTL (on the 10D, anyway). Off-center subjects, brides in white dresses outside at night, bounced flash with a 15mm fisheye, etc. All those shots came out fine. It was very difficult to fool E-TTL2.

 

Okay, that ended up being a bit more than two words. ;-)

My personal opinion is that Canon will eventually drop the 1.3x format if they are able to increase yields and decrease production costs on full-frame sensors, leaving us with "professional" bodies with 1.0x sensors and "amateur" bodies with 1.6x sensors. Even that will not likely happen for several years yet, and I don't see Canon abandoning the 1.6x format for a very long time, given the way things are going now.

 

It is possible that one day, we will have $3000 bodies with full-frame sensors in them (the 1Ds Mk2 sits at $8000 today), but 1.6x sensors will hopefully have fallen to the sub-$500 mark. Actually, I believe it will be competition and market pressure that will influence the price more than the cost of producing even a full-frame sensor. Once the technology and manufacturing process has matured and the R&D costs have been recouped, it won't cost Canon anywhere close to $8000 to stamp out a defect-free 1.0x sensor.

An excellent lens choice. The 85mm f/1.2L has too many strikes against it for my tastes, but the f/1.8 is lovely. Like Eric, I wish the minimum focus distance was more like 30 cm, but I guess I'll pick up a macro diopter or extension tubes for it. The clip-on hood bugs me though... I much prefer a bayonet-style hood.

There are some useful comments right here on photo.net, if you haven't seen them yet: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200 . When I considered my purchase of a 70-200 lens, the decision point was around image stabilization. I often shoot in situations where a tripod or even a monopod are not available or not convenient. Thus, I really only had one choice, which was the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (which I absolutely adore, btw).

 

However, if I did not have need for IS, my choice would have been the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It is much less expensive than the Canon, appears to be just as sharp and contrasty in my own testing, has HSM focusing, has beautifully smooth zoom and focus ring action, has lovely bokeh when wide open, and is built quite ruggedly with the nice black Sigma "EX" finish. I found that the HSM focusing seemed a bit slower than Canon's USM focus speed when travelling the entire range of the lens. However, in most cases, focus lock is achieved in a fraction of a second (and this was on a 10D digital body). A friend of mine recently picked up the Sigma lens for her EOS film body on a safari trip, and she is quite ecstatic over its performance.

 

I don't see much reason to spend the extra bucks on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L, unless you are really convinced there is something about an "L" zoom that cannot be had elsewhere, or have a psychological barrier that prevents you from owning third-party lenses. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L has a weight advantage over the 2.8's, and of course there is the 2.8 IS model. But the 2.8 non-IS model seems to be in a no-man's land.

The Rob Galbraith writeup on the wireless module implies that a suite of "standard" security protocols will be employed, which should mean that the data payload itself is encrypted, as well as having strong methods of authenticating and associating with a wireless network. Of course, the real-world practicality of all this remains to be seen. Nikonians might have more light to shed on how their favourite camera company handles wireless security.

Mitchell,

 

Depends on what you need. For me, a good sharp 6-megapixel image is more than enough. I'm getting 8 now with my 1D Mk2 and 20D. Also, frame rate is important to me in some cases. I have 8 fps and 5 fps respectively now. The 4 fps on the 1Ds Mk2 would be a step back for me, and cost more money at the same time. ;-)

 

Now if Canon were smart like Nikon, they would offer a 1.3x crop mode, and give us 6 fps at 10 megapixels in the same camera. I'm not holding my breath for that though... Canon seems to be concentrating on winning the megapixel race and not actually putting in innovative new features... :-/

Jerome,

 

The 20D is also much faster and more responsive than the 10D in many regards: AF speed and accuracy (and more AF points), much shorter startup time, less shutter lag, less viewfinder blackout, faster burst rate, deeper JPEG buffer, faster file transfer speeds, quicker image review, etc. The ISO noise characteristics are also probably the best of any digital camera under $10000 right now.

 

IMHO, the 20D is the most significant development in Canon's non-1 series digital line since the introduction of the D30 itself. And the damn thing costs less than the 10D did at intro (which in turn cost less than the D60).

Antony,

 

Perhaps another option not yet considered here is a secondhand Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L, if going down to 24mm isn't of utmost importance to you (or if you can simply supplement it with the 24/2.8). I've heard various reports about the newer 24-70L not quite being up to par with the old 28-70L in terms of sharpness and flare control. I cannot compare from first-hand experience, but my 28-70L (which I picked up for about US$700 in pristine condition) is excellent. No qualms shooting with it wide open at f/2.8, for instance.

Shawn,

 

I think the Sep 15 date is when the Henry's warehouse will receive them... the individual stores themselves probably won't get their allocation until a day or two later. Or maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised and have them mid-week. :)

You get what you pay for, I suppose! Can you give us a rundown on your (bad) experiences with these slaves?