robert_roaldi1

<p>As I just bought a V2 with 10-3 and 30-110, I'll answer my own question.<br>

I took my Nikon V2 to a bicycle race on last evening to test out the high-speed AF and FPS shooting. I am blown away. At 5 fps (mechanical shutter) and 15 fps (e-shutter), it finds the time to re-focus in between frames, only rarely missing any and those were probably my fault. The long zoom (80-290 mm equiv) is not fast, was set at f5.6 a lot, and it was dusk, but it still focused all the time. And it weighs nothing. <br>

There's too much menu fiddling, I'd prefer buttons, but it's not that bad either. I looked at normal jpgs shot at 800 on the computer screen and they're fine. Maybe not National Geographic standards, but I don't work for them. It's not weather-proofed either, so not good enough for some pro requirements, but I can live with plastic covers for my purposes.<br>

While you're firing away, the screen freezes up with each shot, but it's no worse than the mirror blackout on a D-SLR, it's no harder to track the movement, just different.<br>

The online reviews say that it eats batteries, only 300 shots to a charge. If that's the worst problem, I'm happy.</p>

<p>Forgetting about water and dust protection for the moment, is there a feeling that cameras like the Nikon V2/V3, or the new Fuji FZ1000 are good enough for lots of action photography. I shoot bicycle races and car rallies for fun, and when it rains I stay home because there's no income at stake, and I am getting tired of the weight of an Oly E-3 + 50-200/f2.8, especially when the web is the final destination for the images (99.99% of the time).<br>

<br />Looking at the specs of the V3, maintaining focus at pretty fast fps rates, and the seeming ability of the FZ1000 to focus very rapildy, I am starting to wonder if these models aren't more suitable for many purposes.</p>

<p>Just noticed I never thanked you Lex. Sorry, brain fade, thought I had.<br>

I watched that guy who covered rally racing with interest, as that's something I like to do myself. I need to go to a shop and try a V2 to see if the EVF lag is noticeable or distracting. Camcorders don't seem to have that problem, I don't understand why.<br>

Nikon doesn't have fast (f2.8 say) lenses yet either. They would be relatively bigger and heavier than current offerings of course, but not really that big or heavy. </p>

<p>It's odd to me that they haven't released a fast (f2.8) 70/80 to 200/300 mm equivalent telephoto. That and a V2 would make a very good action/sports photography system. It would not be weather-protected, but in good weather it would make a great alternative to a D4 or 1D mated to a very heavy 70-200 f2.8 monster. </p>

<p>The size and weight of the Nikon V2 system are attractive, as is the speed of focus and operation. Is the EVF quick enough to keep up with action or the lag too intrusive? Are the current lenses too slow especially at the 300-400 mm equiv end? Thanks.</p>

<p>I am not a professional photographer but have been married twice so know something about families. So just to provide another angle on the situation, here's another view.<br>

Most of the responders so far have approached your situation on the basis of maintaining peace within the family. Sometimes this is a good idea. And sometimes it isn't. Depends on the family. If you bend over backwards for these two, it may end there, no problem, or it may encourage even worse behaviour from them in the future or from other relatives. Only you can judge the likelihood of that.<br>

Burning bridges with people who give you aggravation is not necessarily a bad thing. It might be a good way to rid yourself of a time-wasting pain who might rob you of many hours in the future. There's often little point in being nice to people who aren't.</p>

<p>I have no useful advice or insight but am just surprised at one aspect of the stated non-compete clause. I can understand the demand on the part of the "employer" that any employees/sub-contractors not use the client list in future endeavors or to make direct use of other proprietary aspects of that business. But I am a little surprised that any jurisdiction would permit the granting of a regional monopoly, even by contract consent. What is the advantage to the community at large to allow this? I thought that restraint of trade is, in general, a bad thing.</p>

<p>I have no practical information to add, just a comment. I was born and live in Canada and worked in the private sector in software development for 25 years in a series of high-tech firms that have all basically disappeared after being relatively successful. Lately, I've been working for a government agency that's about to be spun off as a private company. Because of what I personally saw in private companies and the kinds of stories I read in this thread, whenever someone says that the private sector is more efficient, it just makes me laugh out loud.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

There was some hope that because it was a higher end dealership, you would have an easier time that I did, but that does not seem to be the case. Bottom line might be to just say goodbye to the car dealer and look for other kinds of photo work.<br>

A problem with dealership photos (and probably low-end real estate for example) is that the photographs themselves don't provide much value-added to the dealer (or agent). That is, no matter how much better than someone else's photos yours may be, it does not really have much effect on car sales. To them, any 400-800 pixel wide web shot is good enough for the purpose. So, you're only worth so much to them and no more, no matter how much quality you deliver.<br>

Put another way, they don't see your photos as helping them grow their business in the long term. For them, there is no long term. Will the car sell this week, is the time horizon, and every dollar they give you, is a dollar that's not in their pocket.<br>

Find better clients, is my best advice.</p>

 

<p>Hi,<br>

Let me preface this by saying that I am NOT a pro photographer.<br>

I actually did this for a couple of months for a web site that serviced several car dealerships. In my case, it was about $4 per car, and we shot 8 pictures per car, all standard routine shots, same for all cars. In an ideal setting, where the car jockey found the cars and brought them to me at an agreed upon spot, I did 6-7 cars per hour. At some dealers, they handed you the keys and you hand to find the car in the large lot, drive it to a suitable spot, maybe only meters away but still, then put it back, get more keys... Some fo teh lots were acres big and it could take 5-10 minutes to find a car. In that case, I'd be doing 4-5 cars per hour, sometimes less. I did this with a P&S. Income was about minimum wage, no paid expenses. Some dealers expected me to clean the snow off their cars for them.<br>

This was the photo equivalent of delivering groceries, but I tried it on a lark to see what it was like. The only good thing to come out of it was the deal I got on a 2nd hand car after becoming friends with one of the used car managers.<br>

If you can get $25 per car at a premium dealership, I'd say that's rare. But my guess is that they will be picky and you will be lucky to do 1-2 cars per hour. (Guessing here.) Copyright issues will hardly enter into it, because once the car is sold no one cares about the pics you took. The dealer will feel free to use the pics in all advertising, web or paper, is also my guess.<br>

Don't underestimate the time it will take to shoot each car. Moving it to a suitable location (in front of a dealership sign, etc), removing debris from inside a trunk to take a clean shot, weather delays, etc. The ONLY thing that matters at a car dealership is sales; everything you do is bottom priority. Just be aware.</p>

 

I wrote a tongue-in-cheek blog <a href="http://roberts-rants.blogspot.com/2006/12/its-only-matter-of-time.html">piece</a> about divorce photography a couple of years back.

Why does an APS-C sized compact camera have to be BIG? The Yashica T4 and Olympus Stylus Epic FILM cameras were tiny and their "sensor" was full frame.

I like Ryan's suggestion (3 above this post.) You're not likely to get any money but why should you be the only one to be stressed? For the price of a stamp (better yet send it registered mail so they have to sign for it) and some time to write a letter, you will annoy a couple of people who deserve to be annoyed. And they can't complain because they're in the wrong. That may be the best possible outcome in this situation.

Gary,

 

"I think that if you consider the point, more of 'us' have issues with the photographers that supply images to the microstocks, as opposed to the microstocks themselves."

 

What you seem to be complaining about is that others are willing to do what you do for less money. I wasn't very happy when software contracts started going overseas either but that ship sailed.

 

You could make the same argument for early stock agencies who made marketing easier for some photographers while making life difficult for others who could not get into those agencies. I understand that you don't like it, but my sympathy is worthless.

 

 

 

"But you are wrong when you say that a client will NEVER (your emphasis) pay decent $$$ for a simple shot like you decribe. Perhaps you are just displaying a newbie-style ignorance of the larger industry. There are lots of companies that can and would pay more. Have you priced out what a company pays for a 5,000 run 4c gloss coated stock DM brochure? Printing costs? Graphic designer costs? Sales & Marketing employee time and salary for meetings? Mailing lists & services? And your telling me they can't afford or won't pay more than $5.00 for a photo?!!!????!!!! - Come on, man, get real. Sure they CAN afford it. They just don't HAVE TO, because there are plenty of photographers out there that would rather earn a percent of $5.00 than a percent of $39.00, or $99.00, or $175.00, or $299.00, OR $375.00. Why? "

 

I can't argue with you but I have done volunteer work in non-profit organizations putting together precisely that kind of publication and they woulnd't spend $5 on an image, let alone $50 or $100.

 

It's important not to confuse the cost of producing a beautiful photograph with its commercial value. When there were 50 photographers in North America, the price of a photo of a barn wasn't cheap. But if the world is awash in well-exposed, well-composed photos of barns, the situation is changed. There is no final arbiter in the sky who decides what an image is worth. They are only ever worth what someone is willing to pay for them. To someone who wants a low rez image of a rural barn, it must seem like madness to pay more than a $1 or so when they can turn around and get free or near-free software from just about anywhere, software that was much more time-consuming and difficult to produce than that photo.

 

I know you (and others) don't like to hear it, but maybe that 4 mpix pic of autumn-coloured trees, or that barn, or that horse that you took isn't such a masterpiece and maybe it just isn't worth what you think it is. If you can find a buyer at $50, good on you. All I am saying is that you shouldn't be surprised if you can't.

 

What micro-payment sites represent, imo, is a different marketing approach. You try to reach lots of buyers at a low price, offering low rez images. The jury is still out on whether they will survive or whether they will continue to attract photographers.

 

But they are a unique niche. And, yes you're right, they may take away a lot of business from people who used to supply that market. But that just makes photographers the same as everyone else in an open market. Sometimes, somebody undercuts you and you go out of business. It's been happening for a long time.

 

"Do they care about the greater good, like the open source programmers? No. They care about the IDEA of selling their photos; or the IDEA of being published."

 

You seem to be making assumptions about other people's motivations. You may be right in some cases and you may be wrong in others. The same argument might apply to open source programmers after all. Are they driven by idealism or ego?

 

I have a lot of sympathy for those who invested years and dollars in self-training and equipment and who feel that they are being undercut. But the technology (digital photography and the internet)that brought digital equipment to pros that freed them from the tyranny of labs and film producers, also freed a lot of part-time amateurs into easily producing and marketing sellable images.

 

 

This is an interesting can of worms.

 

Many photographers hate the on-line micropayment sites because of their low prices. I am new to this and my attitude is that there is a supplier for every market. Someone who needs a 1.5 inch square photo of a rural barn for a 5000-run travel brochure is not going to spend top dollar for a high rez photo nor are they going to hire a photographer. A low-rez well-shot picture for a buck or two is all they need and all they can afford and all they will pay for.

 

That client was NEVER going to buy a high-end high-rez photo so no one has lost any business.

 

I wrote software for 25 years, doing other things now, and I cannot for the life of me understand why there are programmers willing to stay up nights to develop software for open source or other environments and basically give their work away for next to nothing. But everyone, including many photographers, love to have access to that cheap software.

 

People used to make really good money at semi-skilled jobs in North American auto plants. Now there are people elsewhere in the world doing the exact same work, sometimes better, for a lot less money.

Pentax had a very nice 100/2.8 in K-mount and if I remember right there was a 105mm in screw mount.

I was also going to suggest that but I also have an OT question. How do you insure that the glass doesn't break in shipping? Has this been an issue?

I live in Ottawa, Canada and there is a Pepsi television ad appearing

locally (maybe elsewhere) in which a Coke truck pulls up beside a

Pepsi truck at a blocked railroad level crossing. Some cute stuff

happens and the Coke driver steals a few cases of Pepsi. What I am

wondering about is how Pepsi can get away with displaying the Coca-

Cola logo on the truck and its drivers' hats.

MOre info. I should have gotten all of this together for the 1st question.

 

I actually have 2 G3's, one with 1.0.2 firmware and the other with 1.0.1 and they bought upload files with name prefixes "IMG_".

I have upgraded new Zoombrowser versions a couple of times since buying the camera. But I checked the contents of the CF card using a card reader, not through Zoombrowser, and it's the camera that assings the names with a "IMG_" prefix. What I can't remember is whether I ever upgraded the camera software. I'll check that.

I checked over my image history and finally noticed something. The change to using "IMG_" as file naming prefix started in 2004. Every file from 2003 and earlier has the "103_" or "107_" prefix as described in the manual.

 

BTW, the reason I bring this up at all is because I want to go back to the all numbering system.

 

This morning I tried reading the files from the CF card using a card reader, rather than download from camera using Zoombrowser and the files seem to be names that way by the camera.

Yes, the numbers are sequential, and the numbering does not reset to zero when I change cards. I have that option turned off (or on, which ever setting does that.)

 

So, when I first had it and downloaded some pics, they'd be named

 

101_1234.jpg

101_1235.jpg

101_1236.jpg

.

.

.

etc

 

 

Now, I am getting files named as follows,

 

IMG_9579.jpg

IMG_9580.jpg

IMG_9581.jpg

.

.

.

etc

 

As I said, I don't recall doing anything to cause this.

When downloading my jpg's using Zoombrowser (vers 4.6) my files are

sometimes saved as "203_1234.jpg" and sometimes as "IMG_1234.jpg".

This happens in different folders, never in the same folder. I am not

seeing a pattern though. I must be inadvertenly doing something wrong

but I don't know what. Does this happen to others?

Someone, somehwere, has done everything already.

Some remarks.

 

It may very well be that Alamy is not "high-end". I don't really know enough to pass comment. I only characterized them that way because of high pixel requirement. I am prepared to be wrong about them and I may have phrased that badly.

 

As to whether or not a 4 mpix pic of a barn is of professional quality or not, that depends on the image, not on which capturing device was used and not on which photographer took it. Many amateurs take "professional" grade photos. It is not an exclusive club. If someone wants to buy a 4 mpix photo of a barn for a buck and someone wants to sell it, they have a right to do that. You should NOT assume that because a photo was captured with a digicam at 4 mpix that it is not of high quality. It may not be of high resolution but that's a different issue.

 

I am no right wing ideologue, either, quite the contrary actually. But the notion that low-end (price-wise) photographers are taking income away from pros is a little far-fetched. First off, pros don't have anymore right to earn income from pics than anyone else. And if they're not prepared to sell a photo for a $1 to someone who only wants to spend $1, that's their decision. That's not the market they're after, no problem. But you seem to imply that you should have the right to deny that transaction to others. I don't agree with that, and you won't be able to do it anyway.

 

The marketplace may be changing and may never be the same again. Maybe the micro-payment stock agencies will choke on their own cost-cutting and disappear. Or maybe there isn't enough room for all the high-end suppliers, or high-end hopefuls. There is no pre-determined end-point.

 

I used to write software for a living for 25 years and was good at it. So were thousands of others and now we are being replaced by others overseas who do the same work for less. That's life. There was never any guarantee.

 

It may indeed be true that a lot of print ad and billboard work is low quality. There are a lot of really bad movies made and awful books published too. Come to that there's a lot of lousy software being sold. That's nothing new. There is no final arbiter. It's only what a client wants and is willing to pay that matters.

 

I understand completely that some may not like the direction that stock micro-payment sites are taking. As I said, they may survive or they may not. But if clients decide that they prefer what you sell at your price, then you'll be fine.