craig_gillette

<p>The devil is in the details. You probably should get competent local legal advice. The issues may be in copyright ownership and also may be in using the work for promotional purposes. So while you might be able to reproduce the shots in some ways and avoid copyright issues (if any), there may still be problems in using the property to promote your business. Laws vary from country to country. </p>

<p>Although it's been a long time since I was in South East Asia, it was not unusual to see tourists with bulky slr gear, lenses, etc. There are, I would expect, still some places where care would be appropriate when it came to opportunistic street crime but the tourist hot spots will not be without all kinds of people and all kinds of cameras. However, these days, you don't give up a lot with the good small aps-c cameras. My thought would be, having the bulky gear is fine but on a regular basis, out with the family, etc., the small gear is a lot easier to deal with. If you are going to be there for a while then you could get a better feel for use of the really good/big/bulky gear and would have it when you wanted it.</p> <p>More recently on travels in the US and Europe, I certainly saw plenty of dslrs out and about as well as smaller cameras, phone cams, etc.</p>

<p>Manfrotto and others make boom arms which can be attached to a tripod or a tripod head. They are mostly in the tripod head and tripod accessories sections. It appears that some can be rotated within their clamps,hold a tripod head out from the tripod, etc. Of course you'd still have the problems of vibration and support and may need to weight the tripod or legs for balance issues.<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Tripods-Support/ci/8310/N/4075788771</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Across the Sierra Nevada from the more accessible portions of Yosemite, Highway 395 area connects a variety of interesting areas both lower elevation and reasonably comfortable to higher elevation, snowy areas. Places like Mono Lake (no longer easy to reach via Tioga Pass closed by snow, Lake Tahoe and Donner Pass to the north, the Owens Valley to the south with access to Death Valley and various roads up into the mountains (depending on snow conditions) . There is a lot of skiing in the area of Mammoth, June Lake and Lake Tahoe so there is not necessarily a shortage of lodging but it may not be as reasonably priced as off season.</p>

<p>While not completely in conflict, it can be hard to make all of the things you want come together at the same time. </p> <p>Battery life, in some ways, depends on the size of the battery. The battery in my dslr lasts longer than the battery in my NEX-6. But, batteries aren't all that expensive and with some planning and very little effort, you can tote an extra battery or two along.</p> <p>Weather resistance is tough. It's usually a feature of more expensive bodies and lenses because it requires tighter tolerances, added seals, "better" build processes. You can reduce the need for "resistance" by avoiding the worst conditions, using waterproof covers, etc., carrying and exposing the camera with an eye to not getting it wet, etc.</p> <p>"Light" weight isn't too bad a problem. The entry level dslrs are fairly light and with care in lens selections, aren't too beastly to deal with. But... (more to follow)</p> <p>Low light performance comes from both sensor performance and lens aperture. While the RX100 has a 1" sensor and is substantially smaller than the aps-c sensors in many mirrorless and dslr bodies, it doesn't do to badly. The mirrorless and dslrs share the same sensors or are very close in performance, the micro 4/3 cameras have a sensor smaller than the aps-c but larger than the RX series. "Prime" lenses tend to be smaller and lighter than zooms and faster apertures, (smaller f numbers like f1.7 compared to f4, etc.) are easier and less expensive in primes. Zooms are really convenient but tend to be slower, it's unusual to find zooms faster than f2.8. Faster apertures require a larger "aperture" or adjustable hole in the lens body that controls light passage) so push the lens size larger. Note that while many mirrorless lenses are small, the more you carry of the faster/longer or maybe wider they are, especially zooms, the less they differ in size from dslr lenses.</p> <p>Lens selection can make a difference in speed of use. More so, if not exclusively a mirrorless camera trait, "power zoom" lenses can slow things down on start up or in use if the camera needs to extend a lens from start ofr sleep. Not all mirrorless zooms are power sooms but it is a feature to at least be aware of.</p> <p>To a certain extent, the smaller the camera body, the more features are controlled by fewer external controls for size reason, so dslrs tend to be somewhat easier to use than mirrorless. but external controls are more expensive compared to menus so entry level dslrs aren't necessarily all that different from mirrorless bodies. The RX series seems to be contolled more like the Sony dslrs than the NEX bodies were and apparently, the A6000 is more like the Sony dslrs in menu structure as well. </p> <p>Handling any camera and using it for a while, if possible, goes a long way to helping you choose which you like.</p> <p>There are some features in recent cameras which help deal with low light, like better sensors ( a wash between aps-c dslrs and mirrorless) and modes which do things like stacking multiple exposures to reduce noise. The best aid to sharp low light pictures is a good tripod and proper tripod techniques.</p> <p>I really like the smaller cameras but have no problem dealing with the dslrs. If speed and control accessibility is paramount, a dslr might be the best choice. I would think that you might have to step up from the entry levels to get a better set of external controls. You might want to work through the reviews and forum discussions of any given lines cameras to see what people discuss on each model, looking for example, at the Nikon D5300 versus the D7100 for build and control features. I'd expect there are similar feature differentiations in the other lines as well.</p>

<p>Slik Pro 700 dx. $99.95 at B&H. You might want to consider getting it kitted with a head. You can get it with either a ball head or pan/tilt at or below $150. Now these will be functional and uninspired Slik heads but they will work fine. You can at some later point replace the head with a better ballhead taking Arca Swiss plates. But until you become deathly frustrated with the Slik heads, they'll be fine. They just aren't state of the art. But to get a truly good tripod and head and get all of the better current features, you'll bust your budget. It has a two part center column to get really close to the ground. It's not a super heavy tripod suited to the heaviest long nature and birding lenses nor is it too light and flimsy for use with common dslrs and a wide variety of lenses.</p>

<p>Be clear on the copyright status of the images a different person takes. A handshake agreement or casual employment relationship may be fine - but if/when the professional relationship changes, both parties should already know what their own rights are as to the images.</p> <p>Same with "right of publicity" issues when it comes to use of the pictures for advertising/portfolios, etc. If you have a release, would it cover the uses you have and also be extendable to the uses a second or third party might want? </p>

<p>In the good old days, such as they were, the typical normal (as in usual) initial lens sold with slrs was a 50mm (or so) prime. F1.7 or 1.8 was inexpensive and generally high performance although faster f1.4 and even faster lenses were available in some mounts. A really common focal length for fixed lens cameras was about 35mm. It wasn't so wide that the problems like converging verticals/keystoning or people pictures shot maybe a bit too close were too distorted and interiors were possible for family shooting, etc. Since you are considering this for a travel camera, I'd lean towards the 35mm equivalent - but only if constrained to a single small prime. Which I wouldn't do to myself these days.</p>

<p>You can't make a full frame dslr and longish f2.8 lenses light. Current mirrorless systems don't really compete with dslrs yet for the things you are using the 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 for. So it makes sense to approach this with two systems in mind. They may or may not turn out to be ones with the same lens mount. </p> <p>You can adapt lenses across brands and it might make sense to do so. Landscapes don't typically require the speedy autofocus responsiveness of the ff dslr. OTOH, if you load yourself down with multiple lenses and adapters, you can lose much of the body size/weight advantages of the mirrorless cameras. I find the difference between 16mm and 18mm noticeable and useful on aps-c so would be a bit concerned that the long zooms like the 18-200s might be adequate towards the longer end but a little frustrating at the wide end. Also many of the "super" zooms are aperture challenged especially at the long end (in any format/mount).</p> <p>It can depend on the type of travel locations you are considering. Tight urban environments might lend themselves to a wide and mid-range zoom, wide open spaces may suggest that longer options are desired for wildlife, etc, as well. I think the most frustrating limitation I found with my NEX-6 on a trip to Europe was it's power zoom and the sleep functions. Too long between shots and it shuts down, re-awakens to 16mm, not it's previous focal length. I missed some sudden opportunities over this. I think any of the other "problems" would be more likely my lack of familiarity with a relatively new camera. I also found that for my train shooting, the limited buffer could be an issue at times but that's potentially a problem with a variety of cameras, not just mirrorless. (I'm spoiled by my D200 which pretty much shoots right along as long as the shutter release is pressed, even with RAW.)</p>

<p> I don't know that there is anything California specific that wouldn't be covered in the items above but each state does have different laws and there may be certain specific sets of circumstances that aren't covered fully by them. </p> <p>This is less about the rights when taking the picture but in using it:</p> <p>http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/practitioner-s-guide-to-california-right-of-publicity-law.html</p> <p>Civil Code Section 1708.8 covers physical and constructive invasions of privacy. I'd expect you'd want competent legal advice as to how this actually works out, case law, etc. I doubt the casual photographer would run afoul of this. However, it does address use of visual or audio enhancing devices.<br> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1708-1725</p>

<p>I think John offers some valuable insight here. A walking stick height doesn't need to reach eye height (taking into account mounts, camera size, head, etc.) I have an aluminum walking stick (Trek Sherlock) that, like many, has a threaded stud to screw on a camera or tripod/monopod head. I happen to have a Bogen pistol grip head which pretty much fits the height differences in use but is awkwardly heavy. However, many find this type of grip head useful on a monopod type device when compared to a typical ball head.</p> <p>Others use a head that tips to one side to move between portrait and landscape and these can be sturdy and less heavy or complex than full on photo capable tripod type heads. Hence the idea of quickly removable heads - height and balance issues.</p> <p>The Trek also has a smallish cup shaped "basket" (that doesn't come off too easily) and the tip is covered by a screw on rubber foot. A true basket has some problems in non-snow conditions in that it's easily snagged. Sharp metal points are good under icy conditions but problematic under other use conditions like polished floors. They also can turn the pole into a "spear" and the presence of that sort of tip could cause problems in transport or other secured environments - or be an asset when a spear would be needed.</p> <p>Unlike many monopods which have telescoping and collet tightened sections, the Sherlock has just two sections adjustable by spring button. So it's possibly stronger but can't be collapsed as easily (good and bad depending on if you want it to collapse or support weight) and carried in luggage. Others are collapsible into lengths that can be easily packed. I would suggest considering dealing with weights over 300 lbs. A 200 pound individual might be walking with a pack of 50 or more pounds depending on season, needed gear, etc., and a stumble throwing all that weight onto a walking stick that deals with friction fit sections? </p> <p>There are some tripods which can be disassembled and a leg used as the basis for a monopod - that leaves one with two legs to carry or store. I have a lightweight tripod which can be used as a monopod, sort of, by keeping the legs together or extending only one. That allows for the serious stability of a tripod but it's not all that useful as a walking stick.</p> <p>There are some monopods which have extendable or hideable short leg sections in the base. They add some stability but the leverage of the weight a of a camera at the other end is such that they really can't be left unattended safely. Collapsed to chair length they can offer some needed relief when used at an event that might need holding a camera for use at seat height for long periods. Note that these sorts of extended legs could be extremely dangerous in a sporting event coverage situation (like American football) where a sideline photographer might be run into or the pole dropped. The legs are then poised with at least one rigid, sharp spike pointing essentially straight upwards. Ouch.</p>

<p>Manfrotto (Bogen) has their own proprietary plates and clamps and heads in several sizes. Pretty good, not too expensive and yes, you can over tighten in an attempt to get rid of potential to twist or wobble. But proprietary. Other brands tend to have the same sorts of issues, different tripods and/or heads have different plates. Manfrotto is probably the largest proprietary brand but often the implementation of some features, like L or elbow brackets is clunky and unesthetic.</p> <p>The most popular alternative to single brand proprietary systems is going with systems that try to fit the Arca Swiss brand model (avoiding the history of how a single brand "system" spread), it's now available across many brands of ball heads and various other related plates, clamps, brackets, etc. It tends to be more expensive than the single brand proprietary systems and even Manfrotto now offers some AS compatible products. The expense comes from the need for more precise machining and production compared to some of the other systems. There is no published "standard" that sets out precise requirements so there are sometimes cross brand fit issues but competition from newer suppliers has brought some new blood into the market and some of them are noticeably less expensive than the first big names. Look up RRS - Really Right Stuff, Arca Swiss (of course) Kirk, Acratech, Sirui, Photo Clam, Markins, for a few to get some ideas of what is out there. </p>

<p>I'd probably consider the 24mm instead of a 28mm, especially if you are also taking the 34mm eq lens as well.</p>

<p>I don't have any proprietary interest in hiding (or not) the locations when I've posted images, usually on other forums or sites. I think it comes down to the context of the posting and sometimes the subject matter. I don't typically give more than a generic city or Park name, etc, some threads run into more detail through the discussion, etc. I do have a sense at times that sometimes folks asking for locations might sometimes need to to do more of their own "research," or take a bit of time do their own exploring. OTOH, on some iconic spots or subjects, a visitor from another part of the country or another country might not have been able to track down a spot that locals think is well known so offering some added advice might be nice.</p>

<p>What Peter said is important. Practice now. Don't get too fancy, you probably won't remember everything that you might want to try. We stayed in apartments and a hotel in Innsbruck and had had no trouble keeping up with batteries and charging. Consider getting separate charger, that way you've got two charging at a time and it's easy to keep three topped off, especially overnight. The RX100 is a fine camera for backup. It was my daughter's only camera for a year in Europe. If going to the Vatican Museum, go as early as possible, it gets more and more crowded as the day goes on. You can't take pictures in the Sistine Chapel but it and the Raphael Rooms, etc., are well worth seeing. </p> <p>Don't be disappointed if you don't see everything you want. You could spend weeks in Rome and Florence trying to catch everything you might be interested in or have read about.</p>

<p>Not sure where you are so prices may not work for you. Costco has a Nikon D7100 bundle now with the 18-55 and 55-300mm lenses for $1300. With the 12-24 you have, this should readily cover pretty much anything you might want. (There are other dslr bundles but with the 12-24, you need screw drive compatibility.) Maybe add a fast 50 or 35mm primes. disadvantage, weight and size compared to say a similar compact mirrorless system. The 55-300mm seems to get reasonable reviews and is lighter than the 70-300 which is somewhat heavy and would probably not get as much use as you might think. </p> <p>Costco also has an A60000 bundle with the 16-50mm and 55-210 lenses (and some other bundles, Fuji included).. You might want to add a wider lens but on a recent trip to Italy, mostly Florence and Rome,, I found the 16-50 on an NEX-6 really wide enough most of the time. Not sure the price on that bundle because they require membership sign in for price on some items. As much as I would like the 10-18/4 (and it's not inexpensive), I think I'd add the 55-210 before it if making a similar trip again.<br> <br />Yes, walking all day with a dslr kit can be daunting but you are trading that against a somewhat lighter multi-lens kit with mirrorless perhaps spending more or trading off some of the added lenses and sticking to capturing what you can. Multiple lenses with any body adds to the fussiness of the day, makes you wonder about when to swap or taking time to swap, etc. FWIW, while heavier, the "bulk" of a dslr kit seems to be as much ofr more added "problem" than the weight. </p> <p>Aside from trudging up and down things like Giottos Bell Tower in Florence, and that no matter where you are in Rome, two of the seven hills are between you and your destination ( just kidding, sort of), paring down your kit and other travel stuff, and getting some long walks in on a regular basis before going, should help you decide what you want to take. I took just the NEX-6 and 16-50, haven't added to the E mount kit much yet. I took a small tripod and seldom used it, it spent most of the time in the apartments/hotel rooms. I didn't take a flash. That compares to a trip to Washington DC and I carried the 12-24, 18-70, 70-300 and a D200 and flash and tripod a lot. I never used the 70-300 or tripod. The rest of the family wore out and wasn't willing to hang until good tripod time on the Mall, etc., and walking pace, etc., cut down on the time available to ponder and make swaps between lenses all day long. By yourself, you set your own pace.</p>

<p>For me, I guess for the most part, if the choices were 16-xx versus 18-xx, I'd go for the 16-xx, if restricted to a single lens, on an aps-c body (or the 24-xx vs 28-xx on full frame). If I could add a lens or two, then the choices might change. I took an NEX-6 and 16-50 to Italy. Well suited to our trip. "We" didn't want to deal with a lot of gear and the type of shooting I do and the places we went, it did pretty well. But I agree that the restrictions to one body/lens lends itself to the traditional dslr or mirrorless body and a good midrange zoom. </p> <p>Notwithstanding the camera/body I took, other trips, other places, other subject matter, other modes of travel and other budget, I might have gone with something else. Also, since most of our trips are by car in the US, I'm far more likely to not restrict myself to a single body/lens.</p>

<p>Depending on weather conditions and the potential for or against snow, there is also the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway which runs up Mount San Jacinto. There may be snowy conditions at the top or potentially some amazing views over the area, towards Salton Sea, Joshua Tree etc. On the way to Joshua Tree, there is the Big Morongo Preserve. It's got a lot of potential for nature and birding. Google searching them will provide more info. Not sure what might be the best seasons for Big Morongo. </p>

<p>Most movies are well papered over and everyone working on the project already knows who will own the copyright. There are, still, some professional relationships that aren't covered by contract and photographers argue over "Who owns the copyright?" on forums like this one. Usually after a "break-up" and the different parties go their separate ways (or the argument precipitates the break-up).</p>

<p>What if the items aren't photographs? But they have some value (historic, sentimental, etc.) to others than the owner? This "value" is somewhat (OK, completely) vague in the OP, yet the owner desires to be paid., more than is/was offered? Does the owner have the right to destroy the items? Sure. Should he or she? </p> <p>Should Solomon cut the baby in half?</p>

<p>I suppose it really depends on Indonesian copyright law. I'm going to guess these kinds of subtleties haven't been worked out in court yet and it's too expensive to do so for the most part. Makes for good forum speculation. Maybe the owner of the camera should have used a slightly different but marginally less interesting story from the beginning. If he had said he had intentionally given the camera to the monkey to let him take pictures?</p>

<p>Sections 106a and 113 of the US copyright law talk to authors' rights and pictorial, graphic and sculptural works incorporated into buildings. But not directly to works incorporated into buildings without the building's owner's permission? It might be interesting to find out if any "vandals" have registered their information with the Register of Copyrights to provide for notification of changes to buildings, etc. </p>

<p>Hector, I'd suggest that you could just keep on doing what you were doing before. It gets hot with no a/c on but where we are (Inland Empire), still not so hot that I've worried about anything being damaged. I suppose I'd worry about anything in direct sun exposure and poorly made prints or old slides (not Kodachrome) are going to do what they are going to anyways.</p>