patrice_gosselin

Andrew,

 

You're absolutely right, I somehow missed the fact that this was the opiniong of the dissenting judge, apologies all around! Well, it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer, eh? I wouldn't be able to stay awake in a courtroom anyways... :)

Regarding Andrew's second link about the Gazette case, the lawyer had to prove that the picture caused him prejudice, which he apparently suceeded in doing. (IMHO it's quite ridiculous, but that's besides the point).

 

Oh well.

Wait, not so fast :)

 

A few excerpts from the first link Andew provided:

"Accordingly, even though she relies on a certain right to her image, the plaintiff respondent must prove that a fault committed by the appellants caused her prejudice."

And then:

"We should be reluctant to view fault as amounting to a violation of rights alone."

"The Quebec law of civil liability requires proof of prejudice resulting from the fault."

 

I'm no lawyer, but if things go bad in a Quebec's court, you can always take it higher I believe, we're, after all, still part of Canada...:

 

"...the plaintiff must first show that a right or freedom has been infringed before the defendant attempts to demonstrate that the limit on the protected rights and freedoms is reasonable. For example, freedom of expression enjoys very broad protection in Canada. Any peaceful activity that conveys or attempts to convey meaning is protected by freedom of expression. According to this definition, even defamatory remarks are protected by freedom of expression. Therefore, the person who maintains the validity of a limit on such expression has the burden of proving that the limit is reasonable."

 

 

It appears to me that this trial is about some girl who got photographed, and her photo appeared in a magazine, and she felt humiliated when she saw her picture up there, and was teased by her friends. I guess it comes down to something very similar to US law (of which I'm no expert either!), which appears to me as though if the photo is defamatory or such, then don't publish it.

 

You'll note also that the chief justice wrote that having classmates laugh at you is probably not supporting evidence of prejudice...

 

Which brings us to the point that:

"...there is prejudice where the image is exploited commercially without authorization (...), or for purposes other than those for which consent was originally given"

 

"the fault lay not in the taking of the photograph but in its publication (...) since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy."

 

 

Some more boring stuff for those who may still be reading this:

"It is also recognized that a photographer is exempt from liability, as are those who publish the photograph, when an individual's own action, albeit unwitting, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental manner. The person is then in the limelight in a sense. One need only think of a photograph of a crowd at a sporting event or a demonstration."

 

Another situation where the public interest prevails is one where a person appears in an incidental manner in a photograph of a public place. An image taken in a public place can then be regarded as an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph. In such a case, since the unforeseen observer's attention will normally be directed elsewhere, the person "snapped without warning" cannot complain. The same is true of a person in a group photographed in a public place. Such a person cannot object to the publication of the photograph if he or she is not its principal subject. On the other hand, the public nature of the place where a photograph was taken is irrelevant if the place was simply used as background for one or more persons who constitute the true subject of the photograph."

 

So what's different?

"In the United States, freedom of expression and public information prevail over the right to privacy except where the information's sole purpose is commercial..." In Quebec: A photograph of a single person can be "socially useful" because it serves to illustrate a theme. That does not make its publication acceptable, however, if it infringes the right to privacy."

 

"An artist's right to publish his or her work cannot include the right to infringe, without any justification, a fundamental right of the subject whose image appears in the work. While the artist's right must be taken into consideration, so must the rights of the photograph's subject. If it is accepted that publishing the artist's work is an exercise of freedom of expression, the respondent's right not to consent must also be taken into consideration."

 

Well, that link was enlightening. I always wanted to learn a few things about how things legally work on this side of the border. I'd say, don't worry about street photography in Quebec, snap to your heart's content!

 

 

Isaac,

 

"Adorama doesn't ship to Canada anymore? When did that start? I was planning to order a Contax lens..."

 

That's what they told me 3-4 months ago (in July) when I emailed them asking for boxes of Provia and Velvia - perhaps they will still sell and ship other things then film. You should send an email to their customer service.

Jason,

 

If you ever find a Canadian store cheaper than a US store, let me know! :)

 

The others are right, USPS is the way to go, and sometimes if you get lucky, there won't be any charges for duties and all that.

 

Even with my (meager, I must say) discount from my local photo club, I didn't find any local or Canadian store which would be cheaper than B&H (for film shipping anyways, and that's even counting the exchange rate and shipping rate). Adorama doesn't ship to Canada anymore btw.

 

Well, all is not lost. Our dollar hasn't been this high since the 70s, and predictions are that it's only going to go up. We may even reach parity with the US greenback by year 2007. How long are you willing to wait to get the most out of your looney? :)

Hi Ken,

 

When I sought advice before buying my own T-90, I was told to check the internal battery (if you can hold it in your hands that is), among other things.

 

Also, I was able to find those messages where I received advice from the excellent folks at the Canon FD Yahoo Group. You'll find the details about how checking the battery in the second message:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/message/28434

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/message/28470

 

Hope that helps,

 

Pat

Hello Carmen,

 

I'm going to risk an answer here because you need something quick and no one else answered yet, but hopefully someone more competent than me will be able to give you a better answer.

 

The good news is that your AE-1 screen can be replaced, but the bad news is, AFAIK, only a technician or someone very knowledgeable with the right tools can change an AE-1 screen. The AE-1 Program finder can be removed (more) easily, the AE-1 not. It involves lots of manipulation and unsoldering of tiny wires and the likes, and it's something I would think is better left to your camera repair tech.

 

I'm only going by what I learned on the Canon FD Yahoo group, so don't take this as gospel. If you need it for next Tuesday... you'd better get an appointment with your repair tech today! :)

 

Hope this helps,

There's been a recent thread on this very subject in the Canon FD Yahoo Group. If memory serves me right (which often does not... oh well), pretty much all tripod colars on original Canon FD lenses are interchangeable, one size fits all. You might want to make a search on the Yahoo list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/).

Oops, my mistake.

 

But then, the same conclusions shoud apply. They are basically the same tripod, with the 1228 being a bit taller...

Hi Roy,

 

I just bought (last month) the 1228 too - and I was wondering the exact same thing! The bottom leg section of the 1228 looks awfully thin. But then, I've put my most heavy gear on it and it seemed to hold on just fine. It would flex a little at the joint if I my hand on top and applied pressure, but I guess it's only normal.

 

The 1227 sure looks sturdier. I guess it (mechanically) ought to be, if only by removing one leg-joint. I've gone through the litterature I used to make my purchase, and re-read the PDF article about travel tripods (link can be found somewhere here on photo.net) - the author did warmly recommend the 1228, although it was still a bit too long (and expensive) when folded to fit his criteria.

 

I still have to go backpacking with mine. I bought it especially with backpacking in mind, so I hope that by this spring I'll have the occasion to take some time off and go on a trip with my packpack, my camera, and my new tripod...

 

In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear about anyone who either put the 1227 or the 1228 to the test and used it 'in the field'!

 

Pat

Hi Tom,

 

I can't really answer any questions about your gear, but I've been to Tunisia in December-January 2 years ago. My advice is: Ziploc bags.

 

I don't know how you will be lugging your gear around, but I had a Loweprow top loader for quick shooting (among other things). I kept a ziploc bag within the top loader so that when I wasn't using the camera, it would also be sealed in the ziploc. I regret not bringing more, I think if I'd do it again, I'd have all my lenses each in its own ziploc. Dust storms are nasty. When the wind picks up, the sand follows. After a day eating dust, I finally caught on as to why everyone had that cloth on their heads (a sheish -spelling unknown-) and finally got one for me too. Even after being back for a year, I was still finding dust in my bags.

 

The glow and lighting effect during dust storms though is very, very special. Makes for beautifully warm and soft pictures...

 

Oh, and a thought on tripods - I didn't have any when I went there, but I would always carry a 1.5 (or was it 2?) liter water bottle. You could balance it on your backpack, water bottle on one side, tripod on the other - makes a good counterweight :)

 

Enjoy your trip!

Holy Grail is right.

 

I've been looking for a yellow and a red one on a Eb*y for the past couple of months and none has turned up (although I haven't been THAT consistent in looking, perhaps twice a week...)

 

Taping gelatin filters... now that could be worth trying :)

 

Pat

You could get a teleconverter too. The 2X-B would be the one you want with your 70-210, giving you an effective 140-220. (am I right here? someone confirm please!). Otherwise, 100-300 f/5.6 zooms go for quite cheap, and with a 2X-A, you get a 200-600.

 

But 2X-B converters are expensive. For a similar amount of money, and probably even lower, you could get a 500mm f/8 too, as Gregrory pointed out.

 

I've got an airshow here in 2 weeks. I'm going to try for some flying aircraft shots with the 400 f/4.5 and perhaps the 2X-A if I get the chance...

 

Pat

Just out of curiosity...

 

I happen to have a 28mm f/2.8 made by Carl Zeiss Jena. I like how it performs and I heard that these lenses had a good reputation, but I've never seen any tests or data for that specific brand and have no idea how it compares to Canon glass.

 

Anyone knows where I could find such info (short of running my own tests, which would means getting a Canon 28mm...)?

 

Thanks!

Ah, but David, you forgot the 5 fps Motor Drive MA (with the 12AA battery pack that is).

 

:)

 

Incidentally, I've been looking all over the places near me for one, can't find any. They go for quite expensive (IMHO) on auction sites or KEH...

 

Ah well, back on topic:

 

If I had the $$$, I'd certainly spring for an F-1, for all of David's reasons.

I'm not an F-1 proud owner (not yet at least) but the F-1 has some definite advantages (or differences anyways...)

 

- Match-needle metering

- Modular concept, i.e. camera fits your need, tailor it for the job you want

- Changeable screens and viewfinders

- Build quality was overall better

- Mechanical/hybrid shutter depending on model

 

 

And as the others before me said, it's tougher, although the A-1 can still take a beating. The F-1 is heavier though.

 

How's DOF preview in the F-1? Always wondered about that...

 

Anyways, these are just a few hints. There are many more people here who can tell you more things, and more accurately, than me about the F-1. I like my A-1, it's serving me well although there are some things which are slightly impractical (like the exposure lock button!). I like to consider it as a 'low-budget' equivalent to the F-1 :)

 

 

Pat

David, I just acquired a 400mm 4.5ssc and waiting for it to arrive by the mail. I was planning to use it with the 2X-A occasionnaly... Will it fits like a charm, or will I need to have it milled too?

 

Thanks!

Pat