don_baccus

<p>"long for a digital sensor that gives me the DR of the Kodak Ektar 100 film that I use (all too rarely these days)."<br>

<br>

Just found one article touting dynamic range of ektar being "between 8 and 12 stops", Canon sensors currently average around 11.7 stops if my information is correct. Sony supposedly is 14 stops. What are you doing that boosts that DR of ektar? You're not printing it on photo paper...</p>

<p>In anticipation of your next question, it's an *adult* black-crowned night heron :)</p>

<p>"Interesting that they do not seem intent on replacing the 5DIII."<br>

<br>

The door's open for a 5D4, rumored to be announced later this year. It's pretty obvious both from the specs and from Canon's announcement materials and interviews that they didn't intend that the 5DS be a replacement for the 5D3, but rather a high megapixel alternative for those who feel like they need it.<br>

<br>

I don't at the moment, I'm very happy with my 7D2, but if I choose to get back to selling landscapes in galleries again I would find it very interesting. Canon's typical 11+ stops DR has never felt particularly limiting to me having grown up shooting slide film for publication ...<br>

</p>

<p>It could be just as simple as the fact that it's a 5DIII chassis with just a few changes made internally - different sensor, different mirror box, different connector (for USB3), different processors. Each of these changes directly support the higher MP spec of the camera. I suspect they just vetoed anything that didn't do so, and keeping the same chassis without any modifications lowers costs. And the introductory price of this thing is very reasonable considering B&H still lists the 5DIII at $3099 (yes, other places have it cheaper, but also yes, I think the 5DS will drop in price in the first year after release unless the yen makes a spectacular recovery).</p>

<p>I'll be amazed if the upcoming (rumored) 5DIV doesn't have GPS. That's where I'd expect to see wholesale changes on the scale of, say, the 7D to 7D II.</p>

<p>Along with second-hand lenses (my 600/4 MK II was bought used from KEH, and I've bought two used items from Lens Authority, and a used 85/1.8 from a private seller, all are in excellent condition), consider Canon refurbished lenses. </p>

<p>Joseph Dickerson, no, I don't know him. Looks like he retired some time ago, and I only started coming down here (from Portland, OR) regularly for weeks at a time about 3-4 years ago (and am just completing my move down here).</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg:</p>

<p>"EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS <strong>II</strong> USM = $2,199.00<br>

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (I) USM = $1,699.00"<br>

While I don't know what Antonio is paying for his Antarctic trip, most pay $10K+ if traveling from the US (not including airfare), which is why it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most.<br>

So if he's thinking of selling the 70-200/2.8 I'd suggest he buy the new 100-400L. As others have noted, it appears as though it will be about as good with the 1.4x as the old one was without.<br>

I photograph a lot from boats ranging from about 70 feet to much smaller zodiac-style ones on often fairly rough sea water on a frequent basis. I think the twist style zoom's better for shooting on a boat (and while at antarctica there are landings, there are also typically times when one shoots whales and other marine mammals from zodiacs, and opportunities for photographing pelagic birds from the ship itself). The reason I feel this way (and I owned a copy of the push-pull 100-400 for awhile) is that you can securely brace yourself and zoom without shifting your hand position with the twister, while pushing and pulling requires moving your front hand back-and-forth. Turning a ring just seems easier to me, and as I say, I've used both.<br>

Antonio, I use the 300/4 on salt water a lot and I've been very happy with it. Good quality, it has survived bumps and drops without a problem (well, the built-in lens hood is a mess, but we'll ignore that, stuff happens when you drop things and it's just the hood's locking ring). But I'm switching to the new 100-400 for my boat work.<br>

Remember, you're going to be in a harsh environment, so you want to avoid changing lenses as much as possible. If you can possibly take two bodies, one with something shorter, then the 100-400, the only lens-changing you'd probably need to do would be to add/remove the 1.4x depending on the situation.</p>

<p>I'll add my two bits - I use my 70-200/4L IS two-to-several times a week photographing marine wildlife on Monterey Bay, this year from a 33-foot rigid-hull inflatable ("big zodiac-style") boat, previous couple of years on larger boats, frequently from fairly wildly-swinging upper decks. I also use longer glass, this acts as my lens for those times when things approach closely.<br>

Lots of bumps against hulls, superstructures, rails, etc - Monterey Bay often has swell in the 6-10 foot range with wind chop on top. Dropped it very recently a few days after I got my 7D MK II (oops) on the boat, and both camera and lens bounced harmlessly (it took my heart a bit longer to retract itself from high up in my throat ...).<br>

So I wouldn't worry about its build quality. It's also very sharp. I like the lightness of it.</p>

<p>I also suggest spending time in Canyonlands if you have the time and don't mind hiking with your 4x5 and other gear. Especially the Needles district. A lot of spectacular stuff and not many people. There's a small campground you can use as a base there.</p>

<p>But if your time is limited, the eye candy in Arches is more accessible, and of course the number of arches is unsurpassed.</p>

<p>Following up on my previous post, I just bought an EF 600/4 IS II used from a reputable dealer. Possibly the first offered used on the planet.</p>

<p>Thus far, I'd say it's worth the money. I've done some handheld testing and can meet my old EF 600/4's sharpness with reasonable shutter speeds, and it amazes me for two reasons - the lens is 35% lighter, and bettr balanced. Oh, and IS of course. Works very well. On my tripod, pretty much blows my older EF 600/4 away. Amazes me, given how sharp the old lens is.<br>

My old one's for sale, officially, as of today, for "low $4000s" (haven't quite figured out the right price). It's a great lens, as said in my previous post, I've had it for 19 years (it's now 2013). For the price, it's fantastic ... but of course, if you can afford the new lens, go for it.</p>

<p>" I make slightly more than minimum wage so that's not an issue"<br>

<br>

John H gave list of things they can avoid paying that provides business owners motivation to do this. I'll add a bit.<br>

<br>

As a contractor, you must pay the 7%+ payroll tax (FICA, medicare, etc) normally paid by employers, along with the 7%+ an employee pays. In other words, you pay a bit more than 15% in total rather than half of that.<br>

If you're paid minimum wage as a contractor, then, in actuality you're making minimum wage minus the 7%+ payroll tax your employer should be paying (the tax calculation is a bit more complex than this, but the general picture applies).<br>

<br>

Thus you're making less than minimum wage.<br>

<br>

Then there are benefits they might be providing employees, like health insurance. Misclassifying employees as contractors is a classic way for an unethical employer to provide health insurance (and other benefits such as 401Ks) to a favored class while leaving less favored people out.<br>

<br>

Add in John H's list and you can see why misclassification is so beneficial to employers and leaves the misclassified employee screwed.<br>

<br>

And you can see why the IRS takes it so seriously.<br>

<br>

It also impacts people like myself who have spent a large portion (or all) of their career actually working as real live independent consultants/contractors, with multiple clients, freedom to negotiate our own fees, etc.<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>"Don - the company I work for provides a desk, direct supervision, computers, etc... to independent contractors all the time. And our office is crawling with ethics, compliance, and tax officers. That is not what makes one an employee vs. a contractor."<br>

<br>

A lot of companies get away with it. That doesn't mean that the IRS, if brought into the picture, would not slap the company down. It happened to MicroSoft and for many years after, tech companies were extremely cautious about properly differentiating employees and contractors.<br>

<br>

It is a gray area. It is a gray area where the IRS particularly frowns on grunt workers - like our OP - being classified as independent contractors because, as I said, they can then avoid paying minimum wage, overtime, etc to people who'd be non-exempt employees.<br>

<br>

I'm not a lawyer, but I did run a software company when the IRS was looking closely at the contractor/employee issue in the high-tech world. And I have worked as an independent contractor for years. My last gig (I'm working as an employee for a startup in SF at the moment) required me to answer a questionaire with 25 questions of the sort I mentioned above.<br>

<br>

Anyway, as I said in my post and others have repeatedly said: she needs a lawyer who specializes in employee/employer relations.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>"-I second shoot, do graphic design work, design books, edit images and fulfill client orders and just basic office stuff."<br>

<br>

If they directly supervise your work, provide you office space, have you work on their computer in their office when doing design work and editing, etc, then you are unlikely to meet the IRS criteria for being an independent contractor.<br>

<br>

Which is not good for them if the IRS gets involved. However, if you don't want to burn bridges, you might not want to push this. However, the reason why businesses are tempted to classify people who should be employees as contractors is to avoid paying payroll taxes, unemployment, overtime, MINIMUM WAGE, blah blah blah. The whole situation seems like a mess.<br>

<br>

read this, for instance: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm<br>

<br>

BTW as an independent contractor, you are self employed and by definition in business for yourself. A non-compete as restrictive as the one you've signed cripples your ability to do business as a photographer and very likely further undermines the claim that you're an independent contractor rather than employee.<br>

See a lawyer and get the situation and your rights outlined in black and white. You can then start thinking about what steps you might want to take.</p>

<p>See a laywer ... see a lawyer ... see a lawyer.</p>

<p>Please. :)<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Exactly as the others are saying. The request for proposal comes from the client, the proposal is your response. So a "request for proposal" takes the form of a client specifying what they want done. You then prepare a proposal, which addresses the specification. Your proposal would often, as mentioned above, typically include some background information on your business and background so the client can evaluate the odds that you're able to do the job in a professional manner.</p>

<p>Since the client obviously doesn't understand the terminology or the implied process, maybe you could sit down and ask them exactly what they want done (just the lobby and reception shot? one sample of each kind of room? etc) and you can go over things in detail. Then write a proposal being very specific as to what you'd do for the price you propose.</p>

<p>Yes, what Denis said. There's software available that will give you the real number for most canon bodies, though I don't know if the MK III versions are available yet (google it yourself).</p>

<p>If you buy the 70-200/2.8L you could sell the 100/2.8L and spend some of that several hundred dollars on lighting gear. Or you could keep the 100/2.8L and ask if you need the 2.8 version of the 70-200, as the f4 version is very sharp, nice and light, and a lot cheaper, leaving money left over for some of the lighting gear you're interested in. They also show up used fairly often.</p>

<p>Or look for a used 70-200/2.8L IS MK I ...</p>

<p>In other words, with some creativity maybe you can nibble on both ends of the candy bar while staying in your budget ...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Henry, that post doesn't address:</p>

<p>"<strong>Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>sub-licensable </strong><strong> </strong>... hmmm. Facebook has the same wording. What's to stop them from sub-licensing one of your images for a fee?</p>

<p>G Dan:</p>

<p><blockquote> diminish high ISO performance, increase noise, decrease dynamic range, slow camera operation, make files too large, and cause global warming.<br /><br />I made up the last one.</blockquote><br>

<br>

I've heard some of these cameras get really warm in video mode. :) :)<br>

</p>

<p>"And while <em>theoretically</em> DR might be expected to decrease with smaller pixels"<br>

<br />The question is when does physics overtake improvements in design and production engineering. I think we'll see steady increases in density and better DR/high ISO performance for another decade, at least. I think the pace will slow, though.<br>

</p>

<p>Jeff ...</p>

<p>"All RAW files have to be processed to be observed as anything but a collection of 1s and 0s. <em>Something</em> has to process them to get to a visible file"</p>

<p>Processing, in this context, is understood by engineers (like me) to mean the bits are changed and new values are stored.</p>

<p>The matching of bits to an output device doesn't change the file being displayed, be it RAW, JPEG, TIFF or whatever.</p>

<p>Actually, even displaying the file contents as !s and 0S requires processing ... but this isn't the idea caught by what people describe as processing of photos.</p>

<p>Don't be anal...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nick Doronin:</p>

<p>"Guys, just go out and take some pictures"<br /> <br /> Good advice.<br /> <br /> While William and David continued to argue (I'm with David for the most part), I decided to step out onto my back deck and take a photo ...<br /> <br /> And, William, I have no idea why I used the finger I did, nor do I care (the middle finger's reserved for Ann, though).<br /> <br /> Attached you'll find one photo demonstrating that the 7D's autofocus doesn't work - by design. Ugh, well actually you can't tell how razor-sharp the eye is from my overcompressed 600 pixel wide JPG. So much for sarcasm ...</p><div></div>

<p>Siegfried Gust ...</p>

<p>"I never had access to the graph showing the failure/time curve."<br>

<br>

I don't think you should've been beaten up so harshly. On the other hand, electronic and electro-mechanical devices do tend to have failure rates on the "infant mortality" end of the scale. So a normal distribution likely won't fit.<br>

</p>