tasos_sotirakis

<p>If i was considering a PEN, this commercials would be 100% successful in making me buy a GF1.</p>

<p>That's just me though; i agree that they will work well for selling cameras to the audience they are aimed at, maybe even to a few image-conscious photographers ; )</p>

<p>If you haven't seen the Olympus commercials with Kevin Spacey, they can be found on Youtube and DPReview had a small feature on them recently.</p>

<p>Does anyone else think that this catchphrase doesn't sound well? Interestingly, the campaign works in either direction; if you are using a point and shoot or if you have an SLR hanging, you fit the image of the blissfully oblivious (to real photography acording to Olympus) "tourist" who will never manage to take meaningful photos.</p>

<p>To their credit, it is a bold campaign in trying to take down every kind of different system, and in all its pretentiousness, it places the PEN honestly at the middle ground between P&Ss and SLRs. I can understand how they are using the tourist stereotype but it annoys me a bit as well; i think the real "tourist" is anyone who thinks their photos are better or mean more because they were taken with a specific camera. Even more so when the main selling point for that group is about lifestyle and how good you look holding the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody says anything to them. If there's an exclusivity contract, usually it allows the hired photographer to do something (like tell them to stop, or maybe to leave if the b/g don't do anything about it) or requires the b/g to do something to inform the guests and/or stop them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for that clarification.</p>

<p>Dave, i think i have read it all by now and to me it seems like a misunderstanding that may or may not have gone out of hand. For what it's worth, i don't think there was any ill intent initially, although both sides have subsequently acted "unprofessionaly". Then again as i have said i am not a professional myself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tasos...The email reads "start-up" and not "upstart".....quite a difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, just got mixed up there somewhere in the huge thread, sorry. Yeah, it's not the same at all but it still sounds a bit like intimidation.</p>

<p>Jeff, does that mean that no matter what a contract says, a guest can arrive with their D3s, compliment of pro lenses and a couple of assistants and take and publish whatever photos they want? As long as they don't get in the way of the hired photographer i'd imagine it to be that way legally, but isn't there a burden on the B&G side to make known any restrictions? At least in the form of what they wish if they are not backed by law. Am i correct to think that this is a grey area? As far as the law is concerned, do any other provisions apply other than what is explicitly mentioned in the contract?</p>

<p>Another thing, a generalisation that i'd like to hear opinions on - the question is broad/vague on purpose because i think it reflects the multitude of cases that might arise in a real scenario: if i am present at a friend's wedding as a guest and take good pictures with whatever camera i have and upload these pictures somewhere, what exactly determines if the hired wedding photographer(s) has the right and leverage to move against me, legally or not?</p>

<p>Well, calling her an "upstart" is not polite neither professional on their part, even if she is. But the main issue here which we all agree on is that the deciding factor is whether there was an exclusivity clause or not, is that correct? I think Missy has implied in the opening post that she has a) read the contract and that b) there wasn't such a clause, but she hasn't explicitly stated so. Answering this might help clarify things.</p>

<p>I am accepting the assumption that there was no exclusivity clause in the contract, and that Missy did not represent herself as the official event photographer. Given that, the methods the studio used, and the simple fact that they took action first and contacted her later invalidates any notion of professional courtesy.</p>

<p>So as long as Missy did not represent herself as a business with the published photos, what right does the studio, or anyone, have to demand the photos to be taken down? Just because they were good photos? Any non-professional photographer can be there taking pro-quality photos, and since there was explicitly no exclusivity clause, they are free to publish them as they see fit, be it on Facebook, on their blog, or any other website.</p>

<p>I'm all for defending one's rights with a passion, but i just don't see any rights here on the side of the studio, legal or otherwise. Everytihng was explicitly allowed by them when signing the contract and during the event itself. It seems that Missy was just another shooter in the crowd and they only went after her because, unlike a hobbyist, she has a reputation to defend, so they can intimidate her. No courtesies, no legal arguements, just pure underhanded competition with any means available. They are trying to make up for a badly written contract.</p>

<p>I am not in the business, this is just the way it seems to me and i am curious about this story. Where i live most weddings are open public events and it is entirely possible for any random passer-by to drop in and take pictures if they wanted to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's harder to <em>undo</em> than it is to <em>do</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. Given the choice i'd get the same lens without the vignetting.</p>

<p>Some lenses have noticable vignetting. This is usually considered a drawback, but many people use vignetting creatively. For example my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 can produce a fairly strong vignetting, but more often than not i find that it results in a moody photo, an effect which i happen to like.</p>

<p>Obviously this is not the same for all photographers, kinds of photography, and professional assignments. What is your view on this? Do you like lens vignetting up to an extent, do you tolerate it, or is it strictly a no-no for you?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is perhaps a certain implicit vitriol in some of the comments</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None more than in the opening post :) You didn't just ask a question about sharpening, you went into the old and tired "i am ignorant and i let my camera process my photos, if you do it yourself on Lightroom you are not a true photographer", which is exactly as stupid as it sounds. Unless you store your RAW files away and never look at the photos on a screen of any kind, in which case no post-processing is involved and i stand corrected.</p>

<p>Create good photos however it suits you, and everyone will do the same.</p>

<p>As far as i know, the extra card can be used as either a backup copy, an alternate format copy (RAW in one card, processed photo in the other), a storage extension/overflow buffer, or lastly as separate storage for videos.</p>

<p>As for dual magazines and reliability, i don't think it should be an issue. Soldiers also use the magazines as an extra grip without ill effects, not statistically significant anyway. I'd imagine that any models that become unreliable with dual magazines are all well known by now!</p>

<p>Not to mention that smaller cards get lost more easily! I recall that some time ago SD cards had much lower capacity than (non-microdrive) CF due to technical reasons, but they seem to have gotten over that for now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's obviously nothing to do with cost. Adding an extra slot costs pennies. It's used as a marketing tool to force buyers who want twin slots onto more expensive models.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really; on the contrary, it makes dual slots available on cheaper models. I don't think the slots were the deciding factor when choosing between a D3 and a D300 or a D90. Like me and others said, dual slots are a bonus convenience rather than a major selling point. The few people who really need them already have a D3.</p>

<p>I hadn't thought about the video connection at all, but now that you pointed it out, it is glaringly obvious.</p>

<p>I recommend the 50mm f/1.8, or maybe the 35mm f/1.8 if it suits you better, to anyone starting out or advancing with an SLR. If you are used to the standard lens, it will be a world of difference in terms of low light performance and shallow depth of field. If you are at the right distance, it is one of your best options for shooting a gig (which can turn out to be a lighting nightmare anyway!).</p>

<p>Just get one, if you take pictures at all you will find a use for it, and i bet you will do things that you previously couldn't.</p>

<p>I you think that you will be limited by the 50mm just set your zoom at 50mm and try shooting with that.</p>

<p>I was reading about the D300s and thinking about what the successor model will be like. All the usual speculations aside, do you think that every model in this range and above will have dual card slots, following the precedent set by the D300s? It seems that for many people this feature is a critical distinction between a truly professional camera and a semi-pro one, for reliability alone. What is your opinion on this? What do you think the reaction will be if the successors to the D300s and the D700 only have one card slot?</p>

<p>My take on this is that Nikon should keep the dual card feature on every future semi- and pro model. Enthusiasts and pros alike appreciate it. This market segment can certainly live without it just as we did all along, but now that it has been featured on one of the most popular DSLRs ever, it will be seen as a downgrade if future models don't have it, at least until there is a change in storage medium technology. From Nikon's perspective, i guess they offered the dual slots because they could, not because there was overwhelming demand for them, so maybe they don't see it as a major selling point. It could be sacrificed if a completely new camera design demands it.</p>

<p>My thoughts for yours :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On a separate topic, there're already leaks that the new D4 is out in field tests. But, whether that model will be officially announced, we'll have to wait patiently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing that i find weird is that the D3s sensor is entirely new, and it is a short amount if time since it was introduced. The D4 should have an even newer one. So, assuming a D4 in 2010, which of the following is more likely:</p>

<p>- The D4 will have the same sensor as the D3s (not likely in my opinion, and would be a big marketing mistake)</p>

<p>- Nikon made a major breakthrough and the D4's sensor will be another new design and a big improvement over the D3s (hope so, but probably not likely)</p>

<p>- What makes more sense to me: Nikon used technology from the upcoming D4 in the D3s. The D4 will have slightly superior high ISO capability (same range, a bit better quality) but higher resolution. Probably around 18MP, or maybe 24MP and the x model resolution will be in the current medium format territory.</p>

<p>Pure speculation from me, time will tell.</p>

<p>If you know that you will be taking significantly better photos with Nikon, sure, make the switch.</p>

<p>Also what Ben said, if you know it will increase your income, switch, it's a no-brainer.</p>

<p>I wouldn't work for the guy either, but in his defense it is reasonable to demand the best image quality you can get for weddings, and low light performance alone is important enough.</p>

<p>I don't see any negative connotations on the word "taking", as in taking a photo (compare "capturing the moment"). To me it refers to the action of clicking the shutter button rather than "extracting" an image from the scene. When reviewing photos at a later time, i think of them as images that i have created, of course with the helpful contribution of a person, an object, or mother nature.</p>

<p>Sometimes, and this is indeed very satisfying when i feel that i have achieved it, i think of a photograph as pointing to something (could be anything from a tiny detail to an emotion) that others wouldn't normally see. Revealing what was hiding in plain view, or recording the briefest moment in time.</p>

<p>Other times it is the end result of a creative process that i enjoy. Yet others, i might spontaneously try something in post processing and completely re-interpret a photo, creating something new. Then there is the excitement of using all my technical knowledge (not that much) to nail a hard shot exactly as i visualise it. There is also the simple pleasure of recording a nice smile from your friends or family.</p>

<p>I do enjoy looking at my favorite photos over the years; so far i haven't got tired of them. I fact i sometimes contemplate the irrational fear that plagues all kinds of artists - that i will never be able to create something better than my past best photos. Somehow though, this pool of "my past best photos" only grows with time :)</p>

<p>Yes, i enjoy lots of things about photography, and there are lots more out there to try out!</p>

<p>Video is kind of a gimmick on a DSLR. Some photographers even seem to consider it compulsory nowdays, as if it was a glaring ommison all these years, just because it is progress. Since the actual results are great even with today's limited implementations, what each company should do is make a dedicated video body without compromises and without being limited by the needs of a still camera. It will take all your lenses and give you true pro quality - within sensor limits - at a price lower than say a D300 (and dedicated still camera prices might just go down a notch too).</p>

<p>The first thing that comes to mind is Nikon's own 18-200 VR. Third party manufacturers also have similar lenses, for example Sigma has 18-200 and 18-250mm lenses, and they cost a lot less than the Nikkor.</p>

<p>You mention macro - that's a rather specialized area of photography and needs special lenses if you want true macro capability. If you just want to focus really close, check the minimum focusing distance on the lenses before you buy, although zooms in this range aren't really designed with that in mind.</p>

<p>The only extra options that you really have to worry about with a DSLR, as opposed to a film camera, are the ones that are part of current sensor and imaging technology. These are the white balance and ISO settings. On one hand, they are a part of digital photography; can't have it without them. On the other hand, you don't have to have the right film loaded, which is, in my opinion, a much greater convenience. For simplicity and ease of use, i'll take the press of a button over having to deal with film any day! Of course with RAW you can forget about white balance too (though a grey card might be handy).</p>

<p>You can still set all that extra stuff to auto and still get the result you want 90% of the time. It is not the percieved complexity of modern DSLRs that makes me want a simpler design. Options are just that, options; I don't have to deal with any of that unless i want to. But by making a minimalist camera i feel that we gain a lot that is harder to measure than technical specs: the ability to have a small, light, rugged camera that one can sling over the shoulder without giving it much thought, or wrap it in a t-shirt and throw in a backpack. Or maybe carry it in a studio all day. Or whatever.</p>

<p>If i had to describe it with a single word, i'd probably say it is the "attitude" that makes the idea of a simple camera so appealing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The D40 is so far away from what I am talking about. I have used one and without the manual you are going to spend some time just figuring out how to get set the apeture.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In manual mode, the aperture is set by pressing one button, conveniently positined under your index finger and labeled with an aperture icon. You don't need to read the manual for that, you don't even need to read at all.</p>

<p>Most DSLRs are as simple as simple film cameras have always been. Shutter, aperture, that's it. They are much bigger and heavier, and have 400-page manuals because of all the extra, optional stuff that allows you to do all these wonderful things that not everyone needs.</p>

<p>I really support the idea of a small, bare-bones, manual, quality-built (D300 quality, nothing terribly exclusive and expensive) Nikon dSLR, maybe with a single center auto-focus point, aimed to experienced photographers. It could also have a single switch, or even soft button, allowing you to select a fully automatic mode for those really quick opportunity shots.</p>

<p>If only it could be even smaller than the D40...!</p>