david_smith110

<p>Just finished the book Steve. I absolutely love it. As I told you I most likely fall into the prime readership for the book as I am increasing the business I do with my photography. With complete honesty I can say you bring out in jarring detail a lot of the concerns I have that are floating around in the back of my head, mostly unseen and unrealized. I know there is a bunch of stuff I should be worried about and planning for, but the artistic side of my brain is just like "Nah, don't worry about it. Just take the job, sign the contract and shoot."</p> <p>Wait...I should have a contract?</p> <p>Think I'm gonna go read it again. Thank you so much for sending me the copy. :)</p>

<p>Awesome. Thanks for the additional input Wouter. It is very much appreciated.</p>

<p>Ah, my bad Wouter. I misread you there. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>There is no need to make a choice between a mirror, or no mirror. Not today, not in the future. The market is big enough to have both types of cameras in healthy systems, sufficient buyers etc.-</p> </blockquote> <p>Actualy there is a need to make a choice. The main is that a mirrorless camera gives an EVF. There are many photographers, myself included, that have decided an EVF is necessary for the type of photography they do. Consequently, there are plenty who need an optical view path to effectively shoot. So for some shooters there is a real choice involved. But I understand the point you are trying to make and I agree wholeheartedly with it Wouter. There will be mirrorless and DSLR's on the market for a very long time to come. But I believe wholeheartedly what I wrote...</p> <blockquote> <p>I get excited about new mirrorless tech and I am one of those who sees mirrorless <strong>eventually supplanting DSLR tech for the majority of users</strong>, especially after Canon and Nikon weigh in with serious contenders.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mirrorless isn't goint to kill DSLR's. They will remain on the scene the same way rangefinders, medium formats, and view cameras have just as you describe. But I do believe, <em>and I am NOT trying to convince any one of this</em>, that as the younger generations of photographers mature over the next decade or two they will prefer looking into a camera and seeing a little TV screen. Especially since they have grown up in the internet age with a smartphone or tablet in their hands. In those next two decades mirrorless tech will mature in ways we cant even begin to comprehend because it has an undefined and unmapped technical potential that the DSLR, currently at the end of its development cycle, simply does not possess.*</p> <p>Technology never, ever, ever goes back in the box.</p> <blockquote> <p>An EVF will never be able to be real time because the light has to be processed. Maybe, some day, the processing will be so fast it won't make much difference. That day has not yet come.</p> </blockquote> <p>If history has taught us anything is should be to never gauge future advancements on our current technological limits or understandings. I think it slightly prophetic that this was on my windows 10 start page when I logged on this morning concerning the best and worst tech predictions of all time. When I read the one from Telsa (15 of 16) from back in the 20's I knew he was the MAN.</p> <p>http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/connectedworld/the-best-and-worst-technology-predictions-of-all-time/ss-BBlSoez?ocid=spartandhp#image=1</p> <p>*Unless you are Canon, then you just keep cramming more resolution in...like, a hundred and pixie megafipples... :)</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Given the name, I expected a bit more retro-salute to the SL and SL2</p> </blockquote> <p>EXACTLY, as did I. This thing is just like-a A7. See what I did there? :)</p>

<p>Congratz on the Fuji Dave. Many times I have often thought of moving from my a7 over to an X-T1, but there are several things (which I wont go into now) that are holding me back. I am quite envious of the native lenses available for your camera tho. There is a bit of jealousy on my part wishing Sony had such a well thought out and comprehensive lens lineup.</p> <p>And Patrick, I don't think it is so much about being 'on the winning team'. These are exciting times for photography with lots of new technology being dumped into cameras at a frightening pace. I get excited about new mirrorless tech and I am one of those who sees mirrorless eventually supplanting DSLR tech for the majority of users, especially after Canon and Nikon weigh in with serious contenders.</p> <p>I liken it to the time in the 80s when autofocus was first released. Every camera up until that point was manually focused. All the pros did it that way and all the amateurs. When AF started to debut it had an uphill battle as a new and, in many cases, experimental tech as companies tried to figure out the best way to make it work. You had people who swore back in the old day that AF would never be as good as a photographer with a lifetime experience doing it by hand.</p> <p>Its sorta the same today. Mirrorless is new and exciting, offering photographic opportunities that sometimes weren't there before. Like my photography, which is all manual focus film lenses on a great full frame digital sensor. I get completey stoked about what Sony has done that lets me shoot with the freedom, ease and creativity that I shoot with now. Back when I was doing it on Canon it was a <em>chore.</em><em><br /></em><br /> <br /> But you are completely right....DSLR, mirrorless, it really doesn't matter what you prefer or what you believe. It's all about the image right? As long as we are shooting who cares whats in our hands. :)</p> <p>Dave, heads up. Anytime you bring up this "mirrorless gonna whup up on DSLR" thing on forums get ready for some type of flaming. There is a lot of ongoing debate and strong feelings on both sides on the subject right now. Just know that there are plenty of people who feel the way you do. I am one of them. :)</p>

<p>Huh, I was expecting something.....more classic?</p> <p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/look-here-first-images-of-the-new-leica-sl-with-lenses/</p> <p>Must admit I am a little disappointed. As I said, I'm probably not ever going to be in the market for this camera but one never knows. However the design and form factor don't do it for me. Guess I'll wait for the actual unveiling but if this is indeed the camera I'm sorta underwhelmed. After the beautiful functionality of the Q I was expecting more.</p> <p>Ah well, I'm sure they will sell plenty of them to somebody.</p>

<p>Wouter, thank you for the response. I think it might have been the subfolder issue as you said. I clicked that and at first it was still not showing them but then somehow it was. And yes, I was given an option the first time I opened it and I choose one of the two Sony options.</p> <p>Anyway, I'm in there now giving it a spin. I really appreciate the help.</p> <p>p.s.- Does Capture One have a dehaze option? I cant seem to find it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>my suggestion to you is to go out and shoot some photos with whatever gear you have</p> </blockquote> <p>Now THAT is the best thing you've said this whole thread.</p>

<p>Lol, I never said they haven't been Andy. But tomorrows camera is a NEW full frame Leica mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses. Not a rangefinder, not a Q...something new. I am very interested in this SL.</p>

<p>I think Leica will unveil this tomorrow on the 20th. It's out of my price bracket for sure but it will be interesting to see what Leica brings to the table. I'm sure the lenses will be tasty and I wonder how much functionality they will build in for adapting their M lenses. Here is a link to a high res image, supposedly the first released from out of the camera.</p> <p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/here-is-the-first-image-smaples-shot-on-the-new-leica-sl/</p>

<p>Eric, you're calling people names again and now you are criticizing the amount of time I put into my 'gazillion' word post and derogatorily referring to it as an epic rant. While also not answering any of the honest questions I put forth to you. It's pretty clear now that your purpose here is not an open and productive dialogue in seeking to understand each others position and for some reason feel that insults and brow beating will help get your point across.</p> <p>True colors my friend.</p>

<p>Carl, I completely agree. I said in an earlier post that the a7's, and mirrorless in general, would probably not be the tool of choice for sports photographers. Or actually anyone who needs that critical AF speed on fast telephotos. Kai at DigitalRev confirms this in his Canon 5D/A7 shootout. It was also confirmed by the guys at The Camera Store TV.</p> <p>But for just about any other type of photography the a7s can be made to excel if the photographer, pro or otherwise, throws in some creative vision. It has to be said though...Sony has made incredible advancements in such a short time when it comes to autofocusing without a mirror present. DSLR's still rely on this antiquated tech to get such good autofocus and DSLR makers have had decades to perfect this. Considering mirrorless is so young Sony, and all of the mirrorless makers, are doing a great job in catching up. But you are correct, they are not quite there yet.</p> <p>My ex brother in law is the Moto GP photographer for Honda Motor Corp. He flys around the world shooting for Honda at the most prestigious motorcycle race in the world. Those bikes hit upwards of 200 miles an hour and I have seen him lugging those huge lenses around Laguna Seca. An a7 would definitely not work for what he does, at least not with the consistency he needs.</p> <p>Btw, here are a couple of shots from the Moto GP at Laguna in 2007. My brother in law is the guy just behind and to the right of Fabio. Next pic was a shot of Valentino Rossi I got while down in the pits. It was a great weekend, I got my helmet signed by Dani Pedrossa and I just missed a photo op with Nicky Hayden. Good times. :)</p> <p><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1005/1203817280_07d678519d_z.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1296/1202956323_ee200a8239_z.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>do you guys own stock in Sony? or does buying one of these cameras mean you lose all notions of critical perspective/objectivity and become instant fanboys?</p> </blockquote> <p>Really Eric, your posts have been full of this type of denigrating language. Why do you feel the need to lump this group of people who enjoy their Sony full frame cameras under a 'fanboy' label. Does belittling people make you feel better as a person?</p> <p>I've seen your Oakland pages (if that is indeed you, which I believe it is). You seem to have an appreciation of the musical arts and the culture movement in your area. Kudos for that. But would you use the type of language you have thru this thread to criticize the type of guitar an artist was using? I don't think you would.</p> <p>You seem to be a prolific enough writer to understand the importance that forums such as this one play in todays internet connected world. You are doing a disservice to every single photographer who comes onto this site looking for information. Especially <em>new photographers</em>. Sites like pnet and others across the web are some of the first windows into our craft that many people will see. What they read on these pages has the potential to educate and inspire a lifetime of passion for photography. And, as media has always had the potential for, it can misinform, twist reality and possibly send people down paths that it may take years to come back from.</p> <blockquote> <p>overall, Sonys are more hobby cameras than working tools for working pros, but that is changing, albeit slowly</p> </blockquote> <p>This statement is blatantly untrue. I have linked an article showing just the iceberg tip of pro photographers using Sony cameras. Your response to this...</p> <blockquote> <p>lol. the list of sony 'pros' is humorous. when you have to name drop like 10 names, its kind of a sign that may be the extent of it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Eric, don't be silly. The burden of proof is not on me to go out and find every single photographer using Sony a7's in a professional setting. Included in the article was the fact that almost all the photographer at ILOVEHATEPHOTOGRAPHY have also started using Sonys for their work. The A7 series is constantly mentioned on the TWIP podcast, a highly respected photography podcast put out by working professionals in the industry. Many times they are mentioned in passing as being used in studios to replace Canon gear or other brands. One of their episodes is actually entitled something like The Sony Onslaught. Fell free to give them a listen if you don't already, its a great podcast. But don't expect me to give you an episode by episode breakdown of every time these cameras are mentioned. Aint gonna happen. Same with the pro's who have switched. There are PLENTY of pros using Sony gear right now.</p> <p>By the way, this focus you have on Sonys not being for pros. Please explain that to me. What is a professional camera? My definition is any camera being used by a pro photographer to create work for clients. Does yours differ from this? Have you found some list of criteria on the web that lists out exactly what a pro camera is supposed to have? I would be interested in the link for this if you have. And using your argument that Sonys aren't for pros, but should be relegated to hobbyist, lets look at some other non pro cameras.</p> <p>IPhone. There are PRO photographers using this to create art. I guess the IPhone isn't a pro camera.</p> <p>Medium Format Film cameras. There are PRO photographers making art and selling it to clients using these cameras. I guess these aren't pro photographers.</p> <p>Collodion Wet Plate. There are PRO photographers selling work to clients with these cameras. Please direct me to a website that advertises the latest PROFESSIONAL models of Colodion wet plate cameras, I would be interested in seeing this as I plan on exploring this format over the next year or so.</p> <p>Pinhole cameras. Yep, PRO photographers have used, are using, and will use these to create art.</p> <p>I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Here's another question for you. If you feel the need so strongly to talk down Sonys use as a pro camera are you also trumpeting on any other forums or boards about other cameras that aren't pro quality? We have a Minox forum on pnet. Maybe you should go there and explain to those guys why Minox simply isn't a pro camera. I'm sure those guys would love to hear you expound upon why their camera of choice isn't up to snuff for you.</p> <p>While your on your crusade, would you mind posting over on the GoPro forums about their lack of a Medium Format GoPro action camera? I know I would be very interested in one of those. Oh wait, the GoPro is probably not a professional camera in your book. We might have to petition them to take the Pro out of there product name. Hmmm...GoHobbyist? GoAmateur? No. Maybe GoGo? No, weird dancing reference with that one. Ah well...</p> <p>What I will admit on the PRO subject (and hopefully will prove to you I am not a secret Sony employee) is Sonys lack of a PRO <em>service</em>. If Sony wants to capture <em>more</em> of the professional market then they already have then a Pro level service such as Canon and Nikon have will be necessary. Time will tell if Sony chooses to go this route and commit more to the working professional.</p> <p>As for your comments on being a 'complete system', I cant explain that any more then I have Eric. The system is two years old. Two. Its only two years old. If you expect Sony to compete against Canon and Nikon who have supported their AF lens mounts for <em>almost 30 years</em> then you have unrealistic expectations.</p> <blockquote> <p> i will concede Sony is one of the most innovative companies right now in terms of pushing out new technology</p> </blockquote> <p>This I can agree with, and adds a reasoned counter point to some of the more negative way you choose to phrase things. And while I agree with this I will be the first to point out that no, their cameras aren't perfect by any means but they have pushed many barriers back which would still most likely be in place had they not. There are many things which they could have done better but when taken as whole the system is simply a marvel. I am also fortunate that I am able, as you say, to look past some of the shortcomings because they do not effect my photography directly.</p> <p>Personally I am ticked that Canon has not entered the mirrorless marketplace in a serious way. I am a lover of Canon gear (and service) and I wholeheartedly believe that if Canon choose to make a mirrorless FF camera to directly challenge the Sony line they would do quite well. But Canon is tied to the DSLR dinosaur and lacks the desire or ambition or foresight or whatever to invest in a new mount which would be required to seriously enter the mirrorless FF arena. I am fortunate in that my use of legacy lenses exclusively in my art means I am not tied to any one system. If someone produces a better tool then my current a7 then I simply buy that camera and get some new adapters. These cameras are simply digital backs for me. I realize though that not everyone has that luxury and needs a full line up of glass to suit their needs. Sony will eventually get there.</p> <p>All I can say at this point Eric is that I am sorry the Sony system isn't for you. But I ask that you can somehow understand there are artists and photographers who are using the system now and are quite happy with it. I'm not a rich guy, but I own an a7. I don't feel the need to replace it every year as you said above. I bought the camera because it was the tool I needed to create my vision. I use it for my personal work and to make some money on the side. I am not a full time pro but I do paid work. There are plenty of working photogs out there who use this and many other cameras for their work.</p> <p>Please feel free to view my work with legacy glass on the a7. It may change your mind, it may not.<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/</p>

<blockquote> <p>It might be worth mentioning, as a curiosity and a footnote to this worthy discussion, that there exists in the archives of every major news publication countless, excellent images of fast action sports, from Formula One to golf, captured with 100 or 400 speed slide film and manual focus lenses, that are the equal of most images taken today. I invite anyone to confirm this to their satisfaction.</p> </blockquote> <p>This. You are absolutely correct Karim. I tell people all the time that almost all of the great photos of the 20th century were taken on film with manual lenses. And those images are some of the best ever taken in the history of photography. In our modern and automated world people are to quick to forget these days that excitement, drive and creative vision can overcome any perceived 'gear' limitations. The great photographers of the past often times did much more, with much less.</p>

<p>Anthea, that first shot is stunning. Nice clarity with some gorgeous tones. I also love the delicate little silhouetted details by the stem, bottom leftish. Well done.</p>

<p>Congratulations Christopher. The a6000 is arguably one of the best apsc cameras on the market right now. And your are right, the price is obscenely low for such a capable, adaptable camera. As I said of NEX 7 many times, you now have a 24mp digital back for every lens ever made.</p> <p>I hope you enjoy it, and look forward to your photos from it on the Mirrorless Monday threads. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>I neglected to thank you David for your lengthy and poignant response. It helped me put things back into perspective. I was actually out shooting a little today (with one of my Sony's) and loving it!</p> </blockquote> <p>Excellent! And you are very welcomed George. :)</p>

<p>So I downloaded a 30 day trail of Capture One. I got it up and running but when I go to the import option and got the folder where my Sony .arw files are it doesn't show anything. There is nothing there to select. Then I went around to all my folders and I could not get Capture One to recognize any photo files at all.</p> <p>I'm sure its me, and I have overlooked something basic. Can anyone point out <em>exactly</em> which stupid hat I am wearing today?</p>

<blockquote> <p>funny how yall got bent out of shape over nothing</p> </blockquote> <p>I can assure you Eric, I'm not bent out of shape over anything. I actually exist in a zen like state of perpetual peace and calm as I contemplate the Koan of how Sony fit such a large sensor in such a small camera. Oommmmm..sooooooonny..oommmmmm....</p>

<p>vlad, excellent photos in your Sports folder. <em>Great Expectations</em> really stands out to me. A very powerful composition there. And I used to fence back in the day (epee though, not foil) so I really like all those. Especially <em>Danger Down Below</em>. Nicely done.</p>

<p>Louis, that first shot is really nicely done. Lots of detail and great colors.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5651/21524663513_898fe9a291_c.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Yeah I shoot architecture at 1.2 as well. Hi, my name is David and I'm a Wide Openaholic.....</p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5817/21463733124_e1d8fb7f93_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Yep, you guessed it. All shots this week on a7 and Canon FL 55/1.2 (again).</p> <p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/779/21522952704_ca9360275f_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>