Charlie, you are a machine, way to go getting permission from these various photogs - thank you!
It's very helpful seeing samples from a wide range of photographers shooting various lenses... and it's helping me keep my power dry before picking up some alt glass for the new beast.
Uhoh wrote: You are welcome to your opinion. The thread view count would suggest not everyone agrees with you.
Which is not to say everyone agrees with you. But even if a lot of people agree with you, I want to bring this issue to argument since I think this is a very fundamental thing. Is FredMiranda.com allowed to be a containerplace for images from non-members all over the web, collected by one of us here, or are we going to keep it a community where members share their own photography and discuss about that with each other? And if we we don't, where is the borderline? Is it allowed to integrate alll kind of gear discussions from other websites into one singular thread here? If not so, why just for images and not for gear discussion.
No one is forcing you to monitor the thread.
That is always an easy statement to defend position. And indeed, I won't monitor threads like these. But I want to warn against this kind of posting since I find it fundamentally against the original spirit of this community. That is also why you get this "barrage of criticism" like another well respected member Philippe (Philber) mentions in one of the posts in this thread. I know he is on your side and defends the fact that the hunger for images for the A7/A7r is a good reason to collect images from over the web to here. I respectfully disagree that hunger for images is a license to do this anyway.
Many are very interested how the A7r works with various RF lenses. Very interested.
Of course, I do understand that, I am interested myself. But again that doesn't mean that every method and means to show images is allowable. The fact that you didn't have permission for the images to start with, was disrespectful and definitely illegal according to copyright ownership of the owners of the images. I know you asked for permission afterwards, but the fact that you didn't have permission upfront showed a kind of nonchalance and frivolity that I find hard to accept from FM members, especially since we recently all noticed the "poststamp incident" with pictures of one of our well respected members, Romy Ocon (Liquidstone), being used without consent.
Many of these shooters have now joined FM, which I invited them to do when asking permission to embed their photos.
Of course this seems to be a positive thing. But, are they really that many? Is this the way to recruit new members? And are these new members going to actively participate in the forum here? Or are most of them just glad they get some exposure for their photography plugged by some other member who is willing to promote them? What would have been easier for you than to ask those new members to subscribe and post these images themselves actively? Now your action is nothing more or less than the job DJ's at a radio station do and plug soundtracks of artists.
There are many threads here in which I have no interest. Nevertheless I refrain from telling those in the thread that they are not up to my idea of proper behavior--or whatever.
In general I don't either. Skip the thread, or skip the post, eventually hide a member whose posts you don't like, and go on. That's what a lot of members can and will do with this thread and these posts specifically. That doesn't refrain me from articulating my point of view. when I think the essentials of this community are at stake.
It's not my intention to do anything but share information about what many of are interested in: the first digital FF alternative to Leica ever.
For some reason that is very controversial.
You totally missed the controversy here. Some members who objected in posts above didn't even mention Leica or Sony. To me this is not about the controversy of Sony being a Leica alternative at all. This is for a part about copyright, about (business) ethics, about respect for the rights of a photographer, but most of all this is about a doubtful trendsetting behavior on our community. Do we allow FM threads becoming collector items of posts from non-members in bulk brought to here by FM subscribers or not? The original FM forum rules are clear enough in my opinion, rule number 7 clearly states: "posts with links to subscrition oriented sites are NOT allowed. This includes forums, reviews sites or any site displaying ads." Over the years FM moderators seem to have tolerated some kind of posts. Especially postings to a Flickr account, or other image storage service, from FM members themselves are a borderline posting type that seems to be allowed. I can fully understand that. But this thread is full of posts from non members. For me that is way beyond the borderline.
I'd also note that a nearly idenitcal thread at RFF has gained the support of Stephen Gandy, at Cameraquest.
Of course there are some members there who also are scandalized at all sorts of aspects of the Sony A7r, and me too.
I prefer this kind of indicators, so that members here can decide themselves to click away from FredMiranda and go there if they wish, rather than integrate content from over there to here. So why shouldn't we keep it like that for images as well?
tohara wrote:
MS Optical converted (m mount) Contax 38mm 2.8 from the Contax T2
So the lenses from high end film P&S's camera's can be converted (destroying the camera I assume)? Then I could convert the 28/2.8 lens from my Nikon 28ti. Like that lens a lot.
Judging by briantho's image above, the ZM Biogon 35/2 has an interesting rendering at f2; somewhat "waxy" quality, like the rendering of Polaroid color prints from the past. Nice.
