Zane Yau wrote:
Anyone know the price of 400D, I think it's due to be released tomorrow in shops??
Quality Cameras in Perth has silver models with kit lens for $1499 sold out of his 1st shipment of black ones already
Dirtcheap with kit lens is $1352 without $1171 and these guys are usually a bit dearer than the rest. I brought my 300D from here (seems like a million years ago now ) not sure though if it was gray market stuff or not did not know the differnce back then anyway
So therefore will they be less than $900 on Ebay
Bring on the first sub $500 DLSR
Edited by hydrotoast on Sep 07, 2006 at 07:39 AM GMT
Edited by hydrotoast on Sep 07, 2006 at 07:41 AM GMT
I looked at one today it teds. They only two though. They wouldn't sell it to until tomorrow so i put $200 down and asked them to charge a couple of battries for me. So I just have to wait till tomorrow morning to pick it up. Seems that supply is pretty low though. I know JB hifi have some too.
BE CAREFUL who you photograph - you could be assaulted. Or at least be ordered to hand over $5.
Jodie is a Melbourne photographer with an attractive folio of work who spotted a chap sitting on the steps at Flinders Street Station, so she snapped him. She was startled by his reaction. "He came over and said that I had to give him $5 for the picture I just took of him," she says. "I told him I didn't have $5 and things started to get slightly ugly. He then told me to give him the film. When I told him it was digital he got more pissed and I deleted the photo - well one of them - in front of him.
"I (moved) away and he started abusing me with all kinds of insults, telling me he would smash my camera in my face."
Jodie escaped but was faced with a dilemma: should she upload the photograph to her Flickr website? She did, but with the reluctant subject's face blacked out (http://flickr.com/photos/sheriffofnothing/193306127). Now she wants to know if she did the wrong thing.
You might say that $5 is a reasonable fee to pay a model. You wouldn't get Megan Gale for five bucks. But perhaps paying an angry person in this situation is tantamount to admitting that you have done something wrong.
We have explored the legalities of street photography in the past but this is more an issue of ethics and etiquette. Should photographers always ask before snapping just because it is polite? Or does that destroy the spontaneity? Many of the greatest photographs ever taken are of unsuspecting subjects.
But another issue arises in the context of discussing Jodie's picture, and that is to do with the pornography of poverty. This is a term coined to damn aid agencies that use photographs of misery to boost their fund-raising efforts or to describe the tourist in India who takes pictures of crippled beggars because they are so "colourful and exotic".
Marshall McLuhan called the photograph "the brothel without walls" - the most voyeuristic medium of them all. But while we understand erotic voyeurism, it is not so easy to understand the appeal of poverty as a fit subject for photography.
The simplest explanation is that seeing photographs of paupers excites schadenfreude - smug pleasure in the misfortune of others. Or perhaps pity. But these explanations don't stand up to scrutiny. Schadenfreude is the intense pleasure you feel when you see two Mercedes collide. And pity does not attract - it repels.
The poverty-as-art photograph is always a picture of a stranger. It is unthinkable that we should photograph someone we know in misery. Occasionally a photographer breaks through the anonymity and forces us to get to know the subject, as Eugene Smith did with his photographs of the Minamata victims - the people poisoned by mercury in their environment, above. Smith's photographs are both great art and a compelling document. He crossed the line from observer to participant and was severely beaten by thugs hired by the offending company. But this does not describe the tourist photographs of the beggars in India. As McLuhan says, this type of photography turns people into things.
Smith told his students: "Humanity is worth more than a picture of humanity that serves no purpose other than exploitation."
The Imaging rule is this: it's OK to take a spontaneous photograph of any person who looks as though they would be able to take a picture of us in another time and place. We draw the line at snapping people who look as though they will never be able to scrape together enough money to buy a camera.
Jodie did the right thing. She agonised over the rights and wrongs. She was not indifferent to the implications of what she was doing.
i have in Vietnam... went to a village, i had to buy stuff from local girls in order to photograph them. Nicole spent about $7AUD, bought pillow cases, bracelets and stuff from the girls and I had about 10 girls to photograph, but it wasn't a direct cash transaction.
Also paid about 50 cents cash to an old lady to get a few portraits
Never done that in OZ... maybe I don't want someone to come to me, pay me 2 bucks and ask me for a portrait heheheh
