little OT
isn't it better cheaper to convert the lens to EF?
the body costs ~1800€ more than a 5D in good condition.
anyway,
i'm curious about this thread ....
reinhard
I'm curious as to what they are currently selling for. I sold mine about 3-4 years ago.
Not sure how many images I can dig out, but I still have this one on the server. N 50/1.4: http://boncratious.com/images/JapaneseMapleLeaves2.jpg
Paul, why shoot the backside of people? Do you really find the first two photos interesting at all. I find them extremely boring.
You live in NYC right? You should be able to get a lot better frames that these.
NYC is one of the greatest places on earth...
Maybe you can find some inspiration here: http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/
Nevermind the use of EF lenses.
The kissing couple and the statue in the last frame are somewhat interesting. The rest of your frames are not my cup of tea. With the superb equipment I know you have you should be able to perform better than this. Please, no more backsides of people and no more benches.
Interesting video. Hiowever, he doesn't really do what most people consider to be "street photography". He is merely posing people he finds on the street to report on a fashion look.
Interestingly, At a point near the end of the video, he is shown standing by a hand ball court. I once did some shooting at the exact spot and the one of the hand ball players came up to me and in no uncertain terms took exception to my activity.
It just reminds me of the huge waste of potential and how idiotic it was from Kyocera to drop out of the business. I would imagine 90% of the Zeiss lens owners on this forum could have been shooting now with a 24MP Contax ND mark IV
edwardkaraa wrote:
It just reminds me of the huge waste of potential and how idiotic it was from Kyocera to drop out of the business. I would imagine 90% of the Zeiss lens owners on this forum could have been shooting now with a 24MP Contax ND mark IV
Maybe. I imagine that the only way they could have made a profit with FF cameras would have been to make them very expensive and targeted for studio and some other fine art work (landscapes), à la Canon 1Ds with ~$6500 price tag or something like that. Maybe they were afraid of being beaten by the giant(s) Canon (and Nikon) with their much bigger R&D budgets and production capacity?
@Paul: I really like that last shot! Nice angle and tones.
AhamB wrote:
Maybe. I imagine that the only way they could have made a profit with FF cameras would have been to make them very expensive and targeted for studio and some other fine art work (landscapes), à la Canon 1Ds with ~$6500 price tag or something like that. Maybe they were afraid of being beaten by the giant(s) Canon (and Nikon) with their much bigger R&D budgets and production capacity?
@Paul: I really like that last shot! Nice angle and tones.
Don't forget that Contax were the first manufacturer to introduce a FF 35mm DSLR. Had they continued with an improved ND2 that had all the bugs fixed, I am not sure if Canon's market position of today would be as it is. Prior to the digital revolution, Nikon had the number 1 position, and Canon was able to attract photographers who shot from all kind of other brands, only because it offered FF, and despite the lousy lens QC and other problems.
Paul Yi wrote:
Most of my street pictures are taken during my 15 minute walks to work in the morning...
I don't have time to approach people for getting consents....
Also, I find street snap more natural when people are not aware of camera pointing at them....
I am sorry that they are not your cup of tea.....
Maybe I was beeing hard on your photos but I am doing it because I think you have potential. Go closer and face your victims. If you have 15 minutes a day to shoot, concentrate on getting one good shot each day.
AhamB wrote:
Maybe. I imagine that the only way they could have made a profit with FF cameras would have been to make them very expensive and targeted for studio and some other fine art work (landscapes), à la Canon 1Ds with ~$6500 price tag or something like that. Maybe they were afraid of being beaten by the giant(s) Canon (and Nikon) with their much bigger R&D budgets and production capacity?
Well, for the record, Kyocera is about 50% bigger overall than Nikon, and a little less than half the size of Canon. If Kyocera wanted to invest in digital imaging R&D they could have put competitive amount into research, and without a doubt they had the technological and research capacity to make a very good run of it. The ability of Kyocera to invest in the digital market was not the issue.
Rather than fear of competition, the nature of the partnership with Zeiss was probably the drving issue. First, Kyocera was not happy with the relationship and not happy having to meet Zeiss very restrictive standards and requirements. Second, the way the realized benefits of their R&D would potentially disproportionately benefit Zeiss (speculation, based on possible contractual terms), they could have determined that it did not make sense for them to move forward.
Anden wrote:
Maybe I was beeing hard on your photos but I am doing it because I think you have potential. Go closer and face your victims. If you have 15 minutes a day to shoot, concentrate on getting one good shot each day.
Sounds a little like "I am only beating you because I love you"
FWIW, I agree, Paul. I like your shots very much in general, but I think that with people, and possibly location, you would benefit from pushing yourself harder in some chosen direction. You appear to working within a comfort zone.
Well, I don't think Anden or I are saying to just snap away without feeling for how people might react. You can still make eye contact or make the photo slowly to give people time to react first. If someone gets upset, always offer to show them and delete the shot, but if you have done part 1 right, you won't need to.
