hanhait: The photographer owns the camera and obviously controls what is published (or deleted) or not. If the camera-owner makes it public, he still hold some rights I would say. Whether the camera is accendentally dropped, or given to or taken by an animal, I would say these are still the camera-owners pictures. In borderline cases like this I would say the one who does not want the publishment wins.
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but AFAIK: The camera, memory card and thus the data are owned by Mr.X, but as the photos were taken by the monkey, the artwork is owned by the monkey, although it is stored on Mr.X's hardware.It's like what I have in my little teahouse: I own the wall, I own the compressor and colors, and some guy (artist) came and used that to airbrush a big picture on it. So technically I own the picture (as hardware) but the artist owns the artwork (the spiritual property/act), unless he explicitely gives it up to me.So yes, it is complicated.
Valiant Thor: As I observe people and society I am 100% convinced that the smartphone is the worst invention in the history of the world, bar NONE. It has turned a once observant and interactive society into pathetic, electronic addicted, anti-social zombies who walk around with their glazed empty eyes affixed to those crappy little LCD boxes glued to their hand, their thumb frantically pushing stupid little chicklets around the screen with the look of a meth addict on their face and mortal fear in their mind that they would accidently miss one non-essential, meaningless message from an emotionless fellow zombie doing the same thing. They roam the malls dressed in jackass attire of distasteful, offensive, or sports related t-shirts, baggy silk exercise pants, bright Nike clown shoes, tattoos, and all the while radiating themselves with dangerous levels of packet-data microwave energy. The corporate illuminati puppet-masters must be laughing their billionaire butts off. Other than that, nice phone!
Made my day ^.^
Wow, according to gsm arena, this one has got dual SIM. 350 is a bit high, but we'll see what will the street price be. Under 300 this could be a buy.
No more Flash?YAY! Take that Adobe!
At these prices ... suddenly even OM-D E-M1 looks like a bargain.Seriously ...
On my side, I've already took nice pictures of the Total Lunar eclipse in France back in 2007.
At that time I was using the Nikon D2X with A 300mm Nikon + TC14.. all (camera and lens) on double tripods..
Have a look at the results :
(sorry my comments are in french)
Richard from http://www.photoway.com/
Very nice, indeed :]
Hmm. This is quite unusual for a product made in Japan to have chemical issues with rubber (or plastic, or soft plastic) parts. These issues are usually reserved to cheapo Chinese copycat/original products. This is often visible on car dashboards made of soft plastic (or is it rubber?).But can happen to anybody of course.
Digitall: Ouch! Maybe Nikon will briefly report profits this year.
Made my day :D
CarVac: Is there a way to align the panning around the entrance pupil of a lens so that you can be free of parallax errors?
Like a panorama head?From the pictures (schematics), it looks like the PLUS version should be able to do that (look at the L shaped piece) - this should fix the pan. Not sure about the tilt movement though.
Is this a joke?1/2.3 and 30-60x zoom? That was maybe cool 5-10years ago.Why not give us rather double the sensor size and 1/3 of the zoom? it could fit into similar package. Nobody ever (ok maybe some exceptions can appear) needs more than 10-15x.This thing is big and still is a toy (okay the price is right, but stilll...).
ZOMG. XLRs on a mft camera. That's damn neat.Also the 60fps fullhd video is very tempting feature :]
qwertyasdf: DPR, go with the times!I just need to know which camera is best for selfies period
The question is: which camera comes first with duck-face detection for selfies :D
lylejk: The problem Lytro, indeed, all plenoptic cameras are they are too expensive and nearly useless other then for it's toy aspects. Until you can print images using this technology, the only folk that get any benifit maybe at all with the result are social media image sites and even there, it's limited. Give me a lytro that can print 8X10 @ 254 dpi and for under $400 that can run software in Windows or Linux, then I might byte (it's a digital world now). lolol
Well. Lytro isn't for printing anyway. It outputs nice web-sized pictured used for ... umm ... web.And eventually somebody will come with some sort of lenticular printing to have those 3d photos printed :]
Very nice camera. It is possible for it to replace my e-pl1 in most situations. The only think that scares me is the hump for viewfinder. I'd really love to see a new camera without it. But otherwise I see no negatives :)
Rockaw: I think that people are missing it when they complain about the $1399 price point. It's a bargain.
Ming Thein has a very interesting post that shows how the OM-D E-M1 is most correctly compared to the Nikon D4. Same resolution, similar build quality, similar focus speed and accuracy. The D4 has much better video modes, but seriously, nobody buys a D4 to shoot video anyway. It's a still machine.
He also proves that the 5 axis IS is better than anything that Canon or Nikon has done in the lens. His gallery of 1 and 2 second handheld images is pretty amazing.
I know there is a lot of love by the fanboys for FF sensors (I make my living with a 5D3 - so I'm not one of them) but from what I'm seeing, I could use the new E-M1 to replace 95% of the shots I make with the 5D3.
Here's the most telling comparison:http://j.mp/1aKr7Hm
@kbryd: I don't suppose you will find same materials in 'kit' lenses and high grade lenses. The special materials (like low dispersion glass, higt antireflex coatings, aspherical shapes ...) ARE expensive. For example I have paid EUR300 just for my two plastic lenses for my glasses (yes that's freak'n 150 per glass) - you can get both lenses for EUR50 if made from glass, even cheaper without antireflex, but optical quality won't be excellent.I've moved from my kit lens (40-150) to zuiko 50-200 and the difference if visible.
Thanks for the link. Really nice comparison. The M1 looks really superior to M5 in lots of photographic results. Although the price tag is quite tough (but justified). At least for me who doesn't make living out of it. Gotta see if oly comes with lite/mini version of M1, I'm still enjoying my e-pl1 until then :)