cknapp61: I NEVER understand reporters and their line of questioning, as when Obama said he wants to "fundamentally transform America" no one follows up with the obvious question..."Transform the greatest nation on Earth into WHAT EXACTLY?"
Likewise, the question about the D300S (D300) replacement should have been worded in a manner to elicit a response such as "Why has Nikon failed to deliver a follow-up to the most successful, professional build quality DX camera in your lineup, which obviously helped amateurs capture great images and perhaps was a stepping stone to Full Frame, after 6 years, namely the D300/D300S?".
The other question that went unasked is "Why has Nikon failed, after nearly 15 years of DX format, to deliver fast prime Wide Angle lenses and Fast Wide Angle Zoom (wide being defined as in the 15-30mm FF equivalent), as well as other lenseas which Nikon DX photographers are relegated to going to 3rd party vendors to acquire?".
Omit the first paragraph. Omit "Likewise," from the second paragraph.
Editing for photography website posting accomplished.
kevinschoenmakers: Casio, just give up already. This businessplan is dying.
If Casio had made a large sensor compact like Canon did, I would be with you. As it is they made another piece of crappity crap crapola.
vFunct: Wow these are very interesting... really shows the potential of the new format.
The potential for unlimited suckage.
maddogmd11: Interesting. While I don't expect the ACLU to state them there are reasonable limits also; which a photographer should understand. If I am in a public park and start photographing children, while totally legal, it is only reasonable to anticipate that some parent may take exception to having their kids photographed.
The same is true at some other public venues. If I decided I wanted to camp out and take lots of shots of a nuclear plant I would HOPE that someone would at least question why.
Lastly they do not address the commercial use of photographs of people which falls under different rules even if taken in a public place.
In short I think it is great for photographers to know what their Legal rights are. They should also understand that sometimes legitimate questions can and in fact should be asked and they should not be offended or surprised.
As we all know that is what pederasts do daily: they go to parks and take pictures of children. And when you photograph children you take their souls away so the parent should be justifiably upset. While taking pictures of adult women and men at a park is OK. Their parents do not need to be upset and take exception. It is after all the 91st commandment : Thou shalt not make images of your neighbors progeny. Any photographer who has the impulse to take a picture of anyone's kid is definitely suspect. I propose they be stoned.
It has also been conclusively shown to be true that before ALL terrorist attacks and especially those that have occurred on nuclear plants and military installations the terrorists went in with their Gitzo tripods and 2-3 D3X bodies and took 3x64GB worth of Sandisk Extreme shots of the locations. Then they printed them mural size at a boutique printing house and examined them in minute detail to decide where to strike while complaining a bit about noise.