AlexisH: I wonder what they'll try after video? Sounds like no one wants the current tech for stills. And then I expect that video will not provide the resolution for professional use and that the amateurs won't have the time and interest to select focus themselves.
I've only rendered HD video, which is very taxing on my i7-4770k processor. So I can only imagine that Lytro video will be very demanding since it will have about 10x the data of conventional video.
M Jesper: I'm European, what's a 5lbs? ^.^
5 lbs is about 1/3 of a stone.
Maybe its more compelling for video shooters. But it seems a lot of video shooters want 4K. A 4K sensor is about 8 megapixels, so for Lytro to pull off 4K they need at least an 80 megapixel sensor.
Maybe they'll develop one? But then you're not just processing a 4K video stream ... but the equivalent of a 40k video stream (all that "light field" data). You're going to need some serious bandwidth, storage, and a computer upgrade...
HowaboutRAW: In 1974, maybe '75, IBM released it's first PC at a cost of something like $50,000, in mid70s dollars. (Irony the PC was at least assembled in Seattle.)
1981, different story.
Look what happened within 20 years to the PC market, and the usefulness of PCs. Every computer development for broad public use that has occured between 1995 and 2015 was well predicted in 1995 by anyone paying attention to computers.
Contrast 1975: Almost none of what came to pass in computers in the next 20 years upto 1995 was being predicted--even by people paying attention to computers. Maybe digital audio. Even into the early 1980s physicists who wanted to demonstrate a new program, software, they'd worked on at a conference would often travel to the conference with the program recorded on punch cards. That's cardboard.
No the Lytro is not likely to be as radical a change to photography as the broad use of a computer, but the nay-sayers here sure sound like many talking about computers in the 1970s.
You shouldn't have to tell stories or belittle doubters if Lytro was so compelling. I could tell another story about how most new businesses fail and most inventions never succeed as a viable product, but that’s irrelevant too. We can only judge the Lytro based on the Lytro technology.Lytro is not a broad category like PCs. It’s a specific camera technology that accomplishes a single specific task. It takes a 40 MP sensor (the current example) and adds patented microlenses to capture direction data. That's it. Lytro is just the microlenses and associated software. The huge downside is that for any given focal plane, you're only using 10% of the sensor data. So it outputs 4 MP photos.
For any given sensor, remove Lytro's microlenses and you get 10x the detail. It seems that most photographers prefer more detail over being able to adjust focus after the fact.
*That* is the reality of Lytro, not a story about people who doubted PCs.
filmrescue: What I've always thought about Lytro cameras for photography...."Well that's really cool but I kind of know what I want in focus when I take the picture - most people do". Hope they have better luck with video...it actually makes a lot more sense. Focus pulling in post would be really useful.
Even for the very first hockey game I shot, most of my images were in focus. I missed a lot of plays, but I certainly didn't miss the game.
My major problems were to do with exposure settings with the ice. By the end of the game I had learned a lot: from exposure settings, panning/tracking subjects, to not missing plays because I was lost in the viewfinder. Lytro doesn't solve those problems. If I wasn't able to problem solve, I would have missed the entire game, and every game that followed. Improving my focus techniques was just one small part of my overall improvement.
Switching to a system where 90% of the sensor data is in a "light field" and only 10% ends up on any given photograph is not a desirable solution to any problem I have.
It sounds like one of those late night infomercials: have trouble using a blanket, get a Snuggie! Can't take an in focus shot, get a Lytro! No thanks, I'll figure both out myself.
If I miss focus, then I review the problem and see where I need to improve for next time. This usually involves different exposure settings and technique.
What I don't do is give up trying to improve and switch to a system that uses a 40 MP sensor to produce a 4 MP image. I'd rather have a few great 40 MP shots than trade all that information for an adjustable "light field" image that only outputs 4 MP.
If I was OK with 4 MP, I'd just use a point and shoot, where most of everything will be in focus anyway.
Francis Sawyer: Canon is so far out in the weeds, it's pathetic.
Still no intervalometers in their cameras (a simple, essentially free feature that every modern camera should have). Their lenses still have shitty servo rings instead of real mechanical focusing action.
They don't even have a reasonable 35mm lens. They have two overpriced boondoggles with IS systems in them. At 35mm? Really?
It's as if no one over there knows anything about photography OR video.
The 5Ds and 5Dr have an intervalometer.
The 35/1.4L lens doesn't have IS.
IS is useful at all focal lengths when shooting video or handheld shots in low light.
Jogger: Sony A6000 looks best to me, esp. RAW and fine detail.
Keep in mind that the A6000 shots were taken with the rather excellent FE 55/1.8, which is significantly sharper than the EF 50/1.4 used for the 7Dii shots.
mpgxsvcd: Why would the camera choose 1/400 shutter duration in aperture priority mode in low light? That just doesn’t make any sense. 1/120 or perhaps even 1/60 would work just fine for this scene with no movement. Was this with Auto ISO or a manually set ISO?
My guess is a manually set ISO. The purposes of these photos is not to win a contest, but to show images at various settings and conditions.
jorg14: Did I miss something but with touting all the manual controls, where is the PASM.. knob?
There's on "A" (auto) setting on the shutter and aperture dials. Put one or both on "A" to select your desired auto mode.
Greg Pavlov: I would really like to understand this: why the 5-6 articles about this "pocketable" camera "with a "large" sensor when during the same show Panasonic released a camera (DMC-GM5) that is smaller, has a larger sensor, includes a built-in viewfinder and accommodates multiple lenses? Compared to that, why is this Canon "One of the exciting new cameras here at Photokina?"
Because this is a truly pocketable camera that, with its different feature set, is a real alternative to the RX100. The G7x and RX100 are the only two cameras in their class, so its still a new and exiting topic of discussion.
The GM5 on the other hand is not comfortably pocketable. You could take the lens off and stick the lens and body in separate pockets, but that's not really convenient. It basically just another iteration of your typical m43 camera. Its a perfectly fine camera, but there's just less interest in it. Nothing to get to worked up over (or "innovative" as so many say) just like each year's new Rebel from Canon.
My LX5 fits into a large pocket and from the published specs it appears the G7X is just a hair smaller.
On the other hand, the LX100 appears to be massive (in comparison). For the size and price of a LX100, why wouldn't I just get a proper M43 camera? If I'm going to have a camera strap over a shoulder, I'll just bring a full-sized camera.
califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'
This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.
The copyright office says that photos taken by monkeys (or any other animal) cannot be registered. The office considers this photo as being taken by the monkey.
Whether you call the monkey an "author" is just semantics, because they key thing is that photos taken by monkeys cannot be registered.
If you prefer, you can consider there to be "no author" and therefore no copyright.
The copyright office considers the monkey to be the author therefore the work cannot be registered.... the end. There is no concept in copyright law that says the right "falls" to the next associated human.
Kipplemaster: The fact that the copyright office say they will not register copyright to an animal does not mean they are taking Wikimedia's side, it just means they will only register copyright to a human being, which I would have thought was blindingly obvious. It supports the photographer's case if anything.
I should mention, unlike the other 1465 people who have commented seemingly thinking that common sense is the same thing as the law, that I am not qualified to advise on this (I am a qualified lawyer in the UK but not a copyright lawyer).
They said they will not register a photo taken by an animal and specifically referenced photos taken by monkeys. That means they will not register it to ANYONE (animal or human). So according to the US copyright office, anyone in the USA can copy the monkey selfie, including Wikimedia (a US registered website).
Digital Mike0697: My thoughts on this subject would be that Zoo owns the pictures not the photographer. Why I say this is because they owns the primate, the photos where taken on private property and the list goes on.
Yes the photographer owns the camera, but my impression on the copyright laws, you have to physically taken the photos yourself not anyone else or in this case a animal (primate). True the photographer may have setup the camera to take pictures, but in this situation the Zoo owns images.
I have a question, If the photographer owns the rights pictures, should he/ she ask the Zoo to sign a modeling release and will the Zoo be compensated to allow the photographer to make money off of images?
The issue is whether Slater's input meets the legal concept known as the "threshold of originality". When it comes to US law (Wikimedia is a US company), its never been ruled whether things like security cameras, web cams, or camera traps meet that requirement. When it comes to security cameras, the general opinion in the US seems to be that they are not covered by copyright because there is no creative input. So if you set a camera out and let nature take its course, its currently a legal grey area whether you own the copyright.
If this goes to court, the ruling will create a precedent for future cases.
Its not the pushing of the shutter button, but the claim of authorship. Claiming authorship requires a minimum level of creative expression:
"a photograph [etc] must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression.... original photographic composition capable of supporting registration may include such elements as time and light exposure, camera angle or perspective achieved, deployment of light and shadow from natural or artificial light sources, and the arrangement or disposition of persons, scenery, or other subjects depicted in the photograph"
Nobody at the zoo can claim to have controlled any of the above factors, so they have no claim of authorship. The monkey is an animal and has no claim of authorship. Slater has some claim (he set the exposure and selected the lens), but whether its enough will have to ruled upon by a judge.
VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.
How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?
" Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?"
Its either Slater's or nobody's.
"SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?"
The monkey is an animal and therefore an animal took the photo. So it can be argued that the copyright practice you quoted explicitly states creative works by animals cannot be copyrighted.
If Slater gives me his camera and says "take a selfie" and I comply, *I* own the photo. The fact it was his idea is irrelevant. The fact it's his camera is irrelevant. The fact he handed the camera to me is irrelevant. The fact I'm using his camera settings is irrelevant. The fact he might have spent weeks pretending to be my friend is irrelevant. The only issue is that I'm the author and I'm human therefore the copyright belongs to me.
Now substitute me with a monkey and its reasonable to argue that the author is the monkey, which is an animal, therefore there's no copyright per the copyright practice you quoted.
120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.
Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.
What you are describing is work for hire. A work made for hire belongs to the person who ordered the work created. But this only applies in two cases:
1) If your employees produce something under your employ, then you own everything they make regardless of whether its your concept or not. Everything is assumed to be work for hire unless otherwise specified in writing.
2) If you give a concept to contractor or freelancer and they produce something based on that idea, *they* own the resulting copyright unless they agreed in writing to work for hire. If they make a sculpture for you according to your specifications, you'd own the statue, but they'd retain the copyright unless they agreed to work for hire.
The photographer can't claim the monkeys as employees or contractors who agreed to work for hire, so it doesn't apply.
The question is the authorship: the photographer or nature. A judge will have to interpret the law to the best of his abilities and make a decision.
drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
I'll need to see a signed statement from the monkey saying he was acting as an assistant, otherwise you're just assuming the monkey relinquished creative control over his photos....