This greedy laws and abusive copyright rules make me thing of St Ivo of Kermartin aka St Yves, patron saint of advocates.
But the best might be that you read this story where he made a sound pay for a smelling: http://tinyurl.com/opem9r8
A parable to remember.
GuyMcKie: Ridiculous. The copyright of a building should be on the architectural design and construction. Not in a visual image. It is as if it would be forbidden to write about a musical composition. Copyrights are also limited in time. Most of the buildings in a city are too old to fall under the copyright laws. And should we pay every time we come out soon. We cannot avoid these public buildings to come in our sight.
The next Google Glasses function I guess: the UCE it's to say the "Ultimate Copyrighted items Eraser". Beware manholes won't ever be copyrighted material too, in this Mad World: https://youtu.be/u1ZvPSpLxCg
newe: Lol...Greece is better off on its own. Europe...bah!
Probably, and that's why european bureaucrats and politicians are so scared, they are frightened to the death that Greece who make it much better without U.E showing by that its biggest problem was that prison-like union. Once the proof would have been made, other countries would walk for their own freedom and this would be the end of the super-well paid european fat-cats jobs. What a nightmare, brothers !
W4YNE 1: Stupid idiots, people are dying in countries around the World and these idiots have nothing better to do than discuss what you can or can't take scenic pictures of.
Would I vote to leavre Europe? true right I would, I am sick of being told what to do by Brussels.
You're right, but starving poors are not solvent while camera owners are. Why do rich people would care making laws that make them earn nothing whereas they can spend all their time making laws that can make them fatter ?
I would like camera makers to include in the software of their picture processors a function 'no-trouble' which would automatically paint in black 100% every copyrighted item recognized in any landscape. Let's just imagine your nice photographs ! It would be so dark & gothic with all these pitch black silhouettes !
paulbysea: For a photography site dpreview has been a bit slow off the mark about this significant issue for Europe. I guess it is because since Amazon took over it has become more USA focused. I signed a petition about this a while back and I expect members of this site will have done so as well.
I did too and shared the link to the petition on my Facebook page. At least, people won't be able to cry and claim they did not know once this offending order will be ready to be enforced !
D1N0: jpegs are mainly used on the web. Compatibility is the magic word. When a large percentage of your audience can't view the image because their browser doesn't supported it, it will not be used, no matter how good it is.
To Pritzl who wrote "The anals of technology are replete with "better" tech [...]"Are you sure this issue deals with anal tech ? By Jove ! Dpreview is undoubtedly an adult-only oriented site these days...
PedroMZ: Sad to say that in France((where it all started) these spontaneous photos are legally no longer possible.I gather the same is now true in Budapest. How long before it applies everywhere? That will just leave us with landscapes that have been copied a million times and macro,oh and of course Selfies! Hence the emphasis on phone cameras which nobody in the street takes any notice of.
How stupid is your comment, RoelHendrickx ! Law is not a question of "did" or "did not". Please don't masturbate too much in public with the opinion about your own "good attitude". I took a lot of pictures myself in "forbidden places". THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION.
Is it too hard for your poor little brain to differenciate the problem of laws that can be inforced from the childish "I did it so it"s possible" ? There are places, people, buildings and places you are not allowed to photograph, but you always can try. Usually there is no problem but occasionally there can be legal issues. Oh my ! I'd better stop here as I figure you can't understand some nuances...
In fact, Casio's first "golf oriented cameras" started in... 2009 ! The EX FS-10 model for instance already provided golf players a nice device to help them improve their swing, nothing really new in this piece of news.
Besides, fact-checking is not that hard: http://tinyurl.com/pm8bdte
It looks promising and the first samples are not bad at all. If one can mount an Olympus or a Panasonic lens on this body, it could be a hit. Something has to be clarified though: the sensor is said to be a Cmos BSI... No typo included ?
Besides, we have to get some more samples particulary in reasonably high ISO (800-6400) and to test this camera IBIS to know whether the camera can really compete against japanese products.If it was the case, it would be a little revolution, although I suspect most of the important technologies integrated in this Kodak body are more or less of japanese origin. Am I wrong ?
And you know what ? The user guide is already on line: http://kodakcamera.jkiltd.com/docs/manuals/s-1-manual-en.pdf
Maybe a good business idea: after the trend of making retro-looks for the bodies, why not producing lenses that look like antique cameras ? Hey, Fujifilm, can you hear me ?
Jogger: Ive had a Surface Pro since day 1 and its the best laptop/tablet out there. Those with iPads.. have fun letting Apple/NSA spy on your every move and the walled-off ecosystem... hint, its a millstone, not a feature.
While martindesu's message was for Vladik, may I answer for my part ? I do have a webcam integrated to my computer - like almost everybody nowadays - BUT the lens is always covered.
That being said, I assume Vladik's message was ironic because everybody has something to hide, at least their own body if they are not used to websexcaming like mads (and even websexcamers themselves don't want to be spyed nor discovered without any make up on).
LarryK: As many bags as I bought from Tamrac, I figured they be set for life.
I like their big semi hard storage cases.
At least he did not say "because size matters". How old are you, guys ?!!
To Jogger: Oh, my ! People have such a short memory ! Don't you remember the existence of the so-(in)famous "Magic Lantern" ? If not, here is a little reminder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_%28software%29
RichRMA: What does the "Pro" stand for?
Or for Peter Richard, Organist (cf: http://tinyurl.com/otlktng )
WilliamJ: Funnily, I've just bought a new laptop today. And guess what ? It's that new machine's diametric opposite. How one can reasonably do serious photo processing on such a little screen (12" !). How about the heat after some hours of work (can one work with it more than 30mn before getting an eye ache anyway) ? Is that computer cooled by super-compact liquid nitrogen cells ? 8GB of RAM at best ? Humm, ok for little files like a bunch of standard jpeg, but I'm not sure it can be enough for a large group of big Tiff to be displayed and worked on. And I even don't speak about the keyboard that seems not so effective for a "super" fast typing. I feel that Microsoft desperately have been trying for some times now to drag us from serious computers to "light and fun" machines. What a weird trend !
To the ones who have answered what I've written: I would not have talked as I did if something didn't led me to, a thing like:
"According to Microsoft, the new model is designed to be a replacement for both your iPad and laptop."
If you had both well read this pretentious and ridiculous ambition, would you have still written what you did or not ?
So who need to learn to read... and to think any further ?
That said, I perfectly know there are different needs, and for some of us, there is a need to have a compact and as-light-as-possible computer to sort out, display, and manipulate a little their photo files on the set. That being said, I still consider a screen that small, a RAM that skimpy and a non-vigorously cooled system as not ideal for post-processing. It's better than nothing but for most of us who are not compelled to rely on such a system to deal with our thousands of photo files, a good old laptop will still be the best tool of the two.
WilliamJ: Pretty decent camera as it seems - thanks for the samples by the way - but 120mm is too short for me. I owned a Canon G10 that I really loved but at 140mm it was too short too (and even not that wide with a 28mm against the Nikon's 24mm). Too bad. At least, camera makers should provide some tele-converter (as Canon did, like the TC-DC58D, but too late for me) to make their gear more versatile. High quality as long as it's possible, but more adaptability when needed.
Red flag for this camera (in my opinion): its grip which is really too thin and unreliable for me. What's wrong with Nikon recently, do they have a grudge against grips ?
Right, but a camera can be pocketable without having to be slippy like a soap. Beside my big DSLR, I use a little camera (Fujifilm F900 EXR) which is both really pocketable, and genuinely capable. As for the newest Canon pocketable camera (Canon PowerShot SX700 HS) it features a little grip that looks like a brother like the Fujifilm's one, proof it's needed and feasible.
Wye Photography: Right Americans, although these pictures are all in fact in England, it is a country which is part of a union and collectively called Britain or the United Kingdom (that may change this September). Most English people (and a good deal of other people from the other nations in the union) prefer to use the term 'British'. I am Welsh but also British and prefer the term British.
As it was 1939 the term "Great Britain in colour" (even spelled that wrong) would have been more appropriate. The English are much more unionised than Welsh and Scottish nationalists.
If it wasn't for Bloody Napoleon you Americans would still be where you belong, and that is under the British crown (NOT an English one)
Rant over, cat among pigeons.
AMAZING PHOTOGRAPHS. I say, just LOVE the jalopy in pictures 1 and 23.
Long live the King!
Bien dit ! (well said)
Funnily, I've just bought a new laptop today. And guess what ? It's that new machine's diametric opposite. How one can reasonably do serious photo processing on such a little screen (12" !). How about the heat after some hours of work (can one work with it more than 30mn before getting an eye ache anyway) ? Is that computer cooled by super-compact liquid nitrogen cells ? 8GB of RAM at best ? Humm, ok for little files like a bunch of standard jpeg, but I'm not sure it can be enough for a large group of big Tiff to be displayed and worked on. And I even don't speak about the keyboard that seems not so effective for a "super" fast typing. I feel that Microsoft desperately have been trying for some times now to drag us from serious computers to "light and fun" machines. What a weird trend !