Arikd: More quirks:III When I put the camera in one of the custom modes - say C2 I set for 4K (these are modes you can pre-program to whatever you like, and are the only way to get fast switching between 4K ans stills mode!) the camera loads all settings and "runs over" any changes you made. So I get my camera ready in 4K, set gain, aperture, noise reduction, etc. then want to take a still, so I move to another custom mode - say C1 I prepared for stills - bang - all my settings are gone. Even when I go back to my "4K" C2 custom mode, I will get the original settings, not the ones I worked so hard to set.So I do it again... and then turn the camera off to save battery power until the show I'm shooting starts. When I start it up again - Bang - all the settings are gone again, but now the show starts... So I shoot with the wrong settings and get a crappy result. Thanks Panasonic.Yeh, I can save my settings. But it would have been easier if the camera asked before changing my settings.
Umm, duh! What do you expect it to do. You told the camera to save a certain block of settings as C2. That's exactly what it does. When you change to C2 you're telling it to use those settings. How is the camera suppose to know that LAST time those were the setting you wanted to use with C2, but THIS time you want it to ignore those settings and use different ones?
You comment that:
the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.
Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.
The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.
Just for the record, DPR, this phone does NOT have a "metal body." The rear is still plastic. The front is still plastic. The internal chassis to which all the electronics mount is still plastic. The only metal is the outside frame.
This is well documented, and yet to still can't be bothered to describe it accurately. Pretty sad job of reporting.
vFunct: It's amazing that so many of you amateur photographers are so clueless about copyright.
Copyright belongs to the creator. It does NOT belong to the camera owner, nor does it belong to the operator.
In many cases, photographers happen to be the owners as well as operators, but pro photographers often have assistants take the photos for them. These assistants do not own copyright. They don't even have contracts stating they don't own copyrights, because it is implied that they do not own copyrights.
In this case, the monkey is the assistant. The photographer is the creator, and therefore owns the copyright.
Also, equipment ownership does not imply copyright either. You can let someone borrow your camera and they get copyrights, as it's implied that they were the creator. You don't need a contract for this, either. I never signed a copyright transfer contract when I borrowed photo gear from my college photo school.
In this case, you can't legally give animals copyright.
It's amazing how little YOU know. Assistants don't own copyright only because they are working for the photographer. Hand your camera to some guy on the street, and his photographs are his. Just letting someone use your gear doesn't make them an assistant.
Valiant Thor: Wow, I'm glad I read the article. At first I thought they were White House Press Release photos.
Your racism is showing, thor.
Joe Mayer: I'm sure one of the "monkeys" grabbed his camera and accidentally took some photos. Well, it didn't take photos so much as inadvertently got in the way of the lens while triggering the shutter. While someone might want to personify this incident, I'd simply say the result is amusing (if true). As to who owns the copyright, if there is any, I can't say. Under normal circumstances, I hand my gear to my assistant and she shoots during a wedding day. I own the photos. But a camera unwillingly taken by a primate with pics taken accidentally? This is a head scratcher. They are (supposedly) the result of "nature". And they certainly don't look any different than what a photographer could have captured (at least the two in this article don't) so it's really the story giving the pic notoriety, not the other way around.
In your example, you own the photos because you have a contract for hire arrangement with the assistant. If you hand your camera to a bridesmaid, without prior arrangement, and she snaps a great picture of the bride, I don't think you can claim copyright just because the camera was yours.
Funduro: From Huffington Post article: He added that he believes Wikipedia editors, most of whom are volunteers, "have a communistic view of life."
"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas," Slater said of Wikipedia. "The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda."
He urged people to stop using Wikipedia. "It's important to tell people that Wikipedia should be not used as a source of truth," he said.____
I'm sort of speechless.
vfunct, if I set up a camera and hand it to you, and you take a picture, you own the copyright, not me. Period. Go read the law before you post anymore nonsense.
SxeHunKA77: I guess if my pet pit-bull mauls civilians, the authority can't hold me in breech of anything because all the actions are to be attributed to the dog, not me, then in that case the monkey has copyrights
Geez, I really wish people would try to learn something about the subject before posting nonsense. Your analogy of the pit bull has nothing to do with copyright law.
Prairie Pal: To further the argument that the monkey did not set up the camera and process the images; it also did not own the camera. When a monkey can walk into the store, ask for a specific camera and gear, pay for it with it's OWN money, charge the batteries, learn to use it and then snap a picture..I will concede that it owns the rights to the image. Wiki is only doing this because it has money to indulge itself in this kind of legal horse play.
Ownership of the equipment has nothing to do with copyright. Period.
If you grab my camera out of my bag and take a photo you own the rights to it, in spite of the fact that it was my equipment. Your argument is legally meaningless.
Bob Meyer: I always get a kick out of the comments at DPR.
There are those from obvious fan-people, unable to even acknowledge that another brand might offer any advantages at all, and come up with a multitude of ways to ignore obvious facts.
Then there are those who think that a camera is defined by one feature or measurement, be it sensor size, low light performance, AF speed, or something else. This group probably overlaps greatly with the fan-people.
And those who seem to understand that a camera is really a system, made up of many parts, but think that what's important to them in a system MUST be what's important to everyone else, so the opinion of anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong!
Sadly, the smallest group seems to be those who recognize that no camera system is perfect, all involve trade-offs, and what works best for you might not be best for me. That sort of worldview is in short supply, even among DPR staff, who always have to call one thing or another "the best."
I doubt that even Sony would say that low-light sensitivity is the only important thing about this camera. They might point to minor things like 4K recording ability, too.
And low-light sensitivity by itself wouldn't be worth anything if color accuracy sucked, AF was garbage, the EVF unusable, etc.
Get it? A camera is more than just one thing. Even one very important thing.
But at least we know which group you fall in.
I always get a kick out of the comments at DPR.
Bob Meyer: Wow. Nikon finally offers full HD recording. Maybe by 2024 they'll catch up to 4K?
My point, really, was that Nikon is bragging about implementing a capability that it's competitors have offered for quite some time. Bragging about full HD in 2014 is a bit over the top.
Mike FL: Per DPR, S1 has "...extensive use of plastics in their construction, including the mounts...".
Metal body but plastic mounts. now we know why Kodak went out of the business yeas ago...
Tedolf once again shows his completely lack of knowledge.
Budget in features and quality perhaps, but not so budget in price. Both Olympus and Panasonic offer better deals in m43.
And, unfortunately, the magic in the Kodak name has long since evaporated. No one took Kodak seriously as a camera manufacturer since the demise of the Instamatic. Even old folks won't buy a camera just because it says Kodak on the front.
Wow. Nikon finally offers full HD recording. Maybe by 2024 they'll catch up to 4K?
Absurd! The PTO should be abolished and started over. There is so much prior art here that this patent application should have bee rejected immediately.
You can get 16, and even 32GB versions of many Android phones for well under that. Apple is pulling at straws.
fakuryu: Well if Sigma did infringe on Nikon's IP when it comes to IS, then why not if there is a basis for it. At least Nikon is not pulling off an Apple by suing better phones because of the shape or color.
Mark, your admitted lack of knowledge of cell phones is showing. Apple was not the first to built a flat phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners. Palm (see Treo) did it long before. Palm also had a grid of icons as the user interface, just like Apple, but way before. Apple didn't invent multi-touch, either, even though they got a patent for it. The patent system is just broken: patents are granted for almost anything, no matter how trivial, and no matter how much prior art there is.
It would be more accurate to say "Want to remember short term? Don't take a photo." But test memories a year later, after I've reviewed the photos I took, and the non-photographers rely only on their minds, and I bet the results would be very different.
The study seems valid, but the conclusions being drawn overly broad.
I have to laugh at all the criticism of Adobe. If you don't like it, don't sign up. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
I have to laugh at those people who say it's "wrong," especially those who tell me what is good for me. It's neither right nor wrong. It's a business decision. If it generates more income for Adobe it's "right" for the company and it's shareholders. Adobe isn't in business to make you happy; it's in business to make money. And what's "right or wrong" for you doesn't matter to me; I'll make up my own mind, thank you.
The only real problem I have with this deal is that it's bait and switch. After 1 year Adobe jacks the price back up to their normal rate, anf you're screwed.