skyfotos: In days of yore - unless commissioned - copyright is vested with the photographer if he/she purchased, and therefor owned, the film on which the image was made. The same should surely apply to the owner of the sensor!
Do not confuse ownership with creativity or artistry, they are not mutually inclusive in all circumstances but can exist independently of each other.
Copyright is not dependent on artistic merit or any other subjective assessment. It is the right of the author in his work. In some instances the commissioner of the work also has rights to the work or the rights may be sold to him/her. By paying the booth you are comissioning work. Original post qualified "unless commissioned".
A photo taken in a passport booth is a commission.
In days of yore - unless commissioned - copyright is vested with the photographer if he/she purchased, and therefor owned, the film on which the image was made. The same should surely apply to the owner of the sensor!
rocklobster: Doesn't the Sony R1 qualify - the first mirrorless APS-C camera with 5X zoom?
The styling was also fairly unique - not like a DSLR or a superzoom.
What about the Porsche designed fuji 2800(I think) which, with variations was an early, if not the first, digital Leica.
It does have an "X" in it's name so at least it is in fashion!
Sharpness is a subjective assessment (i.e. racking a lens in and out of focus and judging when it seems to be sharpest). Resolution is an objective measurement and free from subjective assessment.
Why does the camera dubbed " the best invention of the year" not have a viewfinder?
Thanks alfredlopez, As I still use Lighroom 3.6, not having upgraded from Windows XP, I am not able to say - but from many posts it still seems that no RAW processor, including LR4, gives optimum results. However those processing RAW in camera are pleased with the results. I too find these results good but do find the procedure tedious.
will it process x10 12Mp RAF files?
Ben Raven: This release statement is tuned by the Fuji Legal Swat Team to allow as much escape and wiggle room as possible for any and all liability issues,and importantly in their culture to SAVE FACE.
Sounding more like a normal announcement of a new sensor advance than any answer to foisting a known-to-be-defective sensor, note it does not really make any PRECISE commitment.They talk not of a fix, but of "being happy to provide this improvement".Really, Fuji, REEAALLY ?!
A principle of consumer law is what a buyer can reasonably expect as to the performance of a device.Certainly, when buying a CAMERA, a consumer can reasonably expect it to be able to take pictures, THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE CAMERA EVER MADE COULD TAKE !
As someone with a close friend with an X10, with the new "Orb Feature", I hope that Fuji will do the right thing and, without further finagling of the sensor bagel, replace them FREE, if only for their reputation and sales.We will all see what they do, and take note
I am sure that you are an expert on consumer law but you don't seem to know much about cameras and photography.
gogo2: I can't help to read the article and summarize it as Fuji saying high quality image sensor causing the orb. So Fuji will reduce image quality from new sensor to fix the orb.
Does this means the new sensor will be bad IQ?
And you are dead boring!
"We will also develop a modified sensor, which will more universally resolve the ‘white disc’ blooming effect in all modes. We are working hard to make this new sensor available from late May 2012.We encourage any customer with an X10 and X-S1 who has experienced the ‘white disc’ phenomenon to call their local authorized Fujifilm service centre.
Fujifilm is committed to delivering the highest quality products to the photographic community, and is happy to provide this improvement."
Good on them! The sensors WILL be replaced in May when service centres expect to get them. Fuji confirmed this to me today. This is a major recall and is what we might expect from from major companies who provide quality consumer goods. This action is complied with by consumers when life-threatening faults are found in products such as motor cars and electrical goods - for pity's sake this is a camera!
skyfotos: I have long suspected that there was a variation between cameras. I have used my x10 extensively for three months now and have not really experienced the white discs. I did try to create them and succeeded only in in producing overly large blown out highlights which were not unduly unsightly - I guess they would have blown out on any camera. Shots taken in Venice along the Grand Canal at night show lights with star shaped halos and centres burnt out to various degrees The occasional light directed at the camera (as on an approaching boat) displaying a white disc - which may be, and looks like, the shape of a very bright light. It could be that using a higher ISO and a wider aperture and size M (6Mp) ameliorates the issue.All in all nothing to worry about. MY camera is a very fine tool that I love using.
I said the camera was "fine"! Anyway here is my BSing!
skyfotos: What on earth is a shill?
Thanks. What is the word for someone who discourages others?
LaFonte: While I still don't know who is shooting night scenes in ISO 100, still the Camera B is definitelly ugly...
You don't understand reciprocity!
What on earth is a shill?
Best Enthusiast Compact!http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Amateur_Photographer_Awards_2012__Winners_news_311263.html
I guess the tests were done to get 12Mp jpg's. Could you repeat the test using 6Mp RAF files?