perfect, just what you need when you're taking a photo and there's some reflective surface in view, a camera with built-in christmas-tree lighting to add reflections.
people who have a white camera* will love this sort of thing.
* I find it amusing when you're in a museum trying to photograph through glass or take a picture of something very shiny, and there's someone with a white camera finding it impossible to not get a clear reflection of themselves. Bonus dunce points for having the flash on unnecessarily!
wansai: uhh i dont think you need to "hack" flikr. as long as the high res pic exists there, you can get it. it doesnt matter what protection is built in. it is quite elementary.
the best solution, if you really fear you high res being stolen, is not to put it online.
DRM doesn't work. Here's what happens: you encrypt your movie/music/photo and then you let someone watch/listen/view it, so you give them the key to decrypt it. If you don't give them the key, they can't access it, demand a refund and never buy off you again.
Can you see the flaw?
But a more eminent person has written at length about this. Google for "Cory Doctorow DRM". This was written 10 years ago, nothing's really changed... http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
p.s. getting an image out of 500px is not trivial but not hard.
Branko Collin: If I've learned anything from some of the arm-chair lawyers in this thread, it's that Lensrentals.com must be filthy rich by now because of all the copyrights that automatically devolve to them every time someone takes a photo with rented gear.
LOL. upvoted. and then I LOL'd again at the people who tried to take this comment seriously.
Anastigmat: I don't agree the photograph is a force of nature. Forces of nature do not take photographs.
the optical and electrical phenonemon that make your camera functional are also forces of nature.
Anastigmat: If I set a camera trap and the shutter is tripped when someone or some animal interrupts a beam of light, then who owns the copyright to the photo? I would say that I did because I did everything that is needed to create the photograph except tripping the shutter at the moment of exposure. Similarly, if I use trap focus to take the picture, and the shutter is tripped when a bird comes into focus, then the bird is not the copyright holder. I am.
Badger1952: Common sense, not the law, should prevail - as is pointed out below, the monkey clearly cannot own or have copyright to the images, copyright bellows to Mr Slate. We all know that the law is an ass!!!!
the law is the law. just because you disagree with it doesn't stop it being the law.
Try speeding very early one morning when the road is empty, the weather is clear and noone can possibly get hurt by you if you crash. You're still breaking the law even though at that specific instances it doesn't make sense.
hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.
Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?
no, but he can patent the machine. he can also simply refuse to publish the images, or publish them in a form which makes them very difficult to copy, or charge people to come and look at them in his art gallery.
RichRMA: All this "demanding" fast lenses. m4/3 buyers do not buy fast, expensive lenses. Remember the 4/3rds lenses like the 150 f/2.0 and the 14-35mm f/2.0? They cost like Nikon FX lenses, $2000 or more and very few probably sold. Tamron, Olympus and Panasonic are giving the average mirrorless buyer what they WILL buy, not what they fantasize about, without the funds to buy them.
I can't speak for other m4/3rds owners, but I have a fast prime lens which wasn't cheap, the powerzoom 14-42 (mid price), the 3D lens (cheap novelty) and the 100-300 (which wasn't cheap). There are two things which stop me buying really fast lenses, the price and the bulk. I genuinely take my entire camera kit with me everywhere, every day, so bulk and mass is an important factor, and some of the lenses would be too much.
dash2k8: For that price we could just buy a Wacom, albeit a small one. With the Wacom you won't have to worry about scratching your screen while getting much better pressure feedback. I bought the Jot Touch two years ago and it's just not the same.
have you tried a Samsung Note?
MarcMedios: We need the android version
maybe Samsung could make such a thing. They could call it the Galaxy Notepad. oh wait.:-D
Tandua: too late, I sold my nikon gears for canon + fujifilm
At least Nikon are eventually doing the right thing, it gives me more confidence in them and increases the likelihood of me buying one.. eldest daughter might get a Nikon for her 18th birthday.Whereas Canon's denials of problems with the EOS-M means I am much less likely to consider them.
Peiasdf: "....It's also designed to release the lens on a hard impact without a twist in order to minimize potential damage to the lens and device if it was dropped...."
Name another lens mount that have this capability. Samsung fanboys... I don't know if they can read or not.
apple invented magnets dontchaknow. and electricity.
Bhima78: Smartphone sensor tech isn't there yet (it will be but not yet) to give you shots much better than a midrange point and shoot. This is pointless as it still requires you to carry a lens around as well as your phone. Might as well pick up a compact camera with a better sensor.
the basic geometry of a phone simply doesn't allow for the thin small phone with small sensor and lens to compete with a compact camera.
that said, phone manufacturers are doing a great job of optimising the phone to make the most of what can be achieved.
Greg Garner: You should really check the Dimple out, I'm waiting for their launch to buy one, it works with nfc and has four buttons. Pressy still have not shipped my order even though it has been over 6 months...
yeah, dimple looks goodhttp://dimple.io/
Aidan Jaros Grilli: someone put the EF 50mm f/1.0 on the nex with the speed booster
my god, man, that's dangerous, you could cause a black hole to form, such is the light gathering power!
I've had a Sony camcorder for about 8 years which had a bluetooth remote control option (allowing viewing of what the camera sees), as well as traditional IR.
My Sony Xperia phone can be controlled by my Sony smartwatch which controls it over bluetooth, and acts as a remote viewfinder.
I cannot see how Apple can claim to be innovative here.
vroger1: WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE TO ME IS THAT THERE IS TREMENDOUS LEGITIMACY TO M-4/3 WITH MORE AND MORE MANUFACTUERS JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON. THE PROBLEM IS THE NUMBER OF M-4/3 DIGICAMS WITHOUT VIEWFINDERS. NON-AUTOFOCUS LENSES SUCH AS THESE ARE HARD TO HANDLE WHEN NOT USING A V/F. THE ANSWER? ALL M4/3 DIGICAMS SHOULD HAVE EITHER INTEGRAL OR ACCESSORY EVF'S.
@yabokkiem4/3rds lens come in a huge range of choice of quality and price.choice is good.
Digitall: Poor camera. So many people who would like to have this camera, and here we see the bodies to be autopsied. RIP
Apart from wrecking the rubber grips, I imagine he probably managed to put it back together and make it work.
grock: I used to think the comments on indie music blogs were the worst, but photography websites are really catching up. So much freaking jealousy and pettiness. So many people here can't stand it if someone is successful if they have what are deemed to be less than perfect technical skills with a camera, or if their composition seems amateurish or non-groundbreaking. Photography exists so that people can look at and enjoy photographs. Guess what? If someone enjoys looking at a photo you took, you succeeded. Nothing else--the brand and cost of your camera, the artistic merit, the people paying for the photo, the post-processing, the lack of preparation, etc-- matters.
You're a sad troll. Very very few photographers are so gifted they can earn a good living from their photos. I know many such who w Ireen on other professions earning good money, and they devote a large amount of enjoyable time to their hobby.Otoh, I know some pros who are good yet not famous who have to with very hard to make a living and it can be burden to them
vFunct: The best kind of photography are street photography, like this guys.
The worst kind of photography are the garbage you see on 500px. That site is filled with thousands of photographer, all without a sense of taste.
The funny part is that those idiots have NO clue why they are terrible, or why street photography is more valuable than landscape photography. They have no idea how worthless their photographs are.
Remember, if you think the landscape photography you find at 500px is good, you are a terrible photographer, and you should be ashamed.
Professionals laugh at you, just to let you know.
Please post a link to your online gallery so we can see your photos you deem to be worthy