Roland Karlsson

Roland Karlsson

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Programmer
Joined on Feb 23, 2002
About me:

Collector of K-mount and M42 stuff. Main camera K-5. Also interested in camera technology, e.g. Foveon. Also interested in computer based image analysis and transforms.

Comments

Total: 1186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

Doka: This camera is a disaster for left-handed people, when the ergonomics are very wrong, then it becomes a tupperwarebox, no matter the specifications.

Disaster? This camera? All cameras are mainly made for operating with the right hand. Lefties have had to live with that for ages. BTW - if they really did make mirrored cameras for lefties, I am quite sure I could operate it with my left hand, even though I am right handed.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 08:25 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: Comparing the Pentax K-S1 to the Pentax K-50 is definitely a good way to avoid having to compare it to Canon's 2014 entry-level DSLR, the EOS 1200D (Rebel T5). I don't think the pentamirror, mono-microphone, 3fps, 0.8mag viewfinder, 460K-dot LCD EOS 1200D compares favorably at all, and the price difference is buying solid features, including build, no doubt.

And since "looks" get most of the troll action here, that black blob of a Canon lacks all distinction. Also obvious just by looking -- since looking is all that the complainers about the K-S1 have done as of yet -- is that if Pentax intended to present a less intimidating user interface, comparing K-S1 to the EOS 1200D wins the point easily.

DPR also again shows some anti-Pentax bias by listing (according to the "side-by-side" feature) the EOS as a "Compact SLR" and the Pentax as a "Mid-size SLR." The Canon is apparently 130 x 100 x 78mm, while the Pentax is 121 x 93 x 70mm. I guess compact is bigger than mid-size now?

Yes, and that is a good thing. Pentax do not make cheap cameras, in the meaning of cheaply made. Even the K01 was solid. I used an entry level Canon some years ago - and that was cheap - really cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 21:28 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)

It has SR with AA filter simulator and most functionality from more advanced cameras. Not easy to make it cheap then. You have to sacrifice some in order to make it cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 19:40 UTC as 16th comment
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

waxwaine: Dusty old sad man will hate this new DSLR: "this is not what they teach me must be a camera" he could say.

Pentax have made several colorful cameras. The light blue K01 is sooooo nice. And this blue K-S1 actually also looks OK.

The sad thing (IMHO) is though that the boring black lenses do not generally match. Some do, at least the smaller ones. But the 18-55 kit lens is a little too large (IMHO) to really fit.

Regarding what Mr Waine really meant - I do not know. Maybe it was a joke. And it is not really all that important - so I think I drop this subthread about .... right now.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 19:37 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

waxwaine: Dusty old sad man will hate this new DSLR: "this is not what they teach me must be a camera" he could say.

I do not agree. If people are sad or not have very little to do with liking or disliking a certain camera. Disliking people that dislikes a camera sounds sad to me though.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 19:11 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Pentax/Ricoh please STOP making ugly as SH** camera's, you have gone down the drain since the K5II

Agree, the K-3 looks really good.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 18:58 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

moji: Do the leds have any function except abusing the battery?

How many faces? Ahhhh ,,, a selfie function! Quite clever actually. We live in selfie times. But ... an LCD that can be seen from the front is even better for that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 18:54 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

waxwaine: Dusty old sad man will hate this new DSLR: "this is not what they teach me must be a camera" he could say.

Now, hold your horses! It certainly looks like a camera. Actually I think it is a quite good looking camera. A pity though that there are no yellow lenses to come with that blue body.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 18:52 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thor Sanchez: Hold on, a camera that doesn't look like they're trying to copy a 1950s Leica? Is that even legal anymore?

A 1950s Leica? What Pentax camera looks like one of those?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

The difference between an image and a patent is not all that large, at least not in the US. In the US, the first proven invention date has precedence. And in order to prove it, it has to be documented in a way that is possible to date. Making this document is similar to recording the image. It is made at a certain time for a certain purpose.

In Europe it is different. Here the filing date has precedence. Who filed it first? There exist no invention date.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 10:55 UTC

So - it is still discussed. And still the same misunderstandings.

http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 17:53 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

SawanHembram: So another big question...

Who gets copyright for pics shot with CAMERA-TRAP?

Sure, you could sign over the Copyright. But ... lets say, for the sake of argument, that they did not. It is 1000 pupils after all.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 17:44 UTC
In reply to:

SawanHembram: So another big question...

Who gets copyright for pics shot with CAMERA-TRAP?

Easy. The one responsible for setting up the traps.

Here is a more difficult one.

Lets say that a photographer has a project together with a school. The kids in the school gets one cheap camera each, financed by a general fond for education of young people in the art of photography. During a year, the kids take images and than choose 10 pictures each themselves, and the kids do the post processing after their own liking Those pictures are then published, with name of the kids taking the images.

Who owns the Copyright to those 10,000 images?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

... maybe it does not have to be applied for and approved. It might be too cumbersome. A kind of simple, and cheap, registration process maybe. One dollar? Uploading a small thumbnail as registration proof.

Patents are covered 20 years. I cannot see why photos should have longer protection than patents. One example is medicine patents. You have 20 years to take outrageous prices - then the honeymoon is over. Why not the same for immaterial rights?

It all started as 14 years Copyright for books. BTW - the original Copyright did really say that the author was not allowed to sell his rights. This was so no one else (probably a printer) should be able to buy it and then have control over the book and maybe decide to not print it. Queen Anne did not like that. So she said - stop that! - no more selling of rights!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

Because it is a difference between material and immaterial.

When it comes to material things, you have definitions what it means to own a thing. It is not as easy as it first sounds though. One example is a burglar that claims he just recovered what was stolen from him - which might be right. Or the chair you have made from driftwood you might not be allowed to pick. And the stolen car you bought. And the pen you dropped a year ago and someone found. Probably varies from country to country and case to case.

When it comes to immaterial we have Copyright and Patent law.

Patent law says you have to take a Patent and there are some criteria for when a patent is possible. Moreover, anyone can use the invention the Patent covers, as long as it is limited in use.

Copyright is automatic and (at least for photos) unlimited. Anything that can be defined as a photo is automatically Copyrighted by the one "taking it". I think it is reasonable that it works more like patents ...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

@jtan163 - you never know what may become valuable is not a strong motivation for having Copyright on all images. There are lots of other things that may become valuable. The reason for Copyright is to have rules for intellectual property. So - then it better be something intellectual - don't you think? The footsteps I make while walking in sand also are created by me. Maybe that also may become valuable?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 13:12 UTC

The whole thing is a misunderstanding. Thanks to SteB I have seen the light. Here is what happened.

http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm

And ... of course he have the Copyright then ... and Wikimedia's behaviour is just monkey business in that case.

Sorry for me chimping in and arguing without knowing the real background.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 14:54 UTC as 135th comment
In reply to:

SteB: Considering the monkey definitely didn't upload the photos to the internet or download them to a computer they were certainly stolen i.e. at some point they were definitely taken by someone who had no authorization to use them or spread them. This is a mistaken and ill thought out decision by Wikimedia. What about camera traps or where an artist lets animals capture images. An assistant might physically press the shutter for a well known photographer, but I'd doubt they'd succeed in claiming copyright from the well known photographer. As pointed out there's more to a photo than merely pressing the shutter.

Thanx for the link. Missed your previous try. That makes a very big difference. This is not how it has been described elsewhere. But, if that is the truth, then of course he have Copyright.

It is a pity that I have argued otherwise given faulty information.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

@vFunct. IMHO you are trying too hard. Earlier you said no intent was needed. Now you say he had intent - and also that he created the photo. Moreover, you add the output - which, as far as I know, is quite irrelevant. Because if it was relevant, then I could take one of your RAW files, edit it, and then make the image mine.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

@jtan - as far as I understand of the arguments - he brought the camera. And - as far as he is the human with most control of his camera he gets the Copyright to everything the camera takes.

Personally I do not agree that it should be so. But - it is not me that decides what is and what is not.

I can agree though that you get practical problems if it is not so. How to determine what was just pure chance and what was a part of a plan? If there needs to be intent - then it is a difference between "I put the camera there so the monkey could steal it" and "I put the camera there and the monkey stole it".

My personal opinion is that Copyright should be like patents. You have to apply for it, it is registered and you have to pay a fee.

That almost everything that is recorded by a camera is Copyrighted is just insane. It is probably lots of millions of images taken each second. Very few of those have any value to protect.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 19:50 UTC
Total: 1186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »