GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 808, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pete peterson: I'm only interested in cameras with dials as I hate getting into menus for every change, but even if this camera's IQ is as good as the Sony RX100III, I wouldn't buy it cos it has no EVF.
To me no EVF means putting on my reading glasses every time I take a picture then take my reading glass off so that I can see the rest of the world in focus, then put the on again to take or inspect the next picture - totally inconvenient.
I bet most of the geeks developing this camera wear glasses, did they not think of us long sighted people?

Varifocal glasses make life a lot easier.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 09:32 UTC
On Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.

Oh, that old chestnut.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:11 UTC
On Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.

@noirdesir The G1X is not a 1/1.7 sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 19:28 UTC
On Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.

PS. The day my Canon sensor gives me Sony colours, white balance issues, muddiness, and comparatively inflexible Raws is the day I drop Canon for good.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 01:00 UTC
On Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.

You have been banging on about this for months. What you fail to notice or consider is that people make decide on cameras based on a wide range of factors. I have owned the first two iterations of your pet RX100 and been so dissatisfied with the IQ, that this, plus the woefully limited zoom range, ensured I will not consider the Mk3. That and the fact that the direct comparisons in the tests on DPReview and elsewhere do not by any means show better IQ from the Sony. So then you fans change the argument to "Yeah, but the Sony is smaller." I own Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Olympus cameras just to name the first four that come to mind. In fact, the most exciting camera I am currently using (albeit for video) is the Sony FDR-AX100. The "loyalty" to one brand and obsession to bash another at all costs seems to be yours. Meanwhile, I am confident that in the range discussed in the article above I have made the choice of the best camera for my purposes. As have many others. Get over it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 00:58 UTC
On Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.

Not to those of us who actually use the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2014 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

carport888: This story is quite disturbing. The copyright should rightfully belong to Slater. Slater is a wildlife photographer who set out to get photos of wildlife. He brought equipment to a specific location, set that equipment to specific settings that allowed these captures, and yet had the "good fortune" of having "someone else" take good photos? I think not.

Slater got exactly what he set out to get: great wildlife photos. It was his expertise that facilitated these results. Without him setting up this situation, these photos would not exist.

What about GoPro footage "taken" by animals?

Strap your GoPro to a dog? The dog "chose" where to "point the camera".

An octopus "steals" your GoPro? It must've been trying to "create art".

Does your © lapse only if the octopus happens to press the shutter?

If you set a device to hit the shutter, the device doesn't negate your copyright, as it is not human. Likewise, a monkey cannot own ©, so it should belong to Slater for facilitating.

No one is saying the monkey owns the copyright. They are saying there is no copyright. I happen to disagree, but we should get the claims clear.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

hookah: Slater's equipment,Slater's property,Slater's copyright!!!!!!!!!

In many forms of conceptual art where the result depends on the artist setting up the circumstances, that is EXACTLY what applies. The artist has the copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.
The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.

How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?

"If Slater gives me his camera and says "take a selfie" and I comply, *I* own the photo. The fact it was his idea is irrelevant. The fact it's his camera is irrelevant. " I doubt this. A conceptual artist who set up an exhibition in which visitors were allowed to trigger images of themselves would very unlikely, in law, have given up his or her copyright of those images. Photography is more than a shutter click.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

CosmoZooo: LOL - love the story and the photos - never heard it before. The way that monkey looks and smiles at the camera is ridiculously amazing. Hey I think it's fair - I've had this discussion before. If you hand your camera to someone to take your photo - in theory that person hols the copyright - which I think is a bunch of BS. I also happen to think that if I pay someone to take photos for me, I should be the owner or a least a co-owner of that work. The author deserves the credit as the author but I should be able to control the work as I please. But that's not the case...

So I say to those who disagree with this - well it's a taste of your own medicine - the stick works both ways.

And @GaryJP too bad - he didn't setup the monkey to take the shots and he didn't control any aspect of the shots that were taken - the camera just happened to have certain settings and they happened to have worked for the shots - it might as well been in auto mode - the photographer has no control.

Nothing about the camera being there or the controls "just happened".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

"In terms of copyright law, the relevant "creative act" here was pointing the camera in a particular direction and pressing the shutter."

Actually, no. The creativity involves more than the shutter.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

1) Do this photographer's other images from the shoot (or his entire body of work) measure up in public esteem to the photo the monkey has taken?

More importantly. do the ape's?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

Nonsense. If that is true, no animal-triggered photo ever belongs to the photographer or the organisation that shoots it. Free for all on all the BBC's David Attenborough shows. The settings were in the camera and set by the photographer. I doubt it was an iPhone set on automatic. None of this, including the camera being there "just happened". That may be how you shoot. It isn't how most of us do.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:52 UTC

The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:27 UTC as 443rd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

GaryJP: Why is it people keep talking about the "poor" dynamic range of Canon's "outdated" sensors and are unable to use their eyes enough to see the DR of the 5D Mk3, particularly in terms of the highlights, is smoking the Sony? Particularly on those big tripod like things in the distance.

It's not that there is MORE highlight detail, apart from that tower, which is a methodology issue. As evidenced by most of the windows and dark areas, I said there was no less shadow or highlight detail. Which you would expect with the differences in dynamic range so many bellyache about. The first function of cameras is to shoot photographs. Not test charts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 03:00 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Solar Eagle: Why not cover the new macro capability in this review? It would be nice to know what kind of magnification you get from 5cm at 24mm, since Canon isnt telling us. Even a simple mention of the MM or coverage area would have been fine.

No. It''s shooting hand held in low light. Just knocked them off quickly at my desk when the sun was barely out. No sustenance for your beef there I am afraid.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 02:21 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: If you are inclined to believe Lightroom and others will never be converted to Creative Cloud only, trust what they tell their investors, not what they tell their customers:

"More importantly, moving forward all Adobe and channel focus will solely be on Creative Cloud offerings and CS6 perpetual revenue becomes de minimis."
Adobe Systems CEO Shantanu Narayen

"Q2 was the last quarter we broadly offered perpetual volume licensing of CS6 through the channel. As a result, there was high demand by customers serviced by the channel who wanted to add to their perpetual seat capacity. This drove the upside relative to the high-end of our total targeted Q2 revenue range. We believe these customers will migrate to Creative Cloud over time. Beginning in Q3, the channel is solely focused on licensing Creative Cloud."
Adobe CFO Mark Garrett.

I couldn't quote the whole speech. But if you read it on their investor page, they do not seem to be planning to leave much room for perpetual licenses. In fact, almost their entire investor speeches were about how Creative Cloud is the best thing since sliced bread. Their overall plan is to herd us all to the "Adobe Marketing Cloud", and they don't indicate they intend to let many stragglers escape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

MostlyHarmless: 1. We need to stop taking this personally.
2. We need to get a sense of proportion (we are not starving or in fear of our lives).
3. Adobe are just doing what companies do.
4. Limited functionality after you stop paying shouldn't change anything - it just means you can do what you should do *after* you stop paying instead of just before (migrate).
5. Always have an exit strategy - no system is around forever.
6. Mike Ronesia below has the right attitude:-)

Oh I agree with you. Which is why quasi-monopolies are bad. The consumer's ONLY trump card is competition. And thankfully, just as Apple screwed up Final Cut Pro and sent people away, Adobe is now leaving room for many competitors, and making us take another look at them. I basically arrange my photos in folders, so if I stopped using Lightroom tomorrow nothing would change. I'd just do more in Capture One. Same with Microsoft. I save all my files in RTF because I refuse to be locked in to Word.And have done for years.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

ysengrain: "Adobe Lightroom allows users continued access after license expires" just to catch people before changing the conditions of use.

Well known trick

I too think this announcement is a precursor to a new tactic from Adobe regarding Lightroom.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 10:39 UTC
In reply to:

MostlyHarmless: 1. We need to stop taking this personally.
2. We need to get a sense of proportion (we are not starving or in fear of our lives).
3. Adobe are just doing what companies do.
4. Limited functionality after you stop paying shouldn't change anything - it just means you can do what you should do *after* you stop paying instead of just before (migrate).
5. Always have an exit strategy - no system is around forever.
6. Mike Ronesia below has the right attitude:-)

Many of us are already adopting our exit strategies. We are just doing what consumers do. Not trusting a company that has shown we cannot trust it. For some reason that seems to annoy the cloudies.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 10:38 UTC
Total: 808, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »