Triggerhappy2: Canon doesn't tell anything about the lens they used to capture letters from an aeroplane flying approx. 18 km away. In the press realease footnote they write very vaguely:
" Image capture employed a combination of optical and digital zooming while distinguishing of image content was realized through the magnification of an approximately 1/40,000th-sized area of the captured image."( http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep07e.html )
It would be interesting to know what lens they used. And why do they talk about digital zoom? Digital zoom is useless. Croping should be enough.
Yes, they probably mean cropping. I'm just allergic to the word digital zoom
Canon doesn't tell anything about the lens they used to capture letters from an aeroplane flying approx. 18 km away. In the press realease footnote they write very vaguely:
Sports Shooter: all sounds great but why 72mm filter thread? why not standardize with 77mm ( 16-35, 24-105, 70-200)?
For a few bucks you can buy a 72->77mm step up ring from ebay.
I have a Lowepro Nova 170 AW camera bag that I bought 5 years ago. I have replaced both the buckle clip and the shoulder starp. The buckle clip was all plastic and broke down during a cold Finnish winter. The shoulder strap had a plastic swivel joint that became loose and separated into two parts (causing the bag to fall off) . Also the handle is worn and the Lowepro tag dropped off. Otherwise the bag is still in good shape and might last for 5 more years. It was quite cheap but I think at least the shoulder stap swivel and buckle clip could have been of better quality. Maybe the more expensive Lowepro bags have better quality parts.
iAPX: So sad!
I am in love with Reda, she's is young, she is the new generation, she is insightful, and grounded in the 2010's not in the 1910's. She explain things clearly with a deep understanding of what get we there. I want more EU MEP like her!
I don't care about buildings, I am not a panorama photographer, I do some street photography but it usually doesn't involve copyrighted buildings. Or does it, because a 1900 building could see it's architect dying in the 50's, and the right still existing in 2020?!?
It has just no sense until you just make pictures of a building. But even then, everyone could see it, it's free, from the road. So where is the lost?I think photographying a building is just advertisement, for the architect...
@iAPX why sad?
Good decision from the bureaucrats in Brussels. Taking Freedom of Panorama away could have lead to a situation where copyright holders of a building sell their rights exclusively to some company and it would be almost impossible to get permission to publish your photo. Belgium has no FoP and for example SABAM has claimed worldwide copyrights for Atomium which is ridiculous. Also Eiffel tower by night is copyrighted if it's illuminated.
Deliverator: Vanitas and nixda, you are replying to every single post expressing concern over these new laws, saying there is nothing to worry about.
This kind of law would make it more difficult for creative people to publish their work. Besides Freedom of Panorama will only benefit an architect to get some free publicity through Wikipedia. I think this law might be an attempt from the bureaucrats of Brussels to collect money from Google (streetview) etc.
Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.
Step 0: Learn to readStep 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completelyStep 2: Interpret what you readStep 3: THINK what you readStep 4: RE-THINK what you have just readStep 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is writtenStep 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...
And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT
Commercial photography isn't that easy to define. E.g. a photo blogger that get some income from ads is practically commercial. Same for youtube vloggers that get some income from google ads. In addition if this law passes then its not longer possible to publish your photos in public domain or CC-BY of copyrighted buildings without permission e.g. in Flickr or Wikipedia even if you are an amateur photographer. Because these licenses do not forbid commercial use. The philosophy in Wikipedia is to use licenses that are not too restrictive for reuse.
Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.
Rebranding a Sony camera as a Hasselblad was a horrible idea. It's like rebranding a Toyota as a Mercedes just by changing the steering wheel to a wooden one and replaceing Toyota logos with Mercedes logos. I wouldn't pay anything extra for that. I wouldn't pay anything for this grip either. A black grip would look much nicer than this.
I think this sensor was intended for some future Nokia Pureview camera phone but then MS cancelled the development. Now Canon needs to find someone else who needs that high megapixel count... ;)
edu T: Does anyone know the true dimensions (width x height) of this 1/1.2" sensor?
10.67 mm x 8.00 mm according to the "Image sensor format" article on Wikipedia.
Nokia 808 looks very promising. It cannot be compared to SLRs, but I guess it would be a fantastic camera(phone) that I could always carry with me. Dpreview please review the 808 asap! :)