OT but imagine the reaction if a successful male said they went to college and "majored in girls".
Hard to beat this for aeronautical subject matter
Looks too much like a Where's Wally snapshot. They wouldn't all be caught in such active poses in a real snapshot of an orchestra.
If you turn the camera the other way you'll know who the father is.
Robert Beck's personal site
A digital photo? Every copy is the same!
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
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?
So, speaking theoretically among ourselves (judges do their own thing), is intent significant?
While this photographer did a lot of things which led to this photo being taken, it was never his intent for a photo to be taken in the manner that it was.
I read below the term 'solely' appears in the law. Nature hasn't set up the contraption. I reckon he does hold copyright.
"Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable."
"'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
He didn't create the scene, he just recorded it.
Ulfric M Douglas: It comes in Brown!Win!
Still no plaid :-(
More sun? No. The combination of drunkenness (relaxant drug) and low IQ (lower stress levels) results in steadier hands. Sony just know their markets.
Not sure if already posted. There are areas where detail is mashed up into something quite different to the original.
See Queen of Spades top right, the hair fringe (compare with Sony Alpha7 R). Also the Jack of Hearts, the bird shape at the rear of the head. In both cases contiguous lines become a mess of squiggles.
EOS 6D is doing something similar, though not as bad.
domina: I'm a software engineer and into computer science and I never trust software, computers or programmers. Windows, Chrome and all your software crashes quite often, think about it. The last thing I want is bugs in my lens correction.
From a self described software engineer this is quite a naive comment. If you can't trust software in a camera I suppose you never indulge in air travel?
wus: Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
Just make sure you don't use the 15 m snorkel with this camera and you should be alright.
Was a bit worried about the less than rugged look - underwater equipment tends to get knocked around - then saw the protective rubber skin. I suppose not so bad.
But still, would you feel confident having the front glass exposed under water?
twadger: Like many photographers I come here for reviews, not nostalgia.
Digital Photograph Review, the clue's in the name.
You should ask for a refund.
Bugger Hong Kong - get a picture of yourself on Mars.
audijam: so desperate
It's like, they want people to buy their camera products. Bwahaha, Phony!