drummercam

drummercam

Joined on Apr 13, 2012

Comments

Total: 121, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JonathanFV: Also, I'm wondering about something else. Let's say I have my camera on a table in my room, and that I own a cat, who happens to bump head first on the table leg, making the camera fall and the impact triggering the shutter and taking a picture of the cat whose head is still smashing on the table leg. Then I get home, find my camera on the ground, take a look at the photo, and surprise! It's a good photo. It happened randomly. I didn't really take the photo. I could claim a copyright for it, lying and pretending I'm the one who too the photo. But if I told the truth, and if I was honest with myself... I was just lucky. It's okay that not everything belongs to someone.

Jonathan, I hereby demand that you send me a full resolution copy of that public domain cat photo. I'm producing a line of animal greeting cards, and that one sounds just perfect. I'm also demanding the same of Mr. Slater and the monkey picture.

And oh yes, send the RAW file, please, not the jpeg.

;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 00:48 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: Nice design but still mediocre IQ and below average lenses. There was nothing wrong with the original Q design, by the way; all subsequent ones were much inferior in built quality. An updated sensor and a few high quality, pancake, very bright primes might do the trick.

"Much inferior" is not accurate, I'm afraid. I have both Q and Q7. There is nothing inferior about Q7's robustness. The pop-up flash, which has several moving parts and one might think is fragile, comprises exactly the same components in both models, and no doubt Q-S1. The sensor assembly behind the lens - exactly the same (but for Q7's larger one, which is not the current point). Hot shoe and controls -- ditto. SD card and battery doors -- again exactly the same. The LCD screen on Q7 is actually improved over the Q. The metal chassis of the Q -- if that is what people refer to when saying the Q is better -- is a fully transparent issue in-hand. There is nothing any less breakable about the Q than the Q7. Q had a stereo microphone, which none of the other Q's have, but that's about it, and again it's not really the point if we're talking about robustness. Some people might like the Q better (I don't because of the LCD), but "much better" than any version since is simply a myth.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 14:53 UTC
In reply to:

drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.

@Pat - One banana only, and that is being generous. The macaque is lucky to be out of jail. If he wants another banana, he can steal it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

That's probably correct -- Wikimedia should take the photo down . . . if that's what Mr. Slater wants. If he wants to sell prints based on free advertising Wikimedia chooses to give him, that's good for him, too. But it's his call; Mr. Slater owns the work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:00 UTC

Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 15:41 UTC as 291st comment | 7 replies
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

LarryLatchkey: this is a beautiful AND functional. is there any similarly compact 17.5–27 mm superwide angle around? I don't think so, not in a tiny length of 38mm (sic!)
http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/lenses/pentax_q_08
Mind you it's not a fisheye...
but, again, the Q-S1 with the 08 wide zoom would summ up to near to €1000. Hmmm...

"but, again, the Q-S1 with the 08 wide zoom would sum up to near to €1000."

That's why the Q7 Premium Kit that included the 08, 06, 01, 02, all the hoods, a PL filter, the Q7, and a bag for the entire system was such a good deal, and not much more cost.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 12:48 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: Q-S1 is basically a new production run of the Q7 because, despite the detractors, it is selling well and filling a niche in the market. Many manufacturers freshen up designs after a year and it's a smart thing to do. The system allows you to have a camera system with you on a casual basis with a range of lenses from fisheye to 200mm+ (35mm eq.), and in a bag the size of very small shaving kit. If I go out for a specific shooting purpose, yep, I'll carry the Billingham or the backpack. If I want to be ready for opportunistic photography while out doing something else, the entire Q-system is a barely noticeable carry. The new design will get pull some new buyers, Ricoh has the right to put it out there, and if you don't like it, that's fine too. I find the system very handy, and the IQ for opportunistic shots is more than good enough. I never use my cell phone for casual or documentary shots anymore, just for processing and uploading shots wi-fi'ed from the Q.

Don't know why I would be describing Oly's here, but you force me to ask whether it goes as wide as rectilinear 17.5mm (eq), which I use a lot with the Q 08 lens, especially indoors. Not to mention fisheye (which admittedly I use less often now that I have that nice 08). Superzoom, I don't care much for that but I can use a K-to-Q adapter and bring my K-mount lenses into play if i need to go longer for the kind of shooting I described. I guess I'd also have to get new Oly compatible flashes and a remote control and other bits, so no, I'm not describing an Oly anything here in a Pentax thread.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 13:41 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

NoRules: I did this with my Q7. I think it's good enough.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672812

That's a pretty danged nice solar picture! Good work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 13:24 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)

Q-S1 is basically a new production run of the Q7 because, despite the detractors, it is selling well and filling a niche in the market. Many manufacturers freshen up designs after a year and it's a smart thing to do. The system allows you to have a camera system with you on a casual basis with a range of lenses from fisheye to 200mm+ (35mm eq.), and in a bag the size of very small shaving kit. If I go out for a specific shooting purpose, yep, I'll carry the Billingham or the backpack. If I want to be ready for opportunistic photography while out doing something else, the entire Q-system is a barely noticeable carry. The new design will get pull some new buyers, Ricoh has the right to put it out there, and if you don't like it, that's fine too. I find the system very handy, and the IQ for opportunistic shots is more than good enough. I never use my cell phone for casual or documentary shots anymore, just for processing and uploading shots wi-fi'ed from the Q.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 11:37 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: I think this design tweak is mainly intended to bring fresh users into Q-world, which seems a smart thing to do since, once people get this thing, they tend to like it and use it. Production runs expire fast these days, and Q7 is more than a year old. Offering colors for the 01 lens, which has been visible on a "home market" Ricoh page for some time, might serve to increase its availability elsewhere. Many have wondered why the 01 is so hard to find.

Too bad they don't mention full compatibility with the Pentax FLU card.

I didn't intend to be taken as reporting that Q-S1 can use a FLU card. I'm merely suggesting that Q-S1 would be an opportunity to expand Pentax FLU use to another body besides K-3. No doubt Q-S1 is like the Q7 and can use an eye-fi card; expansion of that to full FLU capability might be easy. And it would make good sense. I would be more likely to stash a small cam like the Q somewhere to control from my phone rather than the larger K-3.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 03:08 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)

I think this design tweak is mainly intended to bring fresh users into Q-world, which seems a smart thing to do since, once people get this thing, they tend to like it and use it. Production runs expire fast these days, and Q7 is more than a year old. Offering colors for the 01 lens, which has been visible on a "home market" Ricoh page for some time, might serve to increase its availability elsewhere. Many have wondered why the 01 is so hard to find.

Too bad they don't mention full compatibility with the Pentax FLU card.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 23:09 UTC as 74th comment | 2 replies
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim in Hudson: So what's the new button on the front for?

The "button" is in the front IR sensor location. I'm surprised if they rewired that. I think it's the IR sensor in a kind of finger grip. If it is also a dial it might be "smart effect" setting, since they bother to mention that, but why is it not knurled?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 22:57 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax K-3 Prestige Edition article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: ". . . and an 'exclusive' battery strap."

That should read "camera strap," I think.

This is a great camera, and a new color is okay (other makers do the same), but this package is no different from the silver version that also came with a grip and a unique strap. If this were bundled with their 20-40mm Limited lens and their FLU card, it would better deserve a Prestige moniker. Nonetheless, this camera at the opening price point is a very good photographic tool.

"It´s a pity that camera makers sell mostly kits with crap zooms"

I agree. Pentax has long bundled weatherproof bodies with its 18-55 non-weatherproof lens. It's just a mismatched package. Finally some bundles were marketed with the newer18-135 WR. But the K-3 bundled with the Limited Zoom -- both very nice items -- that would have been a different beast on the market.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 13:55 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax K-3 Prestige Edition article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: And the official page:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/campaign/20140724/

Looks very, very cool.

Pentax Webstore USA is listing it . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 13:29 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax K-3 Prestige Edition article (165 comments in total)

". . . and an 'exclusive' battery strap."

That should read "camera strap," I think.

This is a great camera, and a new color is okay (other makers do the same), but this package is no different from the silver version that also came with a grip and a unique strap. If this were bundled with their 20-40mm Limited lens and their FLU card, it would better deserve a Prestige moniker. Nonetheless, this camera at the opening price point is a very good photographic tool.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 13:26 UTC as 17th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

ENicolas: This is the same one they released two weeks ago.

Clearly the news is worth posting on DPR. Thanks for doing so.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
On Blast from the past: Photographing steam locomotives article (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

TylerQ: Not bad, but O. Winston Link tops these photos.

Agreed. Link is the pinnacle in this genre.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 13:14 UTC

Pentax introduced flourine coatings a long time ago. From DP Review News, May 2009 -- "The front surface of these lenses is treated with PENTAX-original SP (Super Protect) coating, which applies a special fluorine compound to the lens surface through a vapor deposition process. This SP coating not only effectively repels dust, water and grease, but it also makes it easy to wipe off fingerprints and cosmetics." I have both dusty/rainy hiking and rafting experience with a Pentax SP-coated lens and have yet to touch the front element with a lens cloth.

Pentax recently added entirely new High-Definition coatings to its Limited lens series, and has another coating called aero-bright on some of its 645 lenses. I'm not sure that any maker tops Pentax for lens coatings.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 16:55 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: They need to implement a "Drone Day" every other Tuesday.

Yosemite has roughly 4 million visitors a year. That's roughly 11,000 a day, but weighted towards summer, when the count is much higher. Every 14th day, 11,000 to 15 or 20,000 people need to adjust their movements to avoid drone flights, or not visit the park at all? The BASE jumping history is also instructive. The first legal BASE jump was done in 1980. Legal jumps resulted in no major injuries or fatalities, but some jumpers exhibited significant disregard for the park's rules and the environment. After a trial of only 10 weeks, the National Park Service ceased issuing permits and shut down all BASE jumping on El Capitan. In October 1999, BASE jumper Jan Davis died while making an illegal protest jump in support of lifting the park's ban. That was unfortunate for Jan Davis, but it was her decision. Of more pertinent note is the "significant disregard for the park's rules and the environment." Harbor no illusions that drone operations would be 100% tidy and unabusive.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 03:41 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

RVRD: The use of drones for commercial use (including personal gain EA YouTube/Vimeo) within the U.S. is already banned via the FAA regulations.

The FAA is not enforcing it yet so it's good that individual public/private/gov entities are. There was a case where a judge threw out a fine the FAA imposed on an operator but the FAA appealed that the next day.

We are from the US & operate Drones legally in Canada where you are required to obtain a SFOC permit to operate + liability insurance (our policy is 5million). At 1st we where annoyed by this but now understand why. We have various Drones used for commercial & feature films, ranging from 10 to 75lbs.

Any equipment that is flying has the potential to be very dangerous & needs to be regulated for public safety via training/permits/knowledge. Just like any license to operate, it limited & regulates the operator & put more liability on them.

Even thouse little white DJI phantoms that are so popular & seriously hurt someone, disfigure & potential be fatal (a person flew one last week into Vancouver Airports airspace while an on coming plane was approaching at 200ft (yes they where a few hungered ft away but the potential was there, also reports of drones going rogue flying as high as possible before falling) this was operating over a busy street. The operator doesn't realize that there is no redundancy w/ 4 props & they will break eventually.

So is a 7lbs weight falling from 200ft & hitting you or your child acceptable to you? Without regulation you would not know who is operation in the area & they would not be insured so all liability/responcablity would be on the bystanders below.

Yes it's a valuable tool for photography but until it can be insured in the US, it need to be banned.

If you want further info google Transport Canada SFOC to see the guidelines, restrictions & requirements. Or vistor our site for drone cinematography info www.rvrd.com

I can't agree that anyone's personal, and especially personal for-profit, endeavors have any right to disrupt the plans of scores or even hundreds or thousands of other visitors to a National Park. I think drone flights are a fine place to end "it," if "it" refers to activities that pose risk to others, or that, to avoid any such risk to personal safety, impede the free passage within a National Park of people who have spent thousands of dollars to travel to a National Park expecting to do certain activities without unannounced closures. That is simply not a reasonable infringement.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 03:16 UTC
Total: 121, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »