drummercam

drummercam

Joined on Apr 13, 2012

Comments

Total: 132, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
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

That is where I would object to location lock offs in a U.S. National Park for drone flights. People plan vacations expecting to do and see certain things. If someone plans to visit Yosemite to hike up the Yosemite Falls trail, and spends thousands of dollars in airfare and lodging on such a plan, only to find the trail inaccessible because someone is flying a drone to film the waterfall, I have to call that unreasonable, since scores if not hundreds of people make such vacation plans daily.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 15:43 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

When you have a permit to operate drones over public areas, do local authorities assist you by impeding pedestrians, blocking-off traffic, or otherwise detouring in any way the normal movement of people?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 13:48 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

People complain of tourists. Unless you actually live in Y Valley, everyone who goes there is a tourist. Yes, there are too many peeps and cars, but that's a population-versus-places-to-be ratio. In a country that elects to log, mine, and drill, baby, drill more than preserve wilderness, the problem is exacerbated. Vote your choice, but remember that people will go in ever greater numbers to the wild places left. For those of us who have hiked higher than treetop level in Y Valley, the chance to get above the fray remains. Drone flyby's so someone can be a youtube hero would affect that. In areas that were originally set aside as wild and scenic places, fully and completely, and that remain preserved because they are, specifically, storehouses of natural recreation (original sense of the word, to re-create yourself, not "play with your toys"), drones are as out of place as a kid's radio controlled car underfoot on a New York City sidewalk. Yosemite is not a private sandbox for anybody.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 02:18 UTC as 10th comment
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: The peasants who demolished the Montogolfier balloon evidently have many descendents. Perhaps they should also turn their passions against another insidious invention, the camera, which steals people's souls, and captures their misfortunes or oddities for the sake of condescension, ridicule, gawking, voyeurism, or prizes.

Isn't their a bit of hypocrisy though? Who isn't captivated by landscape flyovers or candid shots of private things? The two magical powers people dream about most is the ability to fly or the ability to be invisible. Either power enables one to witness things one otherwise cannot.

Let the biggest liar be the first to say no. Be less touchy about motes in other's eyes and more wary of the logs stuck in our own.

I think the best thing jkoch2 can do is to stop calling people names. He called me one further below, and here he's calling people Luddites and liars.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: "a license that demonstrates basic capability to operate a drone safely"

Every driver in America has a license showing capability to operate a vehicle, and what, we have 55,000-some fatalities a year? Millions of fender benders? I've already had a quad that some chucklehead was flying miss me by less than a foot, and I'm simply no longer interested in someone else's toys in my face, just like I don't want some kid's radio-controlled car underfoot on a public sidewalk.

If you're calling me a gawker, jkoch2, you've made an incorrect assumption. I never saw the drone coming, and I wouldn't have been curious to see someone's flying toy had I known one was about, other than to dodge it.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 15:27 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

"a license that demonstrates basic capability to operate a drone safely"

Every driver in America has a license showing capability to operate a vehicle, and what, we have 55,000-some fatalities a year? Millions of fender benders? I've already had a quad that some chucklehead was flying miss me by less than a foot, and I'm simply no longer interested in someone else's toys in my face, just like I don't want some kid's radio-controlled car underfoot on a public sidewalk.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 04:00 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: I think there should be a *limited* number of *restrictive* permits available for drone flyovers. There are just angles and views of these beautiful landscapes that only a drone can capture. Let's be honest, we really haven't seen any new angles of this park since Ansel shot it.

But I totally agree with banning the general public from using drones at will. That would be problematic, to say the least.

I don't think it will be possible to determine that someone with a university grant can guarantee that their drone won't malfunction any more than Joe Q. Public's. Restrictive permits would likely be more "restrictive" to the visiting public than to an operator with a permit. I'd rather not fly from the east coast or Europe to visit Yosemite only to find the roads on sunnyside blocked because Google is mapping routes up El Cap. The public would need to be restricted from flyover zones, but restricting movement in an already overcrowded park would be a PITA. The opportunity for someone to make a buck with a pretty viddy simply does not justify vacation buzz-kill for hundreds or maybe thousands of people who already find it hard to enough to enjoy places like Yosemite.

My argument is of course hypothetical, but seems likely for safety reasons.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 17:24 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

Excellent decision. Some youtube hero drops a drone on tourist momma's baby, and the NPS would get sued big time. The NPS doesn't need the hassle.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 16:00 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On 'City of Samba': Rio Carnival in tilt-shift article (48 comments in total)

I think these films have some value in the study of collective human behaviors.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2014 at 21:33 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 132, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »