digifan

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on Nov 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 236, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Blackmagic Design announces Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim seekers: I see a bit of the old Canon eos 5 film camera design about it.

Rather early Minolta/Sony series than Canon.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 13:46 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1542 comments in total)
In reply to:

DiffractionLtd: Congratulations to Fuji for being the latest company to convince some people they need to spend $2000 or more on a sub-FF body. Seems like only yesterday when all these companies had $1000 bodies at or near the top the line. One more example that the income class for $1000 bodies is shrinking while the one for $2000+ bodies is getting larger.

@Jefftan, you must certainly be joking with that Canon remark :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1542 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shockwave: So you can't recommend it over the competition? What competition? The A7iii? Which is full frame and has lenses that cost twice as much? Or the D500 that has a very limited lens selection?

It's main competition should be extended with E-M1mk2 and Panasonic G9

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:10 UTC
On article Pro Services: Are they worth it? (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

goblin: I wanted to cough a hundred bucks for Olympis Pro service. Long live to DPR for showing me it doesn't exist.

I take it you're sarcastic.
Yeah Olympus had/has a long record of professional service. Before the new Advantage Program it was called "Olympus Global Pro Service" but it's available to full pro's only!

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:03 UTC
On article Pro Services: Are they worth it? (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bogdan Alexandrescu: How about the Olympus Pro Advantage program? Any thoughts or analysis on that service? Thanks.

Before the new program it already existed as "Olympus Global Pro Service" and is comparable with Canon or Sony but just for professionals.
I've had a few occasions in all the years (almost 15 years Olympus digital gear) and they delivered perfectly fine. No complaint though and $99 is a small amount if you're dependant on your gear ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

jaxson: Solid entry really. Some would say a little late (3 years or so) but hey, welcome to the future Canon. It's nice to have you along. I'm sure it will do well.

What about >4 years too late and also actually a bigger crop than m43. This makes m43 huge in comparison when doing 4k ;-)
There's no DualAF in 4k either.
I'm glad I left the Canon camp years ago. Innovation is virtually non existant.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

MannyZero: The gear is ok. Thanks god!!

You mean Ski gear, I hope ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

redtailboas: Horse crap. Surely Twitter has this baked into TOS? Don't like it, don't use it.

@Encomlast, yes the author is responsible if he expects money his way.
1. If he had the work published by a publisher he'ld have had this covered in a contract and the publisher is liable.
2. If he published himself he should have taken precautions to not link to the original.
3. Linking is legit at least where I live and leads you to the original article, this gets you clicks and pay.

As an aside, back in the day a photographer would put a little of his portfolio in the "etalage" / shop window which would get him customers.
Today one uses the internet too, so you'ld better prepare the right way.
Just as to teach children not to just publish everything because the net can be harmfull as well, this also is applicable for the modern photographer/publisher.
IMO these lawsuits are unjust and inappropriate.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

redtailboas: Horse crap. Surely Twitter has this baked into TOS? Don't like it, don't use it.

@ Encomlast, He published that's what matters, he should have taken precautions or else sue the original publisher of his pictures for not protecting them.
Like I wrote before, you can't expect to make money of the net without securing your assets. If you put material online it can be linked to if you don't prepare.
In this case the author is responsible or at least should be. I guess the contract wasn't watertight ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: About darn time. Throw the book at them all. Gitmo is too good for them—does America have a worse prison we could send the copyright infringers to?
Why do people on a photography site continue to argue for the enemy and against their own interests. Do you realize if there weren't so much copyright infringement, you could be making actual money from your pictures?

@ MrBrightSide , I'm totally with Roland here. And I think you are way off of what is written.
Ofcourse there needs to be copyright protection, but thed author/artist has responsibilities too. He needs to make sure the materal is not freely available. So think about the contracts you make with clients and/or publishers, but also what YOU make available on the net.
It's hypocritcal if you complain about material you made available yourself by social media and then complain others use it.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The judge do not understand. A link is nothing. Just as is described in the text above. The owner can change the actual picture to some porn or whatever. A link is just a piece of text that contains an URL. Such a piece of text is trivial and have no Copyright. The newspaper is a loser if they put up such a link. Better then to put op the actual image, and be sued for real :)

I know that courts have deemed such cases being breaking Copyright, but IMNSHO this is pure nonsense.

@ hypnotictortoise, I could give a r.ts .ss how long you studied. In fact every citizen is expected to have knowledge of the law (at least in my country). If you studied it perhaps your intention is to make money with it (become a lawyer or such).
The intention of legislation is to protect the weaker party in a society, and is initiated by "the people" iso by government, government only have authority due to them being chosen by "the people". So "the people" are in fact able to change a specific law.
Today it's almost the other way around it seems, and people get laws forced upon them that are NOT a reflection of society.
To speak out against the outcome of this lawsuit is what "the people" should do, but many can't see the consequences and cannot be bothered to do something about it.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

c h u n k: Am I missing something? 1st, why is a photography site writing an article that is seemingly in favor of corporations that intentionally used a copyrighted *photograph without permission or compensation? 2nd, why would any photographers be defending these companies? They are MAJOR corporations that used the labor of another person without permission or an offer of compensation. Who cares if it was "just a link" that can be changed. Their intention was clear and that was to use the link to imbed a photograph. These companies are constantly stealing photos with impunity for use on their web sites and social media. Time to pay up.

@c h u n k Then don't put it on the net, deeplinking is legal in many countries, and eventually the original site gets hit due to that the link always points to the original article.
I think it's ridiculous to put work on the net and not protect it(by securing downloads, watermarking and contracts etc.) but then call it theft of income if othes use it.
On the other hand it's also ridiculous that big companies like Getty's can confiscate pictures from the public domain and copyright them.
The internet provides many with income because of just those that are linking news or media.
Just be awared of your actions and intent.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: IMHO, the copyright owner should see that link as a free ad of his/her work. I have always thought that the interest of anyone who publishes something on the internet, is to get the maximum visibility, especially if there are some ads on his/her site that the visitor can click on, or if it has something to sell. Such links provide free visibility to the owner of the image and can, in turn, generate some cash for him/her. So I think the plaintiff has a rather short view...

To all that are upset about usage of their images online.
Simply don't put them online, I never ever publish work on sites like this, not for demonstration purposes or whatsoever. What does get published I consider public although I might only share with only friends.
When I sell work, there's a contract of what I deliver and what the client can or cannot do with the images. If thisd is violated then it's cause for a dispute.
But mostly the ones that want free advertising and seek income from the net complain of images being used by others that would not generate revenue.
You can't have your cake and eat it.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

Torsten Hoff: >> The lawsuit accused Google of "promoting piracy"

Wait -- is this the same Getty that has demanded licensing fees for images it didn't own the copyright to?

Maybe someone should then bmb the d@rned bstrds (figure of speech, can't be too careful nowadays ;-) ).
That's just plain criminal, claiming public works and commercialising them.
Deep linking is legal at least where I live. if it's not protected it's available.
Seems multinationals get more and more power each day.
Google won't fight because they will profit also (books analogy)

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: I'm about to acquire a 4x5 set up. It's going to cost less than $1,000

Moving on.

@ A Owens, Ouch you are right I missed that. no worries, forget it.
Teaches one to not comment after a long busy day.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

BBnose: Why Leica users need budget lenses?

It's like getting drunk, the last glas did you in.
So you can buy a House a Beemer and a Leica but the lens will do you in ;-) (debt that is). So this Handevision will lighten the load ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 14:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1025 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Ronesia: The award system is very easy to understand. It's all about the reviewers opinions based on their own preconceived bias. It is far from perfect, but it is what it is.

This particular reviewer does not seem to like EVF's, and he finds the improvements less important. Having someone review M4/3's gear that loves DSLR's and is a sports shooter, means they enter the review with a bias. To expect them to give an appropriate score to a camera that is different than the system they have built for themselves is asking a lot. Things that mean nothing to a DSLR shooter, are very important to me.

Bottom line is these are not awards based on how the tech compares, but on how the reviewer "feels" about the camera, and we all know everyone's opinion is different. I would be bias in a different way and might never give gold to a heavy system with an OVF because of the way I use my gear. This is why my opinion means nothing to most and his opinion means nothing to me, and that is OK.

It's due to what they are used to, they (most sportsshooters) prefer DSLR's.
And around a basketball field or tennis field I understand it cause you don't need to move much and can cover almost everything from one point.
That won't hold for soccer and F1, the big gear is a hindrance and this is where m43 come in very handy.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 11:38 UTC
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: I'm about to acquire a 4x5 set up. It's going to cost less than $1,000

Moving on.

@ A Owens, seen in that light an E-Mmk2 or the G9 must be even better than that then.
Come on, there's definately a pupose for the Hassy, as there is with 850/5Ds/A7R3 or even E-M1mk2/G9.
Each has their distinct playground.
The Hassy might very well be a camera I would rent but not own! The rest it's m43 all the way today, for me, that is.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Why not just go and buy a cheap Nikon 1 camera instead? Even with a FT1 adapter, a Nikon J1 or S2 or even V2 is cheaper than this adapter.

@jyw5, many professionals use m43. But that wasn't the point, the point is that a focal reducer ala metabones is a useful tool, period.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

faithblinded: WTH Metabones. 0.5x for a dead system, but you can't figure one out for micro four thirds? It's the system that makes the most sense for a .5x converter. With the 2x crop factor, ff lenses could be used at their native field of view. Yes please!

Forgot to mention that for the EF AF is even possible with an E-M1 (which is what I have). To be clear there are a number of adapted speedbooster mounts for m43 the Nikon G is one of them.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 09:57 UTC
Total: 236, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »