citizenlouie

Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 177, showing: 161 – 177
« First‹ Previous6789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

citizenlouie: From what I've read, it'll be m4/3.... It's a shame really. They shouldn't pull the OM card unless they have a FF camera with all the features OM is known for: multi-spot metering, aperture ring, extremely large and bright OVF, legendary lens line-up. They used Pen name for the digital version because original film Pen is half-frame.... OM is FF, so why put the name on a crop sensor? OM is very pro oriented also. Auto everything people won't like it. OM is about "creative automation" not auto everything. It's not a P&S camera, like 4/3..., it's for people who know what they're doing.

4/3 lenses are better than even OM's legendary lenses in their days..., and are built on the knowledge they got from OM's Series 2 lenses (some of the world's sharpest, rent an SHG lens & see). It's shame Olympus abandoned it for an inferior system. My E-620 produces FAR better result than digital Pen cameras despite the sensor is 1-2 generation older. That tells you how important is the lens.

Part II

About what considered as professional gear.

Pros uses a tripod, not high ISO. High ISO is for emergency use and some other special use, not the the solution to everything. Obviously you have never shot film. People prefer low ISO films or shoot low ISO on digital for good reasons. Better detail, better grain/less noise, better tone, more saturated color, you name it. Wedding photogs needs high ISO because of their situation.... But everyone knows when possible use the lowest ISO setting.

Pros look for very different things than what an amateur look for. The feature set you mentioned are what marketers tell you, stats.... easy to compare. I shot Olympus for a long time and what I look for? Dust reduction, quick access to mirror lock up, precise meter/WB, button placement, battery life. Basically stuff that makes the camera work, so the photog don't have to think. Non-quantifiable, hard to market stuff. So far only Olympus's LiveView implementation works.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:48 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: From what I've read, it'll be m4/3.... It's a shame really. They shouldn't pull the OM card unless they have a FF camera with all the features OM is known for: multi-spot metering, aperture ring, extremely large and bright OVF, legendary lens line-up. They used Pen name for the digital version because original film Pen is half-frame.... OM is FF, so why put the name on a crop sensor? OM is very pro oriented also. Auto everything people won't like it. OM is about "creative automation" not auto everything. It's not a P&S camera, like 4/3..., it's for people who know what they're doing.

4/3 lenses are better than even OM's legendary lenses in their days..., and are built on the knowledge they got from OM's Series 2 lenses (some of the world's sharpest, rent an SHG lens & see). It's shame Olympus abandoned it for an inferior system. My E-620 produces FAR better result than digital Pen cameras despite the sensor is 1-2 generation older. That tells you how important is the lens.

@T3

OM-1 is what National Geographic and many other professionals use for many reasons. If you're interested in Olympus history, please do feel free to read on it. OM-2000 is Cosina-made and most people don't consider that OM.

Lens collection is what made OM system legendary. Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro was the sharpest 50mm ever made before the digital version of it for 4/3 dethroned it. Ironically some of the best lenses Olympus ever made was after its decline, as an attempt to recapture the market. OM mount 50mm f/2 macro mentioned is one, most 4/3 SHG lenses are easily sharper than that one even. That 50mm f/2 macro was designed using computer aided design when other companies were still using trial-and-error method.... Olympus pioneered a lot of things. Some of the world's fastest lenses of their time were/are Olympus (just google it). Competitors usually just put them down and say what's the point of a 24mm f/2? or LiveView on DSLR? or 4/3 sensor too small, etc..

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Whatever Oly produces, you just know that people will complain to high heaven. People will complain that it's not full frame. People will complain that it doesn't have a ginormous optical viewfinder. People will complain that it doesn't use button batteries. People will complain that it doesn't have a classic split-prism focusing screen. People will complain that it doesn't have match needle metering. People will complain that it isn't an all-manual focus camera, while simultaneously complaining that its auto focus isn't fast enough. And on and on it will go. Face it, no matter what they introduce, people will hate it. Oh, the joy of the internet! LOL.

I always find Olympus users as a whole tend to complain more than Canon/Nikon users though the cameras are not worse. It looks like Canonikon people are easier to please. I've never found 4/3 sensor is a limitation when compared to APS-C size sensor, but people keep complaining about it. Compared with FF, yes, there are disadvantages, but it has to do with DoF, not IQ. APS-C and 4/3 sensor size are too close to induce such big fuss most people are getting.... Most features Sony NEX-7 "introduced," like the real-time WB check on LiveView? E-620 already have it (I believe it's E-30 that introduced it, so it's an even older tech than you think). Olympus is just stinky at marketing. So many features are already there, but most users don't even know they exist before they sold their cameras.... I still laugh when people say Olympus's features are "buried in menu." Those people probably have never used Super Control Panel....

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

MysticX: A FF digital OM with metal body which works with classic OM lenses and also with newly designed AF lenses is a wet dream for many

But I doubt they'll be able to manufacture it at a cheap price.

It's hard when there are tons of 5D mk1 in the market which can be had for $800 used in good condition.

Hopefully it'll be mechanical coupled diaphragm and superior viewfinder/focusing screen that will sell it.

On the other hand, by today standards it will have to film with mirror up.

I doubt it'll be cheap to produce. Titanium versions of OM cameras are expensive enough Olympus raised the price and users protested.... Today, there are no cameras with titanium plates because the cost to built them probably is higher than what you pay for an OM 4T on eBay....

I also doubt they'll able to make it that'll live up to OM name.... Not an easy task to beat. OM 1 was the world's smallest 35mm SLR camera when it was launched in 1971 when SLRs were huge. They did it without making viewfinder smaller nor dimmer, without miniaturization of buttons and control so photogs can treat them like pro cameras without compromise. All lenses issued since inception were legendary from very beginning: extremely small without optical compromise, and some of the world's fastest lenses back in 1971, all retro-focus design, and most of them are either 49mm or 55mm filter thread. So many design constraints and they're still nicknamed Leica killers. Tough act to follow.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:03 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: We loved this camera when it came out in the 70's and ended up with the OM2 black versions. We have been onto olympus for years to reproduce their classic OM1n and OM2n as a digital camera as it has classic appeal. Why not, Leica have similar with their range. The earlier OM1n/OM2n have a triangular prism viewed from the front which makes it look aesthetically compact and streamlined. Only recently purchased a mint condition one to shoot film and scan so we are pleased with the news, it is hoped that they do go for the smaller one mentioned at not the OM3 + they start to get ugly! ; )

OM3 and OM4 have a lot of Canon look to it. Oh, is that what you mean? ;-)

Joke aside, if you can look beyond aesthetic issue (which I don't find my OM 4T all that ugly and I love the LED meter inside OVF, so much better than Nikon's) OM3(T) and OM4(T) (practically the same camera beside the shutter mechanism) are very capable cameras. World's first full-synchro flash, Olympus F280, can only be used on OM 3T and OM 4T. It took ten years for Canon to come up with the world's second....

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

_P: If the Sony rumors will come true we may finally have some decent DR and serious RAW headroom from Olympus body. Will be good to see those Panasonic LiveMOS stuff finally gone ...

I'm not entirely sure that's the purpose of the alliance. If I were Sony, I would purchase Olympus for accessing Olympus patents on lenses. Sony bought Minolta for credential into DSLR market, but Minolta was no Olympus. Most Olympus lenses design are made in-house (instead of base off German formula). Minolta had alliance with Leica and had some expertise learned from that alliance. If Sony/Olympus alliance is made, Sony would have world-class lens technology, which Olympus couldn't trump Nikon because of money issue, not because Olympus isn't capable. FYI, Olympus not only is the world's leader in endoscope, but Olympus invented endoscope (inventor of the endoscope asked Olympus to fund it so the world's first endoscope was made under Olympus name). Olympus to Japan is like HP or IBM is to the US. One of the largest patent holders in Japan if not in the world. The fall of an innovation giant would be an unthinkable event. Speaking of which, someone please save Kodak!

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 00:34 UTC

From what I've read, it'll be m4/3.... It's a shame really. They shouldn't pull the OM card unless they have a FF camera with all the features OM is known for: multi-spot metering, aperture ring, extremely large and bright OVF, legendary lens line-up. They used Pen name for the digital version because original film Pen is half-frame.... OM is FF, so why put the name on a crop sensor? OM is very pro oriented also. Auto everything people won't like it. OM is about "creative automation" not auto everything. It's not a P&S camera, like 4/3..., it's for people who know what they're doing.

4/3 lenses are better than even OM's legendary lenses in their days..., and are built on the knowledge they got from OM's Series 2 lenses (some of the world's sharpest, rent an SHG lens & see). It's shame Olympus abandoned it for an inferior system. My E-620 produces FAR better result than digital Pen cameras despite the sensor is 1-2 generation older. That tells you how important is the lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 00:21 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

diy: I finally read the legal document. Points after 55 are most relavent. 68--explaining what judge consider as infringing---is particularly interesting:

"I sympathise with Mr Houghton in his wish to use an image of London landmarks. He is free to do so. There are entirely independent images of the same landmarks available to be used which predate publication of Mr Fielder's picture. ... Mr Houghton could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe. It may or may not have the same appealing qualities as the claimant's image. Even if it did they would be the result of independent skill and labour employed by the independent photographer. Again however that is not what happened. "

One more thing. I think the critical thing that led defendant to lose the case is:

He did NOT record the creation date of his photo nor register his photos so there can be some copyright record that could protect him. It's not who is right or wrong, but who knows more about legal process....

Basically it's all LEGAL process. So all you photographers play safe and record all the dates and be sure make declaration of copyright to all your photos. Law is not used to protect people but used against people.... How nice.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

diy: I finally read the legal document. Points after 55 are most relavent. 68--explaining what judge consider as infringing---is particularly interesting:

"I sympathise with Mr Houghton in his wish to use an image of London landmarks. He is free to do so. There are entirely independent images of the same landmarks available to be used which predate publication of Mr Fielder's picture. ... Mr Houghton could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe. It may or may not have the same appealing qualities as the claimant's image. Even if it did they would be the result of independent skill and labour employed by the independent photographer. Again however that is not what happened. "

The judge basically is saying the defendant must not take the photo himself, because he does not possess the legal knowledge of a professional photographer. I thought this only applies to photos of people where you MUST let the model sign the model release form or the photographer could be sued. But who can sign for Big Ben and the Routemaster bus?

So basically, if you are small souvenir shop owner, or sell T-shirt with famous landmark over the Internet, be sure to hand the royalty to big corporations..., which of course, is anti-competitive. Either that, hire a professional photographer or a league of lawyers and let everything due process of laws. I can see who benefit the most from this ruling....

Anybody has stats on how much plaintiff got, and how much the lawyers got from this ruling? I have a feeling the latter made more than the plaintiff....

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Note the commercial aspect of the case. No on is suggesting that a photographer shouldn't replicate the scene and the manipulation of the image. But Houghton replicated the artistic elements in order to avoid paying royalties to the original artist.

I think the judge got it right. Quoting him, "No defence of independent design being advanced" means that Houghton acknowledged that he was copying the concept in Feidler's photo to create an image for commercial use, not just to paste in his scrapbook or post on Flickr. That fits the definition of infringement in my (American) mind, as well as the definition under UK law.

Separately, I'm amused by the refreshing use of the vernacular in the judge's opinion. He refers to Photoshop as a "bog standard bit of software." I don't think US judges use such informal language, but based on this example, perhaps they ought to.

dPreview, thanks for posting the story.

@diy

I've been reluctant to drag the controversial acts intended to protect intellectual properties (SOPA and PIPA) into this argument, but they're related in this way:

Both the Internet acts and this British rule on photography are well-intended to protect copyright holders' properties, and I support that, since I probably don't want my properties get stolen. However, protestors of both questionable legal measures are made by people who are clueless about the center of the issue and made uneducated decision under the influence of lawyers and interest groups.

The protestors want freedom of exchange of ideas over the Internet, NOT "let pirates do whatever they want." I don't like this British ruling for similar reason.

But avoiding royalties though you already know someone had already made similar attempt, I do believe is illegal. But I don't see enough similarity in this case to rule in favor of the plaintiff other than the "special effect."

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

GrahamGalaxy: 99% of all photograhy is not original but inspired by what you see in orher photographers work. I soak up other images, think about them, (make them better) and then produce a image.

Yes, if you want to put it that way, then it's not communism in that sense, but I used the analogy in a very limited scope. This is not an argument about C vs C (both systems have their own merit), but please take my analogy in the very specific scope I was using.... Capitalism allows choice is all I am trying to say. But yes, you could say it's the capitalism that encourages such stupid case to begin with because of the greed. And being stupid is also a choice, btw. Both C's have no intrinsic value we stereotype them for, which people later apply it to. I knew I shouldn't have used political terms in my argument.... Too easy to stir people's emotional response....

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: The bottom photograph arguably better as it shows the whole bus. Now we know the world has gone mad if this sticks! Did the judge QC know anything about art and composition or the techniques that are used these days for spot colour. (Not needed if you are using a Nikon D5100 as it is one of the effects.

The judge in the ruling did mention the angle and field of view are different but still rule in favor of the plaintiff....

And I agree with you, I doubt the judge, the lawyers, or even the two photographers presented in this case know enough about photography to know what really makes two scenes different. For starter, two photos are shot with different focal lengths and probably different aperture settings. All those are artist's creative decision to make original art.

And I agree with you, the "copycat" version is better, compositional wise. But it's not a case about "which is the better photo" but who owns the scene (which I believe the Queen of England can sue them both).

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: On another note there is a shot of a Black OM4 Olympus camera on a white background in this review section. Does this mean that if we shoot a black Olympus camera on a white background we have to pay someone who has done this before, for example Olympus? We were going to do some test shots of oven bake crisps, again on a white background, piled on top of each other. This shot has been done before does this mean that we can not shoot it?
We are a still Life photographers it is unlikely that someone somewhere has not shot something on a white back ground before so, according to this we have avoid shooting items on white backgrounds. There are endless shots of clean fresh vegetables on wooden backgrounds, are we stuffed on that one as well?

Are any of those red bus in front of Big Ben photos "intellectual creation?"

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

GrahamGalaxy: 99% of all photograhy is not original but inspired by what you see in orher photographers work. I soak up other images, think about them, (make them better) and then produce a image.

When I was studying film (cinematography), the instructor mentioned very clearly that all the stories can be told are already been told. It's not about the story, but how one tells the story.

Same here. I see clearly the execution and techniques used are different (besides the superficial red bus on b&w background) so I am not sure where the violation comes in. This is an anti-creative ruling. If this goes slippery slope, then there can only be one Half Dome photo (Ansel Adam's), and one jumping over the puddle photo in the world (Cartier-Bresson's). This is communism in art where every scene is a commodity, have a fixed utilitarian value with absolutely no tolerance for variation.

Besides, the plaintiff himself said he copied the style from Schindler's List....

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

upsetter: Strange that the only reference to Justin Fielder from Google is this one.
I would have thought something so absolutely wrong and important would have been reported somewhere in the UK press?????????

Thanks R Butler for the link, which arrange the case points in much more meaningful manner.

The original precedent case this current case relied on is so much different. In original case, Gallagher actually manipulated the scene, so the scene IS original. This current case, red double-decker running in front of Big Ben and Parliament is NOT artificially created purely for the purpose of the artist's unique vision. Don't know why the judge could use it to rule in plaintiff's favor....

If standing in that common tourist spot for a long time makes it an original..., then I have plenty of photos that I can sue people for. And people who sell calenders featuring Tunnel View which Ansel Adams first popularized it would be sued under the same ruling.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

zeidgeist: The problem that we have in the UK is that most of our judges are idiots, that we have rather too many lawyers prepared to take on stupid and dangerous cases and of course the litigious chancers who will do anything for a fast buck and scumbags who will run roughshod over all and sundry. Welcome to "New" Britain.

Plaintiff's sole witness was himself, and defendant's witness was his associate.... This case should be thrown out in the first place.

Bottom line. If you can hire the best lawyer to tell the world what originality means (and I have the impression neither the judge nor the lawyers understand photography), then you could be the next greatest photographer....

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: The effect of this judgement is to protect YOU the photographer from someone taking one of your ideas, copying it, and selling it at a lower price to a client.

How is that a bad thing?

@rfsIII

Yes, it's to protect the intellectual property, and I can understand that. After all I wouldn't want people to copy my work and cheapen it like some knock-off purse.

On the other hand, the specific case is quite ridiculous. Here are some of my thoughts (condensed):

1) It's a case about money, not originality. Neither photo will win on originality, whether we judge them based on the composition or technique.
2) Neither photos are to be called photos in strictest sense, but illustrations, because of extensive manipulation. So assessment used on judging an illustration is very different from a straight-photo.
3) I agree with another poster, both photos are tacky and unoriginal. Neither photographers have talent. The original photo's perspective is badly done. Bus is painted red, but small presence in the scene is self-contradictory. "Copycat" version is a much improvement on that bit, but done with lack of skill (and bad gears). Pot calling kettle black....

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:45 UTC
Total: 177, showing: 161 – 177
« First‹ Previous6789Next ›Last »