Lives in Netherlands EHV / NB, Netherlands
Works as a Software engineer
Joined on Apr 23, 2004


Total: 211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Trollshavethebestcandy: I see this having lots of potential for more bad than good. Integrated cameras that can be shut down is not good. If your camera can be remotely shut down by the state that can control it via wireless I see that as bad.

'the state' is the least of your worries mate.
Corporations have been doing far worse without fear of punishment for ages.
Google & co know more about you than the government ever will.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

Maxfield_photo: Uhhh so... just put the stolen lens on an older body?

or reset to factory defaults ...
or threaten the user

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

Mark1952: Here you go. We know that profit has nothing to do with this idea.
Grey market camera's, lenses will die natural death. All what you have here is control of the market.

It's not Japanese thinking.
It's the kind of boneheaded corporate dinosaur thinking that gets us all kinds of useless features that hurt legit customers.

It's the kind of desperate attempt at protecting something that is about to go extinct.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Mark1952: I bet lens and camera rental company are happy about it.

I wonder how happy they're going to be if a user changes the password of their lenses ...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Wiegman: This is a cool idea, but it needs to come with the option to disable this feature by the owner so you could share lenses with friends.

if it can be disabled it will be absolutely useless in its supposed 'primary' function.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

danijel973: I see no advantage of this method compared to registering your equipment on manufacturer's website for reference in case of theft.

that's because it is not meant to help users.
It is meant to help the manufacturer protect its market share from imaginary threats.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

KeeChiuPeng: Can root or jailbreak to bypass the security code?

Anything made by man can be unmade.
The better question is how many days after initial release this 'protection' will last ....

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

KennyXL: I wonder how they're going to force this upon people who use adapters on other brands of cameras. Oh, they're going to wipe out that market...? I can see people never buying another Nikon lens after the first time this happens.

As if boycotting corporations ever worked.
There'll be plenty of blind fan boys and uninformed consumers that will ensure that fails.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

cplunk: So instead of reusing your stolen lens it get a quick bash with a hammer and tossed in the garbage.

It's not going to save anyone from having there gear stolen. If a thief has the opportunity to take it they will. If it has a password on it making it unusable, they aren't going to then return it.

it's either that or the thief cracks the password in mere seconds while legit users have to deal with yet another reason why their gear doesn't work ...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

utomo99: I hope they can sell the technology to cameras manufacturer. so it can be built in

It would be better if they made it an open standard that was free to anyone.
The need to 'sell' technology does more harm and prevents true innovation in the long run.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2013 at 14:56 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: This story almost makes me want to drop Nikon and I've been using their cameras for years. Imagine a product that will make it easier to kill some of the world's most beautiful and majestic creatures. what the hay?

Certainly my discontinued support for Nikon products won't make this world any less messed up or make the foolish practice of hunting stop forever. But at some point we all have to take a stand against things we feel strongly about.

Major fail from Nikon. At some point we need to businesses need to be held to a certain standard of ethics. And this story shows Nikon way, way below that standard.

And that Nikon isn't the only one involved in these activities either ?

Showing support is one thing.
It may very well be a little more complicated if you really wanted to do so consistently as not all manufacturers are that easy to trace to their source.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: Does Canon make spotting scopes? If not, I think I just found a new system.

Olympus is another option if you want to stop moving all those heavy Canons around ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: Trophy hunters do not need more scopes. What they need is more basic education.
Whosoever takes life to posess a trophy should have their head examined.
Taking photos is just as exciting and no life is destroyed - isn't it time already to put a global stop to killing sports?
As to the Nikon ad... Why do we think that any camera manufacturer would stick to high moral values? It's against the credo of mercantilism, and the motto there is "Sell, sell, sell!"...

Abortion (or "woman's choice") is a heck of a long way removed from killing living beings for fun.

The former at least has a high probability of being a matter of survival, unless you think that the majority of abortions are done 'for fun' too.
Heck, given the kind of 'happy' life shown in those "teenage pregnancy reality shows" abortion would have been the better option by a long shot for those girls and their family.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Not to point out the obvious, but many people here seem to have a bad case of hoplophobia.

First, the person with the rifle decides what to point it at, not the scope maker.

Second, what about the rifle makers? Or the ammo makers? Or the guides who take them hunting? Or the governments that encourage and benefit from it? Or the local economies that depend on it?

The brand name on the scope has Sweet FA to do with it.

ah ... the use of complicated latin-sounding words to describe a non-event.

if one dares to protest against anything advertising guns there must always be someone chanting "guns don't kill people, people do" because that makes the very fact that we are selling an instrument of death less problematic. And the fact that it is aimed at mere animals should make us feel happy ?

Sure, the make of the scope has sweet FA to do with anything.
However its use in making it easier to kill living things at a safe distance can not be denied.

There is no harm in questioning the need for Nikon (or anyone else, let's not focus on just Nikon) to create such things, especially if there is no apparent link to photography as is the case here.

Besides there are enough grognards around that question the use of smart phones as cameras already. You ought to expect them commenting on new fangled stuff like camera scopes too ...

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

steve0017: What are all the PC types going to say when some group representing native peoples claims that picture taking steals the souls of those photographed and therefore Nikon should stop making cameras and lenses.

They wouldn't say anything because everyone knows such things are superstitions that ought to be ignored and ridiculed.
Didn't you know ?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

jttravis: Big and dangerous game hunting preserves the wildlife when properly managed. The poaching (especially for ridiculous purposes like rhino horns for consumption) and habitat loss are responsible for the species decline.

Well regulated hunting has brought more species back from near extinction than the reverse.

Proper management is not going to happen when there is profit to be made by not doing it.
Never mind that it is impossible to enforce when wild life itself can ignore borders that human politicians won't.
And that's not even mentioning the criminal elements that will find a way around whatever rules are created.
Oh ... and you would need to manage it on a global scale in an era we can't even agree to killing our own species.

Letting nature run its course would preserve wild life tooif you are prepared to pay the costs in human resources (ie : by not expanding territory into the breeding grounds of endangered species, accepting human casualties, etc. ... ).
It may even be cheaper in the long run.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:30 UTC
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

HL48: This decision will make it difficult or impossible for photographers to sell their work at prices commanded by original works of art. Is that good or bad? I don't know.

Only the lucky few get to create art and enjoy the fruits of their labour during their lifetime.
Maybe some of these 'artists' need to wake up and get a real job?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:17 UTC
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

E J S: I know an art collector who is passionate about photography, yet he refuses to collect photographs. This is exactly why. Some comments here have suggested Eggleston is hurting his credibility for selling future limited editions, but what he is hurting is the credibility of ALL photographic artists to do so.

If the credibility of photographic artists is hurt by the actions of one man it didn't have much to begin with.

Maybe those (photographic) artists should think about what their art really is.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:12 UTC
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

chj: i put a tricycle on the sidewalk and took a picture, saved myself a few hundred thousand

I just Googled "tricycle on sidewalk" ... much faster :p

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 18:01 UTC
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

tornwald: Difficult. Although I agree that Eggleston should be able to make new prints with a very different technique, it is not very chic of him to sell these again.
It would have been different if he were to use these new prints for the purpose of an exhibition for example and keep them in his private posession.
However, I think Sobel has nothing to worry. The dye transfer prints of Eggleston are his trademark prints, and this photograph may be his most famous one of all (together with the red ceiling). These unique prints will only increase in value, not matter how many new inkjet print are made.

I think it also depends on how much money he actually made on that first production run.

Shouldn't he (the original artist) be allowed to get a little extra now that various 3rd parties (like the people that sold the copy to Sobel) made a ton of money?

Then again ... forcing artists to constantly create new art in order to may be better for us as consumers.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 17:57 UTC
Total: 211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »