Andy Crowe

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Dec 16, 2006

Comments

Total: 1123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Clara May: This beautiful image would not be possible without Slater setting up his camera with the greatest care and skill. How many tries before he got to this result? To say that he does not own the copyright is plain lunacy.

You can rightly criticise Slater for embellishing his original story, but if even security camera footage is debated to have copyright protection then anyone who sets up equipment to take a particular photo, even if the outcome is unpredictable, then they have a very strong copyright claim.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Clara May: This beautiful image would not be possible without Slater setting up his camera with the greatest care and skill. How many tries before he got to this result? To say that he does not own the copyright is plain lunacy.

Slater claims he gave the monkeys the camera with the specific intent that they would "accidentally" take photos with it. As the shoot was specifically engineered by him, and as no monkey has come forward to dispute that version of events, it seems like his setting up of the situation is plenty enough for a strong copyright claim.

> And you're the one that brought it up despite it being completely different.

I already made the connection - in both cases a human wasn't involved in the actual act of taking the photograph. If a photo taken automatically by a motion trigger is copyright of the photographer who set the equipment up, then it follows that a photo triggered by an animal in any way is also copyright of the photographer who set the equipment up.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Clara May: This beautiful image would not be possible without Slater setting up his camera with the greatest care and skill. How many tries before he got to this result? To say that he does not own the copyright is plain lunacy.

I don't think a photographer's copyright of images taken with motion sensor traps has ever been doubted before? Certainly there was no issue when Steve Winter won BBC Wildlife photo of the year with a snow leopard captured by a remote shutter trap, something he wouldn't have been able to do if he didn't have the copyright on the image.

I think the key quote from that Wikipedia article is: "A plaintiff could argue that the placing of the video camera and possibly even its operation involved skill, judgment and labour. These are the hallmarks of the test of originality for the subsistence of copyright". Security camera footage that happens to capture some dramatic action might not meet those criteria, but a camera that has been specifically set up to take the shot in question surely does.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

wilsonlaidlaw: I hope that the funders of PETA will have a serious discussion re the continued employment of their director(s), who authorised this absurd law suit. If I was a funder of PETA (I am not and never will be), I would consider suing the director(s) concerned for wasting the fund's money in a rash and inappropriate manner.

Getting lots of press for doing absurd things is pretty much what PETA does, so this lawsuit has been a massive success for them.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

Clara May: This beautiful image would not be possible without Slater setting up his camera with the greatest care and skill. How many tries before he got to this result? To say that he does not own the copyright is plain lunacy.

Bobthearch if a nature photographer sets up a camera to take a picture with a motion triggered remote shutter, who gets the copyright? Why is this case different to that, given that in neither cases did the photographer actually press the trigger?

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Maoby:

Being a rangefinder doesn't preclude a camera from also being mirrorless.

The Leica M8 is another mirrorless digital body that predates the Samsung NX10.

Yes, but the term "mirrorless" is understood to mean an interchangeable lens camera with liveview, which the earlier digital M cameras don't have.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: What's with the bizarre clickbait title? "Finally"? I dont think anyone has ever really been waiting for this. The previous generation of Sony cameras all support charging and running with micro usb chargers. Plenty of third party chargers that charge more than 1 battery for ages.

The a7 cameras charge from USB while switched off but can't run on USB power when switched on.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 09:57 UTC

It should be a tin with a removable lid, not something you have to destroy just to get a single image. What a waste.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 09:45 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: $4500... you kidding me.

"$4500... you kidding me." I know, that's $2000 cheaper than a Nikon D5 and $1500 cheaper than a Canon 1D-X II!

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: The reason why I am not interested in a camera with an EVF: the ugly blue-ish rendering by the EVFs of the subjects/scenes. Why that ugly blue-ish rendering? Why are camera makers not capable to build EVFs with natural color-rendering? I have many times be told: look at the modern EVFs of excellent camera makers and you will get positively surprised - that positive surprise never occured. .

When shooting, enjoying what I see through the viewfinder is an essential part of my enjoyment (am I the only one?). And the ugly bue-ish rendering by the EVFs just destroys my pleasure.

I would not mind at all EVFs with a true-life color-rendering.

The EVF is displaying what the camera is capturing, so it's not going to look like what your eyes see but it is going to look like what your captured image does.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:16 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)
In reply to:

LDunn1: I looked through a Panasonic mirrorless a number of years ago, think it may have been a GH4, but I can't remember, but it was when EVF's had first started to appear. It was obvious that I was looking at an LCD, the LCD 'mesh' was noticeable. I disliked it immediately.

End of last year, I tried a Sony A7Rii for a couple of days, & the tech had really moved on, The EVF was not an issue to me at all, in fact, I kind of liked it!

I Don't know if the A7Rii EVF is now typical of all modern/current EVF's, but what would have been a deal breaker for me, is now at least acceptable to me, & possibly actually desirable.

If it's from when EVF's first started to appear it must be a lot older than the GH4, perhaps the GH1/2?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

sop51: Kodak "failed to identify digital photography as a disruptive technology" and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2012.

It seems they're failing to identify digital video as a disruptive technology in 2017. History repeats.

More like they've actually recognized the current retro trend and trying to cash in on it.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

tex: Errr.....why counterfeit THIS lens....?

Would you be able to tell one cheap 50 1.8 from another? If they tried to counterfeit more expensive glass anyone buying it would notice straight away and take it straight back.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

Eloise: You have to "love" counterfeiters mentality... they go to all the trouble of making a lens look identical to the Canon, then fail to put a space in the most basic of detail!

Plausible deniability? "Oh no, we weren't pretending this was a CANON lens, our company is called CANONINC, it's completely different!" :)

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Isn't the genuine lens pretty cheap?

This is like counterfeiting $1 bills. If the criminals had any sense they would be counterfeiting L series lenses.

That's what I thought at first, but thinking about it the kind of people who buy L lenses are also the kind of people who would be able to tell something wasn't right almost straight away.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 23:18 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

Olympus C220, nice enough camera though it didn't take long to upgrade to a Canon A70

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 17:44 UTC as 433rd comment
In reply to:

SETI: Insane price for small sensor! Let's speak just about stills quality...
Cheaper FF cameras: Nikon D750, Sony Alpha a7 II, Canon EOS 6D
Matching prices: Canon EOS 6D with 24-105mm f/4L and Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan Kit, Nikon D610 with 24-85mm, Sony Alpha a7 II with FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS, Sony Alpha a7R

The Oly has interesting USPs like the 6.5 stops IBIS and 60fps full size raw shooting, which combined with its other features like weather sealing and an electronic shutter might be more useful for someone than having a FF sensor.

I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic GX7, I tend to use the GX7 more often due to the combination of IBIS, electronic shutter and small but sharp lenses. If I need super shallow DOF, more DR, or to shoot in very low light I'll use the A7, if I'm doing event photography and need to be quiet I have no choice but to use the GX7, the smaller lenses are a big bonus too.

Basically horses for courses.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 12:04 UTC
In reply to:

imsabbel: Okay, looing at that dial, this is clearly based on 2 polarization filters rotated against each other.

How do they avoid issues with reflections? Another lambda/4 plate afterwards? And whats the color fidelity?

I'd imagine it's the same as every other polarizer based variable ND filter

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

dansclic: Come on, is someone really going to put that big bertha on a A7 body ???? (Unless you have a spécial steel bayonet)

Actually its light weight would make it an ideal camera to mount on this lens :)

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: Since when has photo equipment start being called "kit?" It gives the impression of small, lightweight amateur stuff. It should be "heavy photo equipment." People will think, "big photo gear."

It's been called "kit" for as long as I can remember, I mean here's a post calling it kit from 2003 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5405291

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 11:36 UTC
Total: 1123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »