Greg Lovern

Lives in United States Bellevue, WA, United States
Joined on May 4, 2004
About me:

Pentax K-7 since December 2011
Pentax *ist D since March 2004
O-ME53 1.2x magnifying eyecup
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
DA 18-135 WR
FA 50/1.4
FA 35/2.0
FA 100/2.8 Macro
Sigma 12-24 (original version)
Polaris 135/1.8, YS-Mount w/ K-mount T2 adapter (Mid 1970s)
Misc old primes
Pentax ZX-L (MX-6) (now used only with the Sigma at ~12mm for 122-degree angle of view)
Current Wishlist:
K-5 II
DA 16-85 WR
DA* 55
DA 55-300 WR
Tamron 70-200/2.8
Sigma 10-20 (wish they'd make the 8-16 in K-mount!)
Lumix GM-1
Canon S90 with Franiec
Fond memories:
Pentax Super Program
Kiron-made M42 Vivitar 20/3.5
Olympus OM-1 (~1980)
Sigma 21-35/3.5-4.0 (~1981) (not the much more common 1985 21-35/3.5-4.2)
Leica MiniLux
Dad's 126-cartridge, flashcube Kodak Instamatic X-15 (~1970)
Various old cameras in Grandpa's basement (~1960's & early 1970's)


Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Roland, in US copyright law, the point of "statutory" damages is to remove the connection to actual damages. That way there is real protection for low-budget operations that can't afford to sue a big corporation that is stealing their copyrighted work.

But statutory damages are a maximum, and judges in copyright cases routinely award far less. The judge can award any amount he chooses up to the maximum. I would be extremely surprised if this photographer is awarded the maximum. But it's normal to *ask* for the maximum. The plaintiff asks for the maximum, and the judge usually awards far less.

I would put my money on an award big enough to be painful for Getty but not big enough to bankrupt them.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 22:08 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

AndroC: "Ricoh got back to us as of March 3, 2016 and has agreed to allow us to publish the K-1 samples here at a resolution of 2000px on the longest side."

Speaking as somebody who is keenly interested in moving to the K1 from my beloved Sony A850, I am disturbed by the question of why Ricoh is restricting resolution on published images. After all, it is only a matter of two or three weeks before the camera is available - are they seriously going to make firmware changes in the short time before that, and produce stunningly much better images? I find this strange. Would it not be more convincing to show the full detail of what this camera may do?

Who says they're going to make firmware changes in that short time? Maybe the changes are completed but they're still in final testing. The work could be 99% done for all we know.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2016 at 10:13 UTC
On article Opinion: Pour one out for Samsung cameras (321 comments in total)

If Samsung is pulling out of the digital camera market, Ricoh/Pentax should buy the NX line, make a great K-mount adapter, and run with it.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 02:06 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply

I got in line at about 9:30 and was #167. I brought my 2003 Pentax #ist D. The guy in front of me had bought an Olympus E-500 with kit lens from a pawn shop for $50 a couple days prior, just for this promotion.

But some people brought cameras with more value. The guy behind me had a D200 with a surprisingly large Nikon lens, and he was even including the grip. Another person nearby had a barely-used, mint condition Pentax Stormtrooper K-r. It would have been possible to make some money bringing 10 $50 DSLRs and paying people say $50 to trade, then ebaying those trades.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 20:38 UTC as 5th comment

Any thoughts on how early I should get in line for this?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2015 at 05:55 UTC as 7th comment

3:2 aspect ratio again. I’m looking forward to that aspect ratio spreading to more laptops. 3:2 comes out to roughly 16:11, about 20% taller than the 16:9 of most laptops today.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2015 at 20:08 UTC as 43rd comment | 4 replies

How do I delete this inadvertent post??

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.


The same is effectively true for most photographs - someone owns something in the frame; the photographer usually didn't create everything in the frame. If I take a picture at a national park, should the government own the picture? If I take a street photo, should it be collectively owned by everyone in the frame?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:42 UTC

Taylor Swift: "Photographers have to work for me for free. But Musicians should be paid even for free trials. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 19:35 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: > The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation <

Not true. It's at least the fourth. The first three were:
F* 250-600/5.6 (1988)
FA* 250-600/5.6 (1991)
FA* 80-200/2.8 (1994)

@Maxfield_photo: No, their exact text is: "The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation, and features a new 'HD' coating." If you removed the comma and changed "features" to "feature", it would read as you say. As it is, it cleary says it's the first Star FF tele zoom.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 19:54 UTC

> The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation <

Not true. It's at least the fourth. The first three were:
F* 250-600/5.6 (1988)
FA* 250-600/5.6 (1991)
FA* 80-200/2.8 (1994)

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 04:21 UTC as 24th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

timo: Really crummy editorial: Whoever writes up this stuff has left out the crucial qualification: * The world’s shortest standard zoom lens for use with digital SLR cameras (as of February 1, 2015, based on RICOH IMAGING research)

I see that qualification there, and I saw it there long before your post. It's in green text.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 06:21 UTC
In reply to:

Eigenmeat: Waste of time, it's not like you can fit a DSLR into your pocket even WITHOUT a lens.

Instead, they should do something like the "first DSLR kit lense that starts at 24mm equivalent".

Since when is 18mm on APS-C equivalent to 24?? It's equivalence is more like 28mm.

18 x 1.55 = 27.9

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: Incorrect headline, very poor journalism by DPreview staff, maliciously done on purpose to generate page views?

Not the world's shortest zoom lens by a long shot. As the footnote indicates, it's only the shortest DSLR zoom lens.

Pretty sure they mean the smallest *weather-resistant*. See the mention of this lens in the announcement here of the KS-2. Not sure why they don't say the same here; probably an oversight.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:29 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: Sony's SELP1650 (16-50mm for APS-C) is just 29mm collapsed.

Panasonic's Vario PZ 14-42mm is 27mm collapsed.

They don't count because they have no mirror, hence not DSLR?

And the K-mount has a FFD of 45.46mm, more than twice that of E-mount and M43.

Pretty sure they mean the smallest *weather-resistant*. See the mention of this lens in the announcement here of the KS-2. Not sure why they don't say the same here; probably an oversight.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:26 UTC

Does this replace the K-50?

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 23:06 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jacek2008: Please Pentax NO built-in toy flash. Give IMAX-like viewfinder view.

And no autofocus either! And no exposure automation; it should be manual exposure only! And no metering; real photographers use a hand-held meter! And no anti-shake, that's for pansies! And no weathersealing! And no LCD preview! And most important of all, no built-in sensor; I'll put in my own!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: I wonder if the working prototypes of the unofficial MZ-D are still working and who has them- furthermore, what they are worth! :)

You can buy one with a Contax mount as the Contax N Digital. Aside from external cosmetics, lens mount and flash connections, they were essentially the same camera, designed by Pentax except for the N Digital body. It was a good camera for its time if you don't mind shooting at ISO 50 (noisy above that), and Contax/Yashica made some excellent lenses that can be had for a song today.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: DOOMED before it even came out. SONY A900/A850 came out when the competitions only have 5D2 and D700 at $600-$800 more and A900/A850 didn't make a dent in the FF market. SONY also have a full line of FF lenses for the Alpha twins.

Now the competitions have 6D, 5D3, 5D4, D610, D750, D810, DF not to mention SONY's A7 series. Pentax lenses for the last 15 years are also all geared toward APS-C.

Pentax is DOOMED because they don't have a FF DSLR! Whoops, now Pentax is DOOMED because their FF DSLR is too late to market! And remember, Pentax is also DOOMED because they don't offer everything N/C offers! Plus, Pentax is DOOMED because they were bought by another company! DOOMED, I say! DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 02:00 UTC
Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »