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
AF540FGZ II
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)
:

Comments

Total: 117, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I had a FlashPath. What's not to like? I still had floppy drives long after I was done with SmartMedia. And keeping a high-capacity SmartMedia card in one of these effectively turned it into a high-capacity floppy disk; nice for those large transfers between work and home, back before there were better ways that weren't a lot more expensive (doing it this way was effectively free if you already had the card and adapter for camera use).

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 09:36 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-3040 Zoom (119 comments in total)

I had the C3000, which I believe was very similar except for a f/2.8 lens, and was happy with the image quality. Unfortunately the Smartmedia reader sometimes corrupted my photos.

Shutter lag was absolutely glacial. I had shots where my human subject was not even in the shot at all because they walked away after I pressed the shutter.

Because the Smartmedia cards were so flat, I also kept one in my wallet, and a reader in my briefcase. It was the most convenient way I had back then of transferring large files between home and work.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 18:19 UTC as 41st comment
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: Don't you love it when they spin a downgrade as "bold"? Yes, paying for downgrades really makes me feel bold. A bold chump, that is.

I think the most telling part of the interview was the first part of his explanation, where he said, "One, it’s a bit of a cumbersome slot. You've got this thing sticking halfway out."

See, this is about making the product look ever more "clean". It's about fashion. Everything that protrudes is seen as a design flaw. Next they'll eliminate those ugly keyboard keys. They're cumbersome after all; they stick up from the laptop's deck.

Of course, there's no reason an SD card has to stick "halfway out". On my camera, it sticks out only a couple of millimeters. A laptop could be designed so that it doesn't stick out at all, and is removed by pressing in a larger area that encloses it. But I guess that wouldn't have been "bold" enough.

Too long to allow being included in my post above:

I also like how he described this as having the advantage that users could use CF cards too, in their USB readers. As if that hadn't already been possible for as long as laptops have had USB ports.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 18:30 UTC

Don't you love it when they spin a downgrade as "bold"? Yes, paying for downgrades really makes me feel bold. A bold chump, that is.

I think the most telling part of the interview was the first part of his explanation, where he said, "One, it’s a bit of a cumbersome slot. You've got this thing sticking halfway out."

See, this is about making the product look ever more "clean". It's about fashion. Everything that protrudes is seen as a design flaw. Next they'll eliminate those ugly keyboard keys. They're cumbersome after all; they stick up from the laptop's deck.

Of course, there's no reason an SD card has to stick "halfway out". On my camera, it sticks out only a couple of millimeters. A laptop could be designed so that it doesn't stick out at all, and is removed by pressing in a larger area that encloses it. But I guess that wouldn't have been "bold" enough.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 18:25 UTC as 405th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sh10453: Wouldn't it be nice if they'd digitize all books at public libraries?
Then multiple people can access a book simultaneously without waiting, or a trip to the library. No clerical checkout, no book return, no late fees, no torn / stolen pages, no coffee or juice spilled on the book, ..., etc.

None of my engineering books from graduate and undergraduate days has been taken off my shelves in years. They occupy a good size wall at the house. Of course I keep them there for bragging rights, and to impress and intimidate visitors. :-)

I got the same collection, and more, in digital format, plus any new editions / revisions, and that much larger collection sits in a folder, in a corner, on one of my external drives.
I only use the digital versions. Easier to find, easier to search, and easier to store.

I imagine that someday (maybe not in our lifetime, but when people run out of trees, and paper becomes pricier than gold) the paper books will be a thing of the past. Just in museums

@sh10453, my post wasn't in response to your statement "Wouldn't it be nice if ...". It was in response to your statement "everything can be negotiated".

It isn't true that "everything can be negotiated". If you can't find the copyright owner, you can't negotiate with them. If you go ahead and publish without finding the copyright owner, you risk $250,000 per copyright infringed, and copyright predators are watching and waiting for you to do exactly that.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2016 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Wouldn't it be nice if they'd digitize all books at public libraries?
Then multiple people can access a book simultaneously without waiting, or a trip to the library. No clerical checkout, no book return, no late fees, no torn / stolen pages, no coffee or juice spilled on the book, ..., etc.

None of my engineering books from graduate and undergraduate days has been taken off my shelves in years. They occupy a good size wall at the house. Of course I keep them there for bragging rights, and to impress and intimidate visitors. :-)

I got the same collection, and more, in digital format, plus any new editions / revisions, and that much larger collection sits in a folder, in a corner, on one of my external drives.
I only use the digital versions. Easier to find, easier to search, and easier to store.

I imagine that someday (maybe not in our lifetime, but when people run out of trees, and paper becomes pricier than gold) the paper books will be a thing of the past. Just in museums

@sh10453, not "everything can be negotiated" when the copyright owner can't be found. What you're suggesting would risk a $250,000 statutory judgement per copyrighted work infringed. Hundreds of millions of books can't safely be digitized because they are still copyright protected but the copyright owner can't be found. Copyright predators monitor for actions just such as you suggest, and sue, falsely claiming to own the copyright, and copyright law puts the burden of proof on the person who infringed. Proving the copyright predator wrong is virtually impossible because copyright can be transferred by private acts. Copyright law is broken in this way; people have been trying to fix it for many years but are blocked by powerful interests who are keen to fully protect copyright owners without requiring any effort at all on their part to document and assert copyright ownership, and by others who are keen to not spend a single taxpayer penny on any proposed system for addressing the issue.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 17:46 UTC
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 6th comment

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

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2015 at 05:55 UTC as 8th 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.

Vlad

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
Total: 117, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »