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: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article How to buy used gear (and not get burned) (112 comments in total)

If an eBay seller with lots of very positive feedback suddenly starts selling much more expensive items than before, of a type they hadn't sold much of before, and those items are a great deal, that eBay seller may have been hacked.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 16:35 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: It's a beautiful sentiment. But like or not, xenophobia is part of human nature. As we grow from babies to adults it's natural for us to fear and distrust those who look or seem different from those people we grew up being closest to.

What racists don't understand or accept is that we need to CONTROL our natural xenophobia, not let it run wild. When our xenophobia tells us to fear and distrust a person because their skin is a different color, we need to say no, that person's skin color does not make them dangerous. And then treat that person with respect, dignity, and civility.

In a way, a racist can be compared to a person who coughs and sneezes right in other people's faces and defends that habit by explaining that coughing and sneezing are natural. Sure they're natural, but you can, and should, control them.

What I'm reading here and on another forum is:
-- Xenophobia is a political term, not a social science term, and
-- The correct social science term is "Ingroup Favoritism".

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: It's a beautiful sentiment. But like or not, xenophobia is part of human nature. As we grow from babies to adults it's natural for us to fear and distrust those who look or seem different from those people we grew up being closest to.

What racists don't understand or accept is that we need to CONTROL our natural xenophobia, not let it run wild. When our xenophobia tells us to fear and distrust a person because their skin is a different color, we need to say no, that person's skin color does not make them dangerous. And then treat that person with respect, dignity, and civility.

In a way, a racist can be compared to a person who coughs and sneezes right in other people's faces and defends that habit by explaining that coughing and sneezing are natural. Sure they're natural, but you can, and should, control them.

@Suntan, thanks! One of those links mentioned this interesting book:

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Prejudice-Discrimination-Scott-Plous/dp/0072554436

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: It's a beautiful sentiment. But like or not, xenophobia is part of human nature. As we grow from babies to adults it's natural for us to fear and distrust those who look or seem different from those people we grew up being closest to.

What racists don't understand or accept is that we need to CONTROL our natural xenophobia, not let it run wild. When our xenophobia tells us to fear and distrust a person because their skin is a different color, we need to say no, that person's skin color does not make them dangerous. And then treat that person with respect, dignity, and civility.

In a way, a racist can be compared to a person who coughs and sneezes right in other people's faces and defends that habit by explaining that coughing and sneezing are natural. Sure they're natural, but you can, and should, control them.

(continued from earlier post)

The most influential and pernicious lies are those that build on a small truth. The small truth is used as bait to lure people in, then they are hooked on the lie. Racism is a lie that is built on the small truth that a moderate amount of fear and distrust of those different from ourselves is a natural part of human nature.

Pretending that various aspects of the dark side of human nature simply don't exist is not helpful toward eliminating problems caused by them. It would be like trying to make overweight people slim down by pretending they don't ever get hungry. Hunger is normal; overeating is the problem there. Telling an overweight person that they have no hunger does not help them slim down.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: It's a beautiful sentiment. But like or not, xenophobia is part of human nature. As we grow from babies to adults it's natural for us to fear and distrust those who look or seem different from those people we grew up being closest to.

What racists don't understand or accept is that we need to CONTROL our natural xenophobia, not let it run wild. When our xenophobia tells us to fear and distrust a person because their skin is a different color, we need to say no, that person's skin color does not make them dangerous. And then treat that person with respect, dignity, and civility.

In a way, a racist can be compared to a person who coughs and sneezes right in other people's faces and defends that habit by explaining that coughing and sneezing are natural. Sure they're natural, but you can, and should, control them.

I'll look for references. I didn't pull this out of my hat; I enjoy reading about psychological studies and this was one of many takeaways from that over many years.

This certainly does NOT mean that ALL xenophobia is part of human nature. We're born with a moderate amount that activates as our young brains grow and develop, then most of us learn to control and limit it, while some others build on it and run with it until they hate and wish death on innocent people outside their own group.

(to be continued due to reaching length limit)

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 18:02 UTC

It's a beautiful sentiment. But like or not, xenophobia is part of human nature. As we grow from babies to adults it's natural for us to fear and distrust those who look or seem different from those people we grew up being closest to.

What racists don't understand or accept is that we need to CONTROL our natural xenophobia, not let it run wild. When our xenophobia tells us to fear and distrust a person because their skin is a different color, we need to say no, that person's skin color does not make them dangerous. And then treat that person with respect, dignity, and civility.

In a way, a racist can be compared to a person who coughs and sneezes right in other people's faces and defends that habit by explaining that coughing and sneezing are natural. Sure they're natural, but you can, and should, control them.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 16:09 UTC as 78th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

landscaper1: Uh, DPReview ... those "full frame fighter jets" are actually highly modified Martin B-57 Canberra medium bombers, hence the "B" in WB-57F.

I'll second the B-1.

Another looker is the Hawker Hunter:

http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Hawker-Hunter-F.6A.jpg

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter#/media/File:Hawker_hunter_t7_blue_diamond_in_planform_arp.jpg

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 01:00 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)

How and why is "the market for multifunctional printers, Ricoh’s cash cow, evaporating"? All I see are positive reports:

https://www.technavio.com/report/global-computing-devices-multi-function-printer-market

http://wirthconsulting.org/2016/06/01/idc-slump-for-global-printermfp-market-in-1st-quarter-but-mps-contracts-continue-to-grow/

http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/components-peripherals/300084590/8-printer-market-trends-to-watch.htm/pgno/0/2

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 20:29 UTC as 82nd comment | 1 reply
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (808 comments in total)

Olmpus OM-1/OM-1n. I LOVED the shutter speed ring around the lens mount. So, so, so much better than standard shutter speed dial on the top plate.

A good battery adapter for the OM-1/n is $37 here:
https://shop.criscam.com/collections/mercury-battery-adapters/products/mr-9-mercury-battery-adapter

Pentax MX. Undocumented feature: tap the shutter lightly to get mirror lockup.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 15:44 UTC as 336th comment | 3 replies
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Three classics missing from this list: The Canon A1 - the successor to the AE1, with aperture and shutter priority options, and the two smallest SLRs: something from the Olympus OM series (OM-1, 2, 3, or 4), and the Pentax ME. The Olympus cameras were relatively tiny marvels: robust, with great functionality, commonly used by professionals. I owned several versions of the OM2 (I still have an OM2P).

For novelty, I'll through in the Pentax 110 SLR, which probably is the smallest SLR ever made (I was tempted to buy the 3 lens kit)- but the "sensor" size (110 film) was too small for it to really be practical.

By the way, I bought an Olympus XA when they first came out. A great little camera that I carried everywhere for over a decade. But the seals on the back cover dried up and started cracking, so if you buy one, test it for light-tightness.

The problem with the Pentax Auto 110 SLR was not just the small film size. It was also that the cartridge prevented the camera from flattening the film, as is normally done on a 35mm SLR with the spring-loaded back plate. As a result, the film was often not quite flat. That wasn't a problem with a small aperture as on a cheap fixed-focus Instamatic. But with a large aperture, the not-quite-flat film caused out-of-focus areas. The same problem had happened years earlier when some manufacturers had made good quality SLR systems around the 126 film cartridge. Cheap film cartridges and high quality lenses with wide apertures were never a good match.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Why is the D FA* 50mm F1.4 much bigger than the SMC FA 50mm F1.4 ?
Built-in AF motor ?
Additional glass elements/groups to improve IQ ?
OIS ?

The FA 50/1.4 wasn't designed for digital at all, but it was definitely designed for full-frame 35mm film.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)

That thing is gigantic for a 50/1.4. It looks like three of my Pentax-FA 50/1.4 could rattle around inside it.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 03:49 UTC as 24th comment

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 (121 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 43rd 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
Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »