nyer82

nyer82

Lives in United States County, City and State of, NY, United States
Works as a Student
Has a website at www.viewofthedrew.com
Joined on Mar 14, 2007

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

A lot of this has to do with different release schedules, the iPhone 7 is much closer to being released than any Samsung Galaxy S8 (the S7 just came out for godsakes).

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 19:38 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article Samsung Galaxy Note 4 camera review (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

antares103: The Note 4 is the latest iteration of Samsung's top-end line of so-called 'phablets'

and yet, it still doesnt support DNG on Lollipop.

I thought it stood for "Really....Awesome... Wow".

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 23:19 UTC
On article DPReview Recommends: Selfie-Sticks (133 comments in total)

No review of this thing?!... ok I know it's only VGA quality BUTT...I'm still kinda interested.

http://www.firebox.com/product/7078/Inner-Selfie-Stick

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 23:37 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

Indulis Bernsteins: The "not wanting to cannibalize its own market" is the result of corporate "silo mentality" where the company tries to make each division its own little profit centre (e.g. DSLR division vs mirrorless division). What you end up with is less focus and effort on what customers want, and more focus on internal squabbling and infighting (and backstabbing) to stop another division's good product being released and biting into your division's mediocre or aging product. A sign of weak and lazy management at the top- and the reason why smaller "single product" focus companies continue to advance the state of the art..

Silo mentality is why Xerox couldn't capitalize on the wonderful operating system they built, and why Kodak couldn't capitalize on digital cameras, and why... etc etc etc.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

nyer82: I knew this was possible... to have both sensor and optical stabilization and the camera decides how to implement them. It's really the best of all worlds. But whenever I brought it up, people screamed at me.

I don't think it will matter to most people whether or not both systems working in tandem is "better" than 1 or the other system, or the same. The important thing is that you have the capability to have stabilization with any lens you stick onto the camera. Not only that, but all the vintage lenses you stick onto this camera will give the angle of view they were intended for and manufactured for on 35mm film. None of the glass in the lens will be "wasted" like it is when you stick vintage glass on APS or m4/3.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2014 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

nyer82: I knew this was possible... to have both sensor and optical stabilization and the camera decides how to implement them. It's really the best of all worlds. But whenever I brought it up, people screamed at me.

It's best of all worlds because some stabilization is always better than none. If "it's better in the lens' like Canon claims , then the manufacturer can still put it in the lens. But on vintage lenses, or new lenses which don't have stabilization built-in, all of a sudden you can still have the benefits of some stabilization rather than none at all.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 22:27 UTC

I knew this was possible... to have both sensor and optical stabilization and the camera decides how to implement them. It's really the best of all worlds. But whenever I brought it up, people screamed at me.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 18:55 UTC as 47th comment | 9 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Let me summarise the review as below.

This is a wonderful little camera that could have been truly great if it had:

- Touchscreen
- ND filter
- Built-in flash

Lets hope we will see them in the LX200.

So if you use 0% natural lighting, it's not art?

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 22:38 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1019 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Let me summarise the review as below.

This is a wonderful little camera that could have been truly great if it had:

- Touchscreen
- ND filter
- Built-in flash

Lets hope we will see them in the LX200.

If the touchscreen is in combination with manual controls, it can be very nice for choosing a focal point in studio style shooting. The important thing though is to make sure nothing *requires* the use of the touchscreen.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 21:24 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 (345 comments in total)

Mode switch is a huge turn off.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 05:21 UTC as 99th comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): What about the scores of incredibly lucky photos captured by accident. They were not knowingly planned.
As a photographer, you will have to keep your mouth shut about everything you do, and say only: I planned this shot and it came out exactly as I had intended.
Say nothing else to anyone, ever.

"Someone should get paid"... well not if the photo started out as public domain due to circumstances.

All the examples of stuff that is copyrightable but not "taken by the photographer" basically count as "taken by the photographer" in terms of the law. Apparently, this very unique exception does not.

Lastly, whoever owns the gear is not a determinant factor.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 06:11 UTC
On article Exposing sharks in a positive light (62 comments in total)

A wide-angle closeup of a shark opening its jaws is probably the most interesting shot.... also the most deadly, I don't recommend anyone trying that one. I guess it could be done safely with some kinda remote-arm setup if one doesn't mind possibly losing the camera and lens.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 06:28 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

whtchocla7e: If the original image as stored on the memory card - after the monkey pressed the shutter - belongs to no one then Slater was free to edit the image and publish his version. His published version is his original work and he absolutely has the right to demand that Wikipedia takes it down.

That is completely dependent on how much editing is done.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.

Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.

That's the ironic thing, if the camera owner claims that it was *his* concept behind the shot, he'll have a much better claim on the copyright, but the value of the work is diminished.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.

Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.

Was the concept to have photos taken *by* the monkey? It doesn't appear to be... unless the story has changed.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: From the BBC:
...............
Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.

"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."

...............

Seems pretty clear to me that he deserves the credit for the photos and wikimedia are just wrong.

Copyright law can be strange. If all that mattered were intent and professionalism of the artist... then Night of the Living Dead could never have accidentally ended up in Public Domain.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Caring: My 2 cents here:

1. The applicable law is the Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia
85/2002 (referred to herein as the "Act"), as Indonesia is where the 'Work' was created.

2. Article 2(1) of the Act: "Copyright shall mean the exclusive right of an Author or a Copyright Holder to publish or reproduce his/her work, which emerges automatically after the creation of the work... "

3. Article 1(2) of the Act states: "Author shall mean a person or several persons jointly upon whose inspiration a Work is produced, based on the intellectual ability, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise manifested in a distinctive form and is of a personal nature. "

4. Monkey is not a 'person'. Therefore the question is whether or not Mr Slater satisfies the definition of an "Author" as defined by Article 1(2). Was it Mr Slater upon whose inspiration a Work is produced?

5. Monkey stole the camera from Mr Slater. This was not planned or inspired by Mr Slater.

The above is not legal advice.

Rhodesia has ceased being a country for a long time. Maybe you mean Indonesia?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 05:11 UTC
In reply to:

JapanCanon: Does this mean i dont have copyright in images I took on self timer?

From a legal standpoint, it doesnt matter what people think is right, or how they think the law should apply based on a few snippets that they understand, or a feeling for what is right and wrong. The only way to consider this situation from a legal standpoint is to sit down, read the words of the law, consider the facts and how those words apply to those facts. Probably Wikipedia did this and believe they have a strong legal argument.

But that's not the story the photographer had at all. There was never any intention of purposely letting the monkey handle the camera I think that's the big difference.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

That's a work-for-hire situation, which is different.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:38 UTC
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »