Deorum

Lives in Greece Athens, Greece
Works as a Sports Photographer
Has a website at www.georgespyros.com
Joined on May 4, 2003
About me:

Sports Photography 4win!

Comments

Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)

What is the shutter rating? (It does have a shutter right?)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 19:49 UTC as 142nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Maybe nick woodman, the CEO, can stop construction of his est $40 million dollar yacht to pay for these employees to stay until the new year?

But no way, he needs his yacht. This is the 2nd wave of job cutting since he ordered his yacht and their stock tanked.

I'd never support a company run this poorly.

@Tonkotsu Ramen
you didnt overhire in the first place. times are changing, what you needed 5 years ago is not the same as now.
you, as a citizen (i suppose), you are hiring services and goods that are different from what 5 years ago.
you, in a sense, are hiring people to do that, and you are letting them off,

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 07:48 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Maybe nick woodman, the CEO, can stop construction of his est $40 million dollar yacht to pay for these employees to stay until the new year?

But no way, he needs his yacht. This is the 2nd wave of job cutting since he ordered his yacht and their stock tanked.

I'd never support a company run this poorly.

If this is true (about the watch) then he still gives job but to different people. The point is to achieve the best possible with minimum cost. Then all of society/world will benefit in the long term. It sounds counterintuitive, but it is

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 07:56 UTC
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

It never got to the news each time a new job opening was created...

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 06:42 UTC as 109th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Deorum: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/features/#features03

These 500mm MTF charts, are insane !

Its not insane, it is about 1 stop. I can leave with that for sure

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 11:33 UTC

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/features/#features03

These 500mm MTF charts, are insane !

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:54 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Michael Ma: This or Canon 85mm f1.2? Thoughts?

So far when Sigma has done this with similar lenses, the Canon has 1/3 stop faster but Sigma is sharper. How about autofocus? I hear the Sigma has trouble with working with the 1DX II? Does Sigma Art lenses work well for video? How is the focusing noise?

canon 1.2 85mm, is very old, and its AF is pretty slow.
Im almost sure, that this 10years newer lens beats canon in every aspect.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: I really wonder who can justify the cost of these machines, even hi-end pros...
Ok i know there are people that buy lamborghinies or Ferraris, but...

It seems that at some point there is no place for being second. Yes the differences after a point are miniscule, but the thing is that you get the edge, of your "opponent" professional. And you get the job. So it makes sense, if you count for the other expenses a business might have.
(of course NYC rent rates, are orders of magnitude different than the rest of the world)

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:37 UTC

I really wonder who can justify the cost of these machines, even hi-end pros...
Ok i know there are people that buy lamborghinies or Ferraris, but...

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 09:25 UTC as 6th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Deorum: 500mm f4 price is pretty steep if you ask me. why not stick to canons that is similarly priced?
Im sure the newer sigma gonna be a bit sharper, but canons is already sharp enough and reliability of AF (even just for the peace of mind) is critical

Ebay prices, put it around 4500euros (4000pounds).
It is for used but in v.good condition lenses.
Considering this one new is at 6000$ (that for some weird reason alwas translate in similar euro figures, even if euro is a bit stronger) i thought it had not so much difference.
Does the canon 500mm f4, new, cost 9000$ ?
then i was wrong!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:23 UTC

500mm f4 price is pretty steep if you ask me. why not stick to canons that is similarly priced?
Im sure the newer sigma gonna be a bit sharper, but canons is already sharp enough and reliability of AF (even just for the peace of mind) is critical

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:49 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

dwill23: Imagine face detection with dual pixel AF on the canon 5d IV with 85mm mounted, and the awesome quality of the 50mm ART. Done deal for me. I'm going to but one.

Some thing goes for the 50mm 1.4 art.
Bye bye AF errors...

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:44 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

I was crosschecking all the time. That is why me found the quote from Ca. state parks. how could i find it if not crosschecking? Just before that quote of CA laws, i posted 3-4 other links. why? because I was already searching, in good faith, for the truth.
However yes i was very curious how this is legally punishable, and i doubted, since i didnt know it was a designated area. I was not trolling however. Since my first-first post, before all this dispute began, i started by "how can you punish them IF this is not beforehand a recognized area" You can look it up.
Then srados said. Of course it is a designated area. This is a national park.
Well, what more natural for me than google. "US national Parks!" and guess what, it wasnt part of it. So i thought, "this is just a nice scenery, no special laws about it so it cannot be punishable". Then that i found out myself about state parks, and rules that apply to them, and I, before any of my disputers did, corrected myself.
goodnight

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

srados before starting all your ad hominem racist spit, learn first to differate national from state parks, and then leave me be. because what you said is also an public insult, and thus absolutly illegal.
i asked for something clear and i got answers like "its a fact, its a fact". Why? because we tell you so. well its not a fact because you say. Even if 100 people say so. you are an anonimous profile in the internet.
Fact will be when it can be linked to reputable sites and organizations, (and not in lowish blogs of course)
That is how i deal with things i read of the internet, i crosscheck them, and dont make conclusions based on readers comments.
Till then, you can ask sorry from other readers, for saying this is a nationa park. it is not. and i was never contradictory to anything i said nor personally attacked people for not agreeing with me.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:56 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

propably i am wrong in my claim, but it was a really educational conversation.
All i wanted is a specific written law, because reading that this is a national park (it is not) made be wonder... (what you posted doesnt count as reference doesnt really count,, i cannot go through countless pages since you posted the whole oregon legal system) but i guess i found it in the end. more or less

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

please can you answer if state parks are protected the same way as national parks?

ha i found it for you
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21301

4307. Geological Features.
No person shall destroy, disturb, mutilate, or remove earth, sand, gravel, oil, minerals, rocks, paleontological features, or features of caves except rockhounding may be permitted as defined and delineated in Sections 4610 through 4610.10.

this is california but it should be applicable more or less to oregon i guess

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:21 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

@Kerensky97
i am not even defending these people. this is a debate about whether this is punishable or not. not right or wrong. Nothing more or less. The problem is with some people that turn a theoritical debate, into personal dispute.
I dont support any "entitlement" or "public land is my land". all i say, is if this is wrong, then make a LAW that forbids it. Untill then, you cannot prosecute people for having fun when they destroyed something that is not defined anywhere in the law, but in the photographers top-ten spots. (of course all these should happen if my thoughts up to now are correct, which is something i am finding out in this conversation. I could well be wrong. After all im not a USA citizen)

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:09 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

for exampe here (its another state but it is the most detailed i found)
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=31&pt=2&ch=59&rl=134

Think for a minute that in some "parks" (but not nature-protected) you can even hunt in Europe. So i cannot understand how hunting could be ok, but bringing a stone down is not (Stricty legally speaking again, this is theoritical debate)

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

So it is a designated area. ok. but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States

This site of Oregon, seems not to be in this list of national-parks (protected-nature parks) which i understand has special rules to protect them. they are well defined for a purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservation_System#Laws_and_policies

This is not a National Park, as mr. Srados said. I understand it falls here
http://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=parkPage.dsp_parkPage&parkId=130
as a state park.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Kiwanda_State_Natural_Area

The question is.
Are the same rules applied to state-parks, or this is just for national parks, that are considered protected.
a little research i did, could not find smth, other than "do not put fires, do not carry firearms, do not show off alcohol, etc.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:03 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

of course you need human discretion. the question is to what extend.
I have moved rocks and digged and played countless times while i was young in my village out in the woods. That is what people do. what if someone came and said. "aaa this was my favorite photographic spot, you destroyed it, this is vandalism to public property, now go to jail/fine whatever?
In Greece we have special areas, recognised as "protected nature" or smth. If you are in there you are not permitted to interfere with the surroundings" you are warned, there are signs as you enter, signs as you exit.
Is this such a case? Is this a special site?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:27 UTC
Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »