1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

The New King of Bokeh

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Biro, May 1, 2016.

  1. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    • Like Like x 2
  2. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    No body here reads TOP. The people here are the ones that caused Mike to go bald.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Top Veteran

    855
    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    I clicked through due to pure curiosity. The sample images are just stunning ;)
     
  4. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    It's nice, but I don't see how it differs much from the Olympus 45mm 1.8.
     
  5. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Great sample images!

    I also like how he had a paragraph-long rant on plagiarism and stealing copyrighted content, yet proceeds to post a photo that certainly was his own with no credit or information of where he got the photo from. A bit of a double standard, no...?
     
  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Very odd post. Drunk, certainly. Not owning the Nocticron.
    I didn't know there were mansions on Long Island.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    Never read The Great Gatsby, did you?

    Huh???? Did you read what you posted?
     
  8. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Yes I did, did you?

    The article starts off with a paragraph talking about how the guy's words and what not are copyrighted and can't be reposted without his permission, and then he goes on to use a press photo without giving credit to the image, which is more than likely copyrighted.

    Using a copyrighted image without consent is copyright infringement, the exact thing the author was bitching about at the beginning of the article. It seems a bit ironic, no?
     
  9. svenkarma

    svenkarma Mu-43 Top Veteran

    566
    Feb 5, 2013
    mark evans
    You left out the 'not' in 'not his own' is the issue.
     
  10. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    I believe Mike's working on a review of the GX8 and has probably been testing out some Panasonic lenses with it, looking forward to seeing what he has to say.
     
  11. Bruce McL

    Bruce McL Mu-43 Veteran

    Follow the links in the article and you will see the same image at Amazon and B&H. It's been rotated and the background color changed on TOP.
     
  12. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    Australia
    I guess bokeh is subjective. I currently have the 42.5mm 1.7. When there is a busy background (e.g. with tree branches), I preferred the bokeh on the oly 45mm 1.8 . I kept the 42.5mm for OS and shorter MFD.
     
  13. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Top Veteran

    855
    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    While subjective, he could certainly have provided examples of why he calls this lens the "King of Bokeh". In my opinion, the lack of any sample images makes the article empty verbiage. I like the sample images I have seen from the P42.5/1.7, but don't see a marked difference from the O45/1.8 in rendering.
     
  14. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Yes, I am aware of that. It still doesn't negate that fact that if that image is copyrighted, which it likely is since it came from Panasonic corporate, it's being used with reference given to the copyright holder, and likely was used without their consent either.

    It's very likely that Panasonic will not come after this guy for copyright infringement, but if you're going to preface your own article with a paragraph about how your work is copyrighted and can't be used without explicit consent, it's probably not your best move to use somebody else's image without giving them credit, because that is the very definition of copyright infringement. It's just the principle of it, that's all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Bruce McL

    Bruce McL Mu-43 Veteran

    Find one person at Panasonic who doesn’t want Amazon, B&H, and TOP to use Panasonic’s product photos uncredited. If Panasonic doesn’t defend it’s ownership, legally there is no copyright on that photo, or hundreds of others like it on Panasonic's site.

    TOP has “Photographer” in it’s name. Tell me the name of the photographer of that photo. Whoever took the photo gave up their rights to the photo before it even existed.

    I see no legal or ethical problem in using that photo without giving credit.

    Writing a post that you know will be quoted without reminding people that you own the post would be a mistake. Not exactly an ethical failure, but certainly a legal oversight.
     
  16. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Top Veteran

    855
    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    Not to be picky, but copyrights do not automatically go away even if the owner does not defend them. Having said that, the use of manufacturer product images for reviews, etc. usually falls under the Fair Use clause of the copyright law. So the use of that image should not be an issue. The lack of any other images, imo, is a serious problem.

    Sounds like he is peeved about people ignoring his copyright notices, but his preface to his article does not accomplish anything over his copyright notice at the bottom of his posts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Uhh... I'm not certain that you know how a copyright works. A person can be in violation of copyright laws, regardless of whether or not the copyright holder pursues legal action against the violator.

    That's like saying you're not a thief if you stole something from a store but the store owner decided not to press charges. No, you're still a thief, regardless of whether you're actually charged with it or not.

    Like @SVQuant@SVQuant said, it's likely being used under Fair Use, but I just found it ironic for someone who's talking about copyright infringement to use a photo that they didn't take, without giving credit to the actual copyright holder. If he truly does own the lens, it should be pretty easy for him to capture an image of his personal copy of the lens and use that, avoiding any potential copyright conflict.

    I'm not certain why you're demanding "I tell you the name of the photographer", but it's pretty obvious I've struck some chord with you that has set you off. Like most major corporations, anything done under their employment or contract is technically their property. A great example of this is a patent, where even though you may have invented whatever it is, because you did it under employment of that company, you forfeit holding that patent to that company. It's pretty typical in today's world, I know I've had to sign an agreement like that for every place I've worked.

    Also, just so you know, that "photo" you were rambling on about isn't likely a photo at all, but a digital representation of the lens. That's pretty common with a lot of press images for devices and what not.
     
  18. m4/3boy

    m4/3boy Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Jul 21, 2013
    More Mike Johnson click bait. As usual he is full of s**t.