All Forum Comments
Comment by Sdeve posted on I know nothing about photography but I've bought an LX. Help! at 21/11/2013 - 11:14
Having just acquired a K-5 I decided to cart it, and a Fuji SL1000 and do a bit of comparing. Also, in the bag was a Pentax K1000 35mm. Well, I took a load of images that would be useful in assessing image quality of the two digitals and then I decided to knock a few out with the K1000.
Confused? You bet. A check of the ISO, OK, that was right. A decision on shutter and aperture setting was duly made with the assistance of that useful needle in the viewfinder. OK, focus by turning the knobbly bit on the outside of the lens. What else was there? Nothing! Oh, I forgot. I had to wind the film on with the lever on the right. No menus, not fiddling with options for this and that. No flashing bits in the viewfinder. How in God's name did we ever manage?
Confused? You bet. A check of the ISO, OK, that was right. A decision on shutter and aperture setting was duly made with the assistance of that useful needle in the viewfinder. OK, focus by turning the knobbly bit on the outside of the lens. What else was there? Nothing! Oh, I forgot. I had to wind the film on with the lever on the right. No menus, not fiddling with options for this and that. No flashing bits in the viewfinder. How in God's name did we ever manage?
Comment by Sdeve posted on Modern cameras and 35mm at 07/11/2013 - 19:09
I have a couple of Pentax digital SLRs that are likely to become surplus to requirements, or at least one will. Trouble is, I have no idea whatever of what would be a reasonable price to ask. Is it permitted here to ask advice on reasonable pricing? Many boards discourage such questions as the intent can be to start a PM bidding session, but this is not the case for me. I simply have no idea of what the cameras are likely to sell for.
Comment by Sdeve posted on Policy on sales posts at 01/11/2013 - 13:20
OK, it's all your fault. I've gone and done it. Playing will commence shortly.
Comment by Sdeve posted on Upgrade from K20D to K5 worth it? at 01/11/2013 - 13:15
I hate it when you lot beat around the bush!
OK, I'm on the hook. Can any of you give me some idea of the benefits I'm likely to notice?
OK, I'm on the hook. Can any of you give me some idea of the benefits I'm likely to notice?
Comment by Sdeve posted on Upgrade from K20D to K5 worth it? at 31/10/2013 - 21:11
I have a chance to get a K5 (not ii or iis), used, in good condition. Chopping in my K20D will leave it at a price that will merely give me a nose bleed. My question is, is it worth it? It's a trade deal so I probably could do a little better with a private sale of the K20D, but I'm not sure I can afford the wait.
TIA for advice given.
TIA for advice given.
Comment by Sdeve posted on Upgrade from K20D to K5 worth it? at 31/10/2013 - 18:49
paulgee20 wrote:
I was approached one day whilst sat in the car, (two summer ago), with my Camera rested on the door, I had the Siggy 150-500mm on and was sat taking photo's of Rooks on some grass about 10 yards away. The copper was in an un-marked car without standard uniform on, (unmarked motorway patrol). He pulled up alongside and asked me if I minded telling him what I was doing. I answered quite correctly and said 'No i dont mind you asking'
At this stage he got really stroppy and started to threaten me with the Terrorism Act and its repurcussions. I replied to him that I had answered his question by telling him that I DID NOT mind him asking, result: - Threatened to arrest me. I told him that if he DID ASK me what I was doing then I would answer, pointing out again that he only ask me If I minded!
He then swore at me and told me to follow him to the station where i would be 'charged' He wouldnt tell me on what charge. At this point I asked him if he was observant? And showed the pics of the Rooks and said did he not notice the large lens on what was obviously a Camera.
I told him that I was not following him and asked for his rank and number, his Duty Sergeants details and the station he worked out of, (this was near Hull). He wanted to know why believe it or not and apart from showing me his ID would not give any other info. At this point I told him I was going to follow him even if it took all his shift and report him for swearing and attempts at false arrest and threatening behavior.
He then said in a very bad temper and I quote 'have a nice day sir' and drove off.
I was in a state, but was not going to let him get the better for nothing more than taking simple photo's.
A Police state, I dont know, but not a good advert for our force. I would certainly never help them out after that.
If that person was a police officer then he was magnificently thick, to the point of absurdity. On balance, I would suggest he was a Walter Mitty pretending to be. Such people are about. A real officer might well respond and generally have a moody, but asking you to follow him to a police station where you would be charged is beyond the pale. Really and truly. Nope! Not a bobby is my vote.I was approached one day whilst sat in the car, (two summer ago), with my Camera rested on the door, I had the Siggy 150-500mm on and was sat taking photo's of Rooks on some grass about 10 yards away. The copper was in an un-marked car without standard uniform on, (unmarked motorway patrol). He pulled up alongside and asked me if I minded telling him what I was doing. I answered quite correctly and said 'No i dont mind you asking'
At this stage he got really stroppy and started to threaten me with the Terrorism Act and its repurcussions. I replied to him that I had answered his question by telling him that I DID NOT mind him asking, result: - Threatened to arrest me. I told him that if he DID ASK me what I was doing then I would answer, pointing out again that he only ask me If I minded!
He then swore at me and told me to follow him to the station where i would be 'charged' He wouldnt tell me on what charge. At this point I asked him if he was observant? And showed the pics of the Rooks and said did he not notice the large lens on what was obviously a Camera.
I told him that I was not following him and asked for his rank and number, his Duty Sergeants details and the station he worked out of, (this was near Hull). He wanted to know why believe it or not and apart from showing me his ID would not give any other info. At this point I told him I was going to follow him even if it took all his shift and report him for swearing and attempts at false arrest and threatening behavior.
He then said in a very bad temper and I quote 'have a nice day sir' and drove off.
I was in a state, but was not going to let him get the better for nothing more than taking simple photo's.
A Police state, I dont know, but not a good advert for our force. I would certainly never help them out after that.
Comment by Sdeve posted on photography is not a crime at 03/08/2012 - 21:07
It's a genuine bona fide UFO. Yep! it's an object, it's flying, and, as proved on this very board, nobody knows what it is.
Comment by Sdeve posted on What in the world is this "thing"? at 21/03/2011 - 20:57
dougf8 wrote:
Brilliant. Thanks.
So ANY security guard making a citizen's arrest, or detaining a photographer is on extremely thin legal ice ....
Absobleedinlutely. Unless, of course, he can prove you guilty. It's all about proof.Brilliant. Thanks.
So ANY security guard making a citizen's arrest, or detaining a photographer is on extremely thin legal ice ....
Of course, there is a down side. There always is in law.
To take an action for false imprisonment, you will need to go to the high court, which means you have to employ a solicitor and a barrister, unless the solicitor has a right of audience. No legal aid is available (AFAIK) so it's damned expensive.
The guard's employer, who is the one with deep pockets, and therefore the one you are after, will like as not dig their heels in with the hope that you will give up and go away. Some will pay up following a solicitor's letter with a statement of case, and pay up, if they've got any sense.
Sometimes it can go to rats, say if the security guard is clever and dishonest. Instead of arresting you for a terrorism offence, he can, particularly if his mate is on the cameras, say he was ejecting you from the centre as you refused to stop taking piccys, and you hit him, so he arrested you for assault.
It's a jolly world, but one that is a lot safer if you have a phone with an audio recording device.
Of course, everything I have said is just my opinion. Any actions taken upon it are at the individual's own risk.
Comment by Sdeve posted on Yet another photographer stoped to take pictures in a public place! at 21/02/2011 - 20:39
dougf8 wrote:
Fairly succinct link.
Succinct, but crap, I'm afraid.
"Anybody can arrest a person if they have reasonable suspicion that they are committing an indictable offence;"
from another with the word "suspicion" link.
So the guard thinks you're scouting for a terrorist hit, he's been told by the police to look out for it. He knows commissioning or plotting a terrorist offence is indictable (be a shame if it wasn't ). So he wanders over and arrests you.
To have the suspicion does not require the indictable offence to have been committed. Nor being found not guilty would affect the suspicion they had originally. It is reasonable as the police told them to do it.
R v Self, is a theft case, the intention to permanently deprive. This is a moment in time, a point. The arrest was separate from the crime, which was then acquitted. No crime = no power of arrest later. The arrest wasn't made during the crime as it would be in the case of photographing/reconnoitring a building.
Scouting for a an act of terror goes on for months, taking photos might last a second or two but you could be suspected for hours, weeks etc.
Here's what the act says. Please excuse any shoddy formatting.Fairly succinct link.
Succinct, but crap, I'm afraid.
"Anybody can arrest a person if they have reasonable suspicion that they are committing an indictable offence;"
from another with the word "suspicion" link.
So the guard thinks you're scouting for a terrorist hit, he's been told by the police to look out for it. He knows commissioning or plotting a terrorist offence is indictable (be a shame if it wasn't ). So he wanders over and arrests you.
To have the suspicion does not require the indictable offence to have been committed. Nor being found not guilty would affect the suspicion they had originally. It is reasonable as the police told them to do it.
R v Self, is a theft case, the intention to permanently deprive. This is a moment in time, a point. The arrest was separate from the crime, which was then acquitted. No crime = no power of arrest later. The arrest wasn't made during the crime as it would be in the case of photographing/reconnoitring a building.
Scouting for a an act of terror goes on for months, taking photos might last a second or two but you could be suspected for hours, weeks etc.
24A
Arrest without warrant: other persons.(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—.
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;.
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence..
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—.
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;.
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it..
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—.
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and.
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead..
Ok. Notice the words 'reasonable grounds'?
Here's another case, it talks of what constitutes reasonable suspicion, albeit of a police officer, but the term 'reasonable grounds' is still relevant.
The fact that the guards have been instructed in general terms to 'look out for it' is far from sufficient 'reasonable grounds' to suspect. If the police had described you accurately, had information that you were a terrorist, and that you were believed that day to be scouting that particular shopping mall, or one nearby, that might be reasonable grounds, assuming the police were not talking rubbish.
If. of course, you were scouting for a terrorist purpose, then the taking of one picture, or even being there with a camera, would complete the offence, just as nicking the chocolate bar in R -v- Self was complete the very second that Self dishonestly appropriated the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it.
So...
Assuming you are just another bloke with a camera, let's see what the options are for the security guard.
24AArrest without warrant: other persons.
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—.
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;.
you are not in the act of committing an indictable offence, so no arrest there.
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence..
By virtue of R -v- Self, no offence = no suspicion = no arrest.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—.
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;.
you are not guilty, so no arrest.
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it..
By virtue of R -v- Self, no offence = no suspicion = no arrest.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—.
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and.
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead..
I hope that helps.
Comment by Sdeve posted on Yet another photographer stoped to take pictures in a public place! at 21/02/2011 - 20:27
One fairly easy way to get an introduction to photography is to download manuals for the cameras you have, or at a push, any similar camera. These manuals often explain photography at a very basic level and will get you off to a good start on the mechanics of the game. Then there is simply bound to be a shedload of info on the web. You'll be up and running in no time I'm sure. Enjoy.