How Far we have come, article by Thom Hogan

I see the mirrorless cameras as being a way to extend the usefulnes of my M lenses really. I don't know if I'll buy one, but the Nex 7 and the new Fuji do at least lok interesting. Not sure what sense the Fuji really makes as it's as big as an M9 anyway.

Also, I want to do a bit of astrophotography and I have a suspicion that a dslr is a better companion to a telescope - pixel density aside.
 
... One could even go so far as calling this copyright infringement.

One could be wrong as well.

An attributed, short excerpt is not copyright violation in the U.S.

There was nothing wrong with initial post. Anybody could Google Hogan's site and read the original article.



It seems to me all Hogan wanted to do was defend the Nikon V1 by giving readers an absurd choice.
 
For myself I have always valued light weight and compactness, even though this preference will cause some compromises. I originally chose the OM system for this very reason. Any camera selection will lead to compromise. No system is perfect in every situation and some folks don't mind heavy cameras.
 
One could be wrong as well.

An attributed, short excerpt is not copyright violation in the U.S.

There was nothing wrong with initial post. Anybody could Google Hogan's site and read the original article.



It seems to me all Hogan wanted to do was defend the Nikon V1 by giving readers an absurd choice.

And one could be right as the original post was not a "short excerpt" -- it was pretty much, if not the entire blog entry.

Not cool. But not theft - just ill considered. A sentence or two and a link - that would be fine. The original poster was quite right to edit the post. That WAS cool.

...and if you think Thom is "defending" the V1 you perhaps didn't read his review? I'll be waiting for V2 (at least) after reading it. In a nutshell, the first mirrorless camera with AF that might satisfy a discerning DSLR user, middling IQ (not quite equal to the Oly 12mp sensor), lousy UI, TERRIBLE value.
 
One could be wrong as well.

An attributed, short excerpt is not copyright violation in the U.S.

There was nothing wrong with initial post. Anybody could Google Hogan's site and read the original article.

As MaxElmar stated, originally, the post was the complete article, with no link to Thom's site (just a name). Good to see it was edited.
 
Back
Top Bottom