ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
No comment on the article here.. just want to say.. Chris.. your avatar reminds me of my childhood 
The Kodak Instamatic was my first camera. I took some fun shots with that as a kid..
Cheers
Dave
The Kodak Instamatic was my first camera. I took some fun shots with that as a kid..
Cheers
Dave
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Good...now I can visit NY with a camera...
Chris & Dave...that's the same type of camera I started with in high school, back in 1975...
Once you got better they had a Minolta SRT 101...
I do wish I had kept the negs from that camera...
Chris & Dave...that's the same type of camera I started with in high school, back in 1975...
Once you got better they had a Minolta SRT 101...
I do wish I had kept the negs from that camera...
sirius
Well-known
OK, camera geeks---who knows wha the camera and lens are in that photo (I know the first item...)?
ChadHahn
Established
It looks like a Kodak Instamatic 314 with a Kodar lens. That or something similar was my first camera as well.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
sirius said:
In the Gothamist article? An M3 - but I couldn't tell you which lens.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
an M3 with a 50mm Elmar, but wait.. an f 3.5 or a f 2.8 50 mil Elmar??
peterm1
Veteran
So this is the land of the free! Thank God for an independent Judiciary.
peterm1 said:
Yes, though I don't think the ban really would effect how you or I would go to NYC, walk around and photograph the city (more aimed towards those who organized set up shoots and video shoots)........ but given the ability to interpret the law it may well have been enforced that way.
palec
Well-known
xayraa33 said:
f2.8, the same combination as me
dmr
Registered Abuser
Finally some sanity showed through!
However, I really don't think the sky was gonna fall, as some chatter on the boards would have you think. As I first read the regulation, it really did not apply to the casual shooter.
However, it could be interpreted to apply to groups of casual shooters, and to those with a tripod taking time to pay attention to set-up and detail and such.
It was a Good Thing<tm> that this was killed before it could spread!
However, I really don't think the sky was gonna fall, as some chatter on the boards would have you think. As I first read the regulation, it really did not apply to the casual shooter.
However, it could be interpreted to apply to groups of casual shooters, and to those with a tripod taking time to pay attention to set-up and detail and such.
It was a Good Thing<tm> that this was killed before it could spread!
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I saw this in the New York Times last week. Good to see that sanity prevails once again.
oscroft
Veteran
and it's the version before the current one.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
NYC hoteliers will be happier now. This is just in time for the Santa Claus Parade. A huge day for them and the city. Now mom and dad can take pix of the kiddies and not worry about confrontations with authorities about taking photos. Well maybe...
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
jan normandale said:
Ya know what irks me... and this just tells you how sad our society is....if you're not a "mom" or "dad" but you're out shooting street and you take a photo of a kid or two that happens to be in the scene you're watched and scrutinized like a pedophile.
There are times when I adore being single and then there are times when you have that uneasy feeling like you're being tried and sentenced before you have a chance to state your case.
Sheesh.. anyway.. back to the discussion at hand - I too thought that this information was more targeted at long term video/still shooters vs me or you or the guy walking around downtown shooting images.
Dave
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Absolutely right, Dave. Even if you're married with children, God forbid you take a picture of a kid you don't know.
sirius
Well-known
Ha ha! I love how easy it was to get off topic talking about cameras! This place it great...thanks for the morning giggle.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
dcsang said:
That was certainly the intent of the law. But the guidelines were not very clear, it also could be applied to a large group of non-commercial shooters - not the original target either.
And finally - there were, very real, fears that it would give the police carte blanche to hassle all photographers. Especially given the rather vague descriptions in the law's text. Too much was left to the discretion of the officer - which can be a double edge sword.
ywenz
Veteran
Yes! Yes Yes
3 yes because the stupid forum software won't let me post with just one yes.
3 yes because the stupid forum software won't let me post with just one yes.