[Kiwigeezer]

Has anyone here got a use for a Pentax 30n and /or a Pentax AF260sa flash unit?.

Like an idiot,,, I won an auction I didn't really want to. You can have the camera body and flash unit, I'm not asking anything for either. Condition 'supposed' to be good but hasn't been used for several years.

If no takers by Monday, I'll ask the seller to just send the two lenses and ditch the body and flash. There are manuals for both camera and flash unit.

We've all done it ;-)

I've just sold my 17mm f/4 fisheye to a K1 shooter in ChCh. Still can't quite bear to part with it after 30 years but have to be realistic. Keen ++ to see results on buyers K1 though.

Slowly building funds towards a K3 ii at the mo, full-frame just too much of a stretch.

[Transit]

I bet getting going at the lights was fun.......

who stops ?

---------- Post added 14th Oct 2017 at 03:40 PM ----------

We've all done it ;-)

I've just sold my 17mm f/4 fisheye to a K1 shooter in ChCh. Still can't quite bear to part with it after 30 years but have to be realistic. Keen ++ to see results on buyers K1 though.

Slowly building funds towards a K3 ii at the mo, full-frame just too much of a stretch.

grats on that !
I was after the K-3II...looks like some real bargains around now good luck

---------- Post added 14th Oct 2017 at 03:43 PM ----------

Has anyone here got a use for a Pentax 30n ...

the screen cuts down nicely for an APS-C MF killer !

Like an idiot,,, I won an auction I didn't really want to. ....

anyone want an immaculate K-5

[awa355]

No bids on a K5 yet. It closes very soon.

[richandfleur]

The K-1 recognises panning and stabilises accordingly.

Other models may perform this trick as well, I just happen to know it about the K-1.

Yeah I knew someone was doing it, but wasn't sure if it was Pentax

[GUB]

Yeah I knew someone was doing it, but wasn't sure if it was Pentax

I still think 18mm @ 1/250 it would be better off.

[Kiwigeezer]

Not over yet apparently. Lawyer spear-heading this is a close friend, an appeal hearing in the supreme court is a big deal. Setting aside the obvious moral issues, the question of public domain photography is being tested to the nth degree.

Nelson bikini-snapper appeal to be heard by Supreme Court

[Class A]

Setting aside the obvious moral issues, the question of public domain photography is being tested to the nth degree.

I don't quite understand who was allegedly "offended" or "insulted" by the guy taking the pics. If he sold them to indecent sites then this becomes another matter, but if he snapped the pics just for his private use you may want to call him a perv but whom would he "offend" or "insult"?

[Clarkey]

Not over yet apparently. Lawyer spear-heading this is a close friend, an appeal hearing in the supreme court is a big deal. Setting aside the obvious moral issues, the question of public domain photography is being tested to the nth degree.

Nelson bikini-snapper appeal to be heard by Supreme Court

I don't quite understand who was allegedly "offended" or "insulted" by the guy taking the pics. If he sold them to indecent sites then this becomes another matter, but if he snapped the pics just for his private use you may want to call him a perv but whom would he "offend" or "insult"?

I'd agree; it's interesting here in Canada - Quebec has different laws that would have seen you prosecuted for this - the rest of Canada doesn't mind - a public place is exactly that.

I wasn't hiding to take this photo (tele), but would this have gotten me in similar trouble?


Three's no crowd by Aaron, on Flickr

[awa355]

I wasn't hiding to take this photo (tele), but would this have gotten me in similar trouble?
, on Flickr

You are in trouble,, definitely need a longer zoom..

[microlight]

My K-3II is coming with us to NZ at the end of January! It pans on SR same as the K-1.

[MarkJerling]

Not over yet apparently. Lawyer spear-heading this is a close friend, an appeal hearing in the supreme court is a big deal. Setting aside the obvious moral issues, the question of public domain photography is being tested to the nth degree.

Nelson bikini-snapper appeal to be heard by Supreme Court

While in no way condoning this specific "photographer"'s actions, I think this heading to the Supreme Court is a good thing. The conviction sets a dangerous precedent for ordinary photographers.

[Kiwigeezer]

You are in trouble,, definitely need a longer zoom..

---------- Post added 10-15-17 at 10:59 AM ----------

While in no way condoning this specific "photographer"'s actions, I think this heading to the Supreme Court is a good thing. The conviction sets a dangerous precedent for ordinary photographers.

The current law is obviously a bad fit for undertaking a prosecution in this context. Hard to see how taking a photo in a public place (whatever the intent) could lead to a conviction of "doing an indecent act with intent to offend". I would have thought it'd take something different than pressing the shutter release. Most of us love our cameras, but only in a technical sense

[zkarj]

If you like train stuff, there's this: CWMGLYN HOME PAGE, near Mount Bruce.
For a little quaint town, there's Ongaonga, off SH50

Thanks. I've added them to the list of possibles.

[MarkJerling]

---------- Post added 10-15-17 at 10:59 AM ----------



The current law is obviously a bad fit for undertaking a prosecution in this context. Hard to see how taking a photo in a public place (whatever the intent) could lead to a conviction of "doing an indecent act with intent to offend". I would have thought it'd take something different than pressing the shutter release. Most of us love our cameras, but only in a technical sense

It's what he was doing with the photos that gave cause to the conviction. What he did, was create digital photo albums sorted to physical characteristics of the individuals photographed. And the prosecution made it clear that his "purpose" for creating those albums were of the, shall we say, self gratifying nature. In order to obtain a conviction, I feel they overstepped the mark, even if we may find his actions deplorable.

[zkarj]

Hard to see how taking a photo in a public place (whatever the intent) could lead to a conviction of "doing an indecent act with intent to offend".

Indeed, but here's the bit that appears to override "common sense" in this situation...

the jury had to determine whether this was indecent when measured against "accepted community standards"

If ever there was an inexact definition in law, that would be it – accepted community standards.

In my view, the fact he was taking photos should not be a technicality of the case, only that he has photos. There are numerous creeps who have been convicted for possessing "collections of disturbing images" and if these meet that definition, then go after him on that account. Not for taking a photo of a person or persons in a public place.