via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/D9AwsTE

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/47EUXlO

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/kHvu5xl

The Fujifilm GFX 100 II leans into video more than any previous medium format camera, with capabilities including full-width 4K capture for a series of lens formats, 8K capture from a cropped region, ProRes 422 capture to SSD and the inclusion of waveforms and vectorscopes. You can find out all the details in our initial review of the camera.

---

Pre-order now:

$7499 at B&H

$7499 at Adorama

---

We knew it'd be a while until we could get the camera back to the studio, but couldn't resist seeing how practical it would be to document a quiet walk in Derbyshire's beautiful Peak District. The GFX can't read out its entire sensor for its 4K modes, so we wanted to see what the output looked like, using the largest region of the sensor we could: the UHD 4K mode for GF lenses.

---

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV when they go live.

---

Meanwhile, it seemed senseless to carry the new Fujifilm GF 30mm F5.6 T/S and Fujifilm GF 55mm F1.7R WR back from the launch in Stockholm and not use them, so, during the breaks in the rain, technical editor Richard Butler used both lenses to expand the GFX 100 II sample gallery. The images are mostly towards the end of the gallery and include images using both the tilt and shift functions of the 30mm lens, and the 55mm in less-than-perfect lighting.

View our Fujifilm GFX 100 II pre-production sample gallery

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/0WF8wQn
via IFTTT

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/TEUufqV

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/oO0Wqda

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/nS2Vmsk

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/sYVvXJP

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/lbjpWN1

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/NJX9B4U

Nikon's Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S 'Plena' is the company's second Z-mount lens with a unique moniker, which seems to suggest they think it's something special. Nikon has described the lens as a must-have light-gathering beast for photographers, one which minimizes vignetting with clean edge-to-edge brightness, has exceptional clarity and sharpness for fine details, hair and skin tones, as well as minimizes cat's eye bokeh to produce round specular highlights throughout the frame.

DPReview's Shaminder Dulai gets some hands-on time with a pre-production version of the new mid-telephoto portrait prime to see how those claims measure up in our latest episode of DPRTV.

After the video, learn more about the 'Plena' and peruse some out-of-camera JPEG sample images.

---

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV when they go live.

---

Buy now:

$2500 at B&H

$2500 at Adorama

---

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/tfJAQb1
via IFTTT

On the left: a sign outside of Grand Traverse Light in Northern Michigan. Michigan is one of the 16 US states that doesn't allow local governments and cities to make their own drone laws. On the right: a sign outside of Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois. You cannot launch your drone inside this property, but you can fly in the airspace above it.

At the beginning of this year, I was traveling through Michigan’s Upper Peninsula when I decided to capture a bucket list image with my DJI Mavic 3 drone. Kitch-iti-kipi is this US state’s largest natural freshwater spring and since it maintains a constant temperature of 7ºC (45ºF) throughout the year, it never freezes. I thought it would be cool to get a contrast of snowy trees set against a crystal-clear blue body of water.

The shot resonated with a brand that has a large presence on Instagram and with my permission, it was shared with the account’s 100,000+ followers. While many users left compliments, one particular gentleman declared that because this was a ‘No Drone Zone,’ my image was ‘illegal.’ He continued on with his tirade, in his Instagram Stories, saying that no one was ‘above the law.’ Unfortunately, even though a sign was posted on the park grounds, his claim was incorrect. Not a single law was broken.

This image of Kitch-iti-kipi was legally captured as I launched outside the park grounds, maintained visual line of sight with my drone, and didn't fly over moving cars or people.

I thought this was an isolated incident but then something peculiar happened. Everywhere I looked for the next several months in my online browsing, from drone-related forums to general travel sites, a specific type of comment, asking why the original poster was flying in a 'No Drone Zone' would appear, without fail, when someone shared an aerial image.

‘There’s a misconception on the droning community’s side and on the general public’s side. The droning community looks at it [the ‘No Drone Zone’ sign] and says 'There’s no way a landowner, apart from stopping us from taking off and landing on their own land, could possibly want to, or try to, control the airspace,' ' says Sean Hickey of Geeksvana.

'Almost everyone agrees that a noticeable uptick became apparent around the time DJI’s sub-250g Mavic Mini drone was released in 2019.'

‘When you speak to a member of the general public who isn’t a 'drone-experienced person' in any way, they feel it’s just as absurd that a drone can fly over their property and potentially photograph or take video of them. Basically, the ‘No Drone Zone’ signs are a product of the public and drone pilots not understanding each other,’ he adds.

How it started

'Historically the false NFZ [No Fly Zone] takes root back in the original communication from the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in September of 2015 that called out an area of 5 miles radius around airports. 'Within 5 miles of an airport' reverberated so well as a simple and understandable phrase that elected officials, police officers, and even many drone pilots took that portion and applied it as a literal No Fly Zone,' says Ryan LaTourette.

There aren't any laws that would hold up in court that could be quoted on this sign. This means some people don't want drones flown. This sign is not legally enforceable. Photo: Ryan LaTourette

'Congress got in on the act by calling out 'Critical Infrastructure' in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. Suddenly to state and local officials and their police departments, this new phrase of “critical infrastructure” meant denying drone flights near power plants, railroad yards, police stations, manufacturing facilities, and more,' he adds.

Hickey, and a few other industry experts I consulted with for this article, aren’t quite certain of the exact date ‘No Drone Zone’ signs started to make a public appearance. However, almost everyone agrees that a noticeable uptick became apparent around the time DJI’s sub-250g Mavic Mini drone was released in 2019. It was a response to the fact that more hobbyists and people who weren't familiar with drone laws were interested in, and able to fly with no registration required.

This sign in Australia is legitimate because it has a law stated on the bottom. Photo: Fiona Lake

‘Unfortunately, the media has been playing up the narrative of 'creeps fly drones to look in your windows' and of course the public doesn’t understand how rare this is, so it’s likely that drone paranoia will increase,' says Fiona Lake, a remote pilot and instructor. Drones also tend to be portrayed as militaristic, causing some individuals to see them as both a privacy and safety threat.

The source of confusion

Misconceptions aside, another issue stems from the fact that event organizers, for example, designate their own ‘No Drone Zone’ by posting signs without any regard for airspace regulations. Chicago-based drone professional, Antoine Tissier, encounters ‘No Drone Zone’ signs in front of corporations, festivals, and parks that have no legal basis.

As it stands, the FAA controls all of the airspace in the United States. You can only be prevented from flying in airspace when the FAA deems it hazardous. If a landowner or special interest doesn't want you flying in a particular area, they can only really prevent you from physically taking off and landing on their private property.

You can only be prevented from flying in airspace when the FAA deems it hazardous.

The FAA provides a No Drone Zone sign that can be downloaded and printed out, free of charge, on its official site. The site explicitly states 'The sign is not for private landowners.' There is also a fact sheet for state, local, and tribal entities to understand where they have authority and where they can't enforce certain rules.

Notably, the downloadable sign on the FAA's website is missing the government organization’s logo – because it is trademarked. Aviation attorney Dean Greenblatt recently called out one Detroit-based organization on its overreach. It read:

'What is interesting to some of the members is that [the organization] is apparently producing the sign with the FAA's logo printed upon it and giving the impression that this is an official declaration by the FAA. I suspect that it is not the intent of the FAA or the local FSDO (Flight Standards District Office) to declare this facility as a 'NO DRONE ZONE.''

Aviation attorney Dean Greenblatt called out a Detroit-based organization for their illegal usage of the FAA's logo on a 'No Drone Zone' sign. It implies that the FAA approves of the restrictions when, in fact, it doesn't.

'My suspicions were supported by the fact that the location at issue is not listed anywhere officially as being subject to any flight restrictions,' the letter continues. 'In fact, popular drone manufacturers do not geofence this location. I am not aware of any private enterprise that is empowered to implement its own flight restrictions and invoke the seal of the FAA to lend credibility to its publications, are you?’

Greenblatt correctly asserts that people would likely notice the FAA logo, believe that the sign and its placement were approved by the agency, and either a pilot would not operate in the area or a member of the public might get upset if a drone was spotted flying around.

The FAA discourages, and for the most part prohibits, the use of its logo on websites, pamphlets, marketing or educational materials, and, yes, signs, unless approval is given by the government agency. Anyone using the FAA’s logo without permission runs the risk of legal recourse.

What the FAA actually says about 'No Drone Zones'

A No Drone Zone resource is readily available on the FAA's official site. It contains three main points remote pilots need to understand before launching. For one, as mentioned earlier, the FAA controls all airspace and has put restrictions on certain areas for valid reasons. Operating in airspace that the FAA has designated as controlled and more is illegal.

There are certain states that allow cities and territories to create their own ordinances around drone use. Others, such as Michigan, allow the state to make the final rules. Drone use is permitted in all Michigan state parks with a small set of guidelines to be obeyed. Other states, like New York use their land use jurisdiction to disallow drone operations within their state parks. This point is being highlighted once again: you may be restricted from physically launching or landing your drone in a specific place, but you can still fly in its airspace.

The FAA attempts to clarify its intentions with 'No Drone Zone' signage.

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are established often during major sporting events (think the National Football League's Super Bowl and even a Major League baseball game) or in the event that the President or Vice President is traveling in a vicinity. Checking a UTM (unmanned traffic management) app such as the FAA’s B4UFly or AirControl is imperative. It is also highly recommended to check for late-breaking TFRs directly on the FAA’s TFR site.

Violating Temporary Flight Restrictions can lead to arrest, a hefty fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, or jail time.

A TFR notice will appear and the designated area, along with its starting and ending times, will be outlined clearly. If you are caught operating in any area with an active TFR in place, an arrest, a hefty fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and jail time are all possible consequences. In this case, a 'No Drone Zone' sign serves its purpose.

The question is, how can you tell if a 'No Drone Zone' sign was put in place by a government agency versus a private entity acting in their own self-interest?

How can you tell if a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign is legit?

According to Sean Hickey, local governments use ‘No Drone Zone’ signs a lot, even though one isn’t distributed by an official regulator in the United Kingdom – in this case, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). If you want to know if a sign is legitimate, look to see if there’s a law or regulation quoted on the sign. If there isn’t, it’s basically the landowner, a corporation, or an event planner stating they don’t want drones in the area.

If there's a law or regulation quoted on a sign, chances are it's a legitimate warning. Photo: Ryan Lackey

In the case of Kitch-iti-kipi, back in the United States, launching and landing a drone on the raft (or platform) visitors use to cross the natural Spring in Palms Book State Park is prohibited. Otherwise, flying in and around the area, at or below 400 feet AGL (above ground level), is perfectly legal so long as the drone pilot follows all FAA regulations for UAS flight.

You may see a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign without any law or specific regulation printed on it and assume you can still take off outside the area and operate overhead in its airspace. Even though the sign may not be official, it doesn’t mean that you’re clear to take off anyway. The sign could be in an area with an active TFR.

This year, the Lollapalooza music festival in downtown Chicago was able to secure a TFR for all three days of the festival unlike years past. In the event of unofficial-looking 'No Drone Zone' signs hanging around the area, it would be foolish to assume they're unauthorized and not check your UTM app beforehand.

No Drone Zone signs elsewhere

We’ve covered ‘No Drone Zone’ rules in the United States and the United Kingdom. Since DPReview’s audience is global, I was curious about how these signs are implemented and received in other countries. In Australia, drone rules are similar to most Western countries but the citizens have a more relaxed and self-governing attitude.

This is a 'No Drones' sign posted outside the Lollapalooza Music Festival in Chicago. Back then, this sign was posted because event planners didn't want drones in the vicinity. Recently, they were able to secure a TFR, making any drone flight illegal. Photo: Rich Wickersty

‘In addition to controlled airspace restrictions, (airports and defense force areas) drone flying restrictions apply to conservation parks, security-related facilities, ports, and other infrastructure. A few local councils in tourism hotspots are strict also – requiring drone owners to apply for permission to fly and charging a fee,’ says Fiona Lake.

‘Random members of the public who tie a ‘no drones’ sign to their gate – the signs are meaningless – people can still fly a drone above their land (as long as they’re abiding by other CASA rules). However, "No Drone Zone" signs aren’t as common. I have never seen a private landholder "no drones" sign. That’s not to say there are none at all but the rarity of private signs would be due to having a population 15 times less than the US but in the same sized landmass.’ There are also cultural differences.

Australians tend to be self-regulating – following rules when the reasons are clear/understood, and ignoring rules if there isn’t a good reason for them. As a culture – we tend to ask ‘why’, and then weigh it up. If some random person put up a "no drones" sign without an apparent reason (aviation rules, public safety/amenity, asset or wildlife protection) – many Australians would be inclined to ignore it (albeit with care).’

To the South, however, New Zealand doesn’t have any need for private ‘No Drone Zone’ signs as their unusual rules stipulate that drone owners must obtain permission from all private landowners before flying over their property. Then there are countries and territories that don’t have many drone regulations in place yet.

A 'No Drone Zone' sign, spotted in Australia. Australians generally heed formal signs belonging to government entities managing vital infrastructure such as ports. But many Australians will ignore signs belonging to private landowners unless there's an obvious risk to people, wildlife or property, as privately erected signs have no legal foundation. Photo: Fiona Lake

In a smaller and less populous country such as Guyana, you won’t see any ‘No Drone Zone’ signs simply because you don’t even need to obtain a permit for your drone if it weighs less than 15 pounds and isn’t being used for commercial purposes. 'Fortunately, there are not many laws which restrict us because drones are relatively new here. There are constant revisions to the rules and directives which can cause worry in the operator Community,' native remote pilot and entrepreneur André Smith explains.

Try challenging 'No Drone Zone' signs at upscale resorts, however, and the outcome could be bad – even if you are in the right. 'Resorts in Bora-Bora, such as St. Regis and the Four Seasons, display "No Drone" signs as you enter and require guests to sign legal documents acknowledging the drone ban. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in expulsion from the hotel premises without any refund,' says photographer Larissa Rolley.

Regardless, if you're operating in a different country or territory, you should make sure you have the proper certification and understand both the customs and rules for your own safety.

Just because you can, should you?

This was a question posed to me by a well-meaning photographer when a public spat broke out about my Kitch-iti-kipi photo. In the United States, and many other countries, taking off in National Parks or areas of conservation is strictly prohibited – and for good reason. Several people have gotten in trouble for flying a drone over the famous Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park.

LiveNation does not have the authority to use the FAA's logo on their 'No Drone Zone' signage. Photo: Antoine Tissier

This practice is not only illegal, it’s also hazardous. If a drone malfunctions or collides with a bird, for example, and falls in, it could cause significant damage to the geyser’s ecosystem. A temperature of 70ºC (160º Fahrenheit) will melt the drone and its remains would be hard to locate in a pool that’s 150 feet deep. In dryer areas, the lithium ion battery of a crashed drone could spark a wildfire.

As mentioned earlier, the temperature of Kitch-iti-kipi won’t dip below 7ºC (45º Fahrenheit) and it’s 40 feet deep. Hypothetically, if a drone falls in, it’s possible to retrieve it without causing any damage to the spring. The ‘No Drone Zone' sign at this state park simply means the rangers don’t want to risk people flying drones over the lake, even if it's legally unenforceable.

Legality aside, it's always wise to ask yourself if a drone flight is appropriate given your surroundings.

Still, it helps to exercise common sense and intuitively know when a drone might cause a disturbance. A few days before, some friends were photographing snowy owls in an area with one of the highest concentrations of this species in the nation. Even though there wasn’t a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign, and we weren’t in a National Park or protected airspace, I still had enough sense to keep my drone grounded. My friends would have been incensed too. Legality aside, it's always wise to ask yourself if a drone flight is appropriate given your surroundings.

‘We have a lot of special areas of conservation in Ireland and also around heritage sites but they can’t legally be enforced unless referenced by aviation authority,’ explains Fergal McCarthy. 'The IAA has a link to the Heritage Ireland website which has a list of prohibited sites but nothing will stand up in court unless damage was caused, which has already happened. Because someone embedded a drone in an old castle and a cherrypicker was brought on site to remove it, causing damage in the process, there is now a ban on all drones in that particular area.’

What you should do when you see a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign

‘To be fair, it’s rare you’ll see many signs in public that actually have no basis in the law. So when someone unfamiliar with drone laws sees a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign, it’s easy for them to assume that there’s a reason for it to be there,’ explains Sean Hickey. ‘If I went to picnic somewhere and there was a sign saying “No Picnicking,” I would likely go somewhere else.’

This is a sign spotted in Chicago. Class G airspace is legal to fly in by the FAA's standards, making this particular sign baseless. Photo: Antoine Tissier

This is why it's important to engage in civil discourse. 'No Drone Zone' sign or not, it's critical to know everything about the area you're operating in. No matter what, a drone pilot should always use a UTM app to check the airspace ahead of time. This ensures that you're not flying during a TFR or in a National Park. It's also important to follow basic, common sense rules including not flying over crowds of people or moving vehicles.

It's also important to conduct yourself in an upstanding manner and be a good drone citizen. Many people misunderstand drone technology and the rules. Calmly explaining yourself is sometimes necessary and educating others does a service for the drone community at large.

It's important to conduct yourself in an upstanding manner and be a good drone citizen.

Finally, on the flip side, when in doubt about the legality of an image posted online, it never hurts to ask the creator before lashing out or making unsubstantiated claims in a public forum. In real life, calmly ask rather than accuse someone of operating illegally in front of a 'No Drone Zone' sign. A little civility goes a long way.

Hopefully, all this information clears up the misconception of the 'No Drone Zone' sign for both sides.

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/ldxawvV
via IFTTT

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/eigLRmH

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/YDJ4IV1

On the left: a sign outside of Grand Traverse Light in Northern Michigan. Michigan is one of the 16 US states that doesn't allow local governments and cities to make their own drone laws. On the right: a sign outside of Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois. You cannot launch your drone inside this property, but you can fly in the airspace above it.

At the beginning of this year, I was traveling through Michigan’s Upper Peninsula when I decided to capture a bucket list image with my DJI Mavic 3 drone. Kitch-iti-kipi is this US state’s largest natural freshwater spring and since it maintains a constant temperature of 7ºC (45ºF) throughout the year, it never freezes. I thought it would be cool to get a contrast of snowy trees set against a crystal-clear blue body of water.

The shot resonated with a brand that has a large presence on Instagram and with my permission, it was shared with the account’s 100,000+ followers. While many users left compliments, one particular gentleman declared that because this was a ‘No Drone Zone,’ my image was ‘illegal.’ He continued on with his tirade, in his Instagram Stories, saying that no one was ‘above the law.’ Unfortunately, even though a sign was posted on the park grounds, his claim was incorrect. Not a single law was broken.

This image of Kitch-iti-kipi was legally captured as I launched outside the park grounds, maintained visual line of sight with my drone, and didn't fly over moving cars or people.

I thought this was an isolated incident but then something peculiar happened. Everywhere I looked for the next several months in my online browsing, from drone-related forums to general travel sites, a specific type of comment, asking why the original poster was flying in a 'No Drone Zone' would appear, without fail, when someone shared an aerial image.

‘There’s a misconception on the droning community’s side and on the general public’s side. The droning community looks at it [the ‘No Drone Zone’ sign] and says 'There’s no way a landowner, apart from stopping us from taking off and landing on their own land, could possibly want to, or try to, control the airspace,' ' says Sean Hickey of Geeksvana.

'Almost everyone agrees that a noticeable uptick became apparent around the time DJI’s sub-250g Mavic Mini drone was released in 2019.'

‘When you speak to a member of the general public who isn’t a 'drone-experienced person' in any way, they feel it’s just as absurd that a drone can fly over their property and potentially photograph or take video of them. Basically, the ‘No Drone Zone’ signs are a product of the public and drone pilots not understanding each other,’ he adds.

How it started

'Historically the false NFZ [No Fly Zone] takes root back in the original communication from the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in September of 2015 that called out an area of 5 miles radius around airports. 'Within 5 miles of an airport' reverberated so well as a simple and understandable phrase that elected officials, police officers, and even many drone pilots took that portion and applied it as a literal No Fly Zone,' says Ryan LaTourette.

There aren't any laws that would hold up in court that could be quoted on this sign. This means some people don't want drones flown. This sign is not legally enforceable. Photo: Ryan LaTourette

'Congress got in on the act by calling out 'Critical Infrastructure' in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. Suddenly to state and local officials and their police departments, this new phrase of “critical infrastructure” meant denying drone flights near power plants, railroad yards, police stations, manufacturing facilities, and more,' he adds.

Hickey, and a few other industry experts I consulted with for this article, aren’t quite certain of the exact date ‘No Drone Zone’ signs started to make a public appearance. However, almost everyone agrees that a noticeable uptick became apparent around the time DJI’s sub-250g Mavic Mini drone was released in 2019. It was a response to the fact that more hobbyists and people who weren't familiar with drone laws were interested in, and able to fly with no registration required.

This sign in Australia is legitimate because it has a law stated on the bottom. Photo: Fiona Lake

‘Unfortunately, the media has been playing up the narrative of 'creeps fly drones to look in your windows' and of course the public doesn’t understand how rare this is, so it’s likely that drone paranoia will increase,' says Fiona Lake, a remote pilot and instructor. Drones also tend to be portrayed as militaristic, causing some individuals to see them as both a privacy and safety threat.

The source of confusion

Misconceptions aside, another issue stems from the fact that event organizers, for example, designate their own ‘No Drone Zone’ by posting signs without any regard for airspace regulations. Chicago-based drone professional, Antoine Tissier, encounters ‘No Drone Zone’ signs in front of corporations, festivals, and parks that have no legal basis.

As it stands, the FAA controls all of the airspace in the United States. You can only be prevented from flying in airspace when the FAA deems it hazardous. If a landowner or special interest doesn't want you flying in a particular area, they can only really prevent you from physically taking off and landing on their private property.

You can only be prevented from flying in airspace when the FAA deems it hazardous.

The FAA provides a No Drone Zone sign that can be downloaded and printed out, free of charge, on its official site. The site explicitly states 'The sign is not for private landowners.' There is also a fact sheet for state, local, and tribal entities to understand where they have authority and where they can't enforce certain rules.

Notably, the downloadable sign on the FAA's website is missing the government organization’s logo – because it is trademarked. Aviation attorney Dean Greenblatt recently called out one Detroit-based organization on its overreach. It read:

'What is interesting to some of the members is that [the organization] is apparently producing the sign with the FAA's logo printed upon it and giving the impression that this is an official declaration by the FAA. I suspect that it is not the intent of the FAA or the local FSDO (Flight Standards District Office) to declare this facility as a 'NO DRONE ZONE.''

Aviation attorney Dean Greenblatt called out a Detroit-based organization for their illegal usage of the FAA's logo on a 'No Drone Zone' sign. It implies that the FAA approves of the restrictions when, in fact, it doesn't.

'My suspicions were supported by the fact that the location at issue is not listed anywhere officially as being subject to any flight restrictions,' the letter continues. 'In fact, popular drone manufacturers do not geofence this location. I am not aware of any private enterprise that is empowered to implement its own flight restrictions and invoke the seal of the FAA to lend credibility to its publications, are you?’

Greenblatt correctly asserts that people would likely notice the FAA logo, believe that the sign and its placement were approved by the agency, and either a pilot would not operate in the area or a member of the public might get upset if a drone was spotted flying around.

The FAA discourages, and for the most part prohibits, the use of its logo on websites, pamphlets, marketing or educational materials, and, yes, signs, unless approval is given by the government agency. Anyone using the FAA’s logo without permission runs the risk of legal recourse.

What the FAA actually says about 'No Drone Zones'

A No Drone Zone resource is readily available on the FAA's official site. It contains three main points remote pilots need to understand before launching. For one, as mentioned earlier, the FAA controls all airspace and has put restrictions on certain areas for valid reasons. Operating in airspace that the FAA has designated as controlled and more is illegal.

There are certain states that allow cities and territories to create their own ordinances around drone use. Others, such as Michigan, allow the state to make the final rules. Drone use is permitted in all Michigan state parks with a small set of guidelines to be obeyed. Other states, like New York use their land use jurisdiction to disallow drone operations within their state parks. This point is being highlighted once again: you may be restricted from physically launching or landing your drone in a specific place, but you can still fly in its airspace.

The FAA attempts to clarify its intentions with 'No Drone Zone' signage.

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are established often during major sporting events (think the National Football League's Super Bowl and even a Major League baseball game) or in the event that the President or Vice President is traveling in a vicinity. Checking a UTM (unmanned traffic management) app such as the FAA’s B4UFly or AirControl is imperative. It is also highly recommended to check for late-breaking TFRs directly on the FAA’s TFR site.

Violating Temporary Flight Restrictions can lead to arrest, a hefty fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, or jail time.

A TFR notice will appear and the designated area, along with its starting and ending times, will be outlined clearly. If you are caught operating in any area with an active TFR in place, an arrest, a hefty fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and jail time are all possible consequences. In this case, a 'No Drone Zone' sign serves its purpose.

The question is, how can you tell if a 'No Drone Zone' sign was put in place by a government agency versus a private entity acting in their own self-interest?

How can you tell if a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign is legit?

According to Sean Hickey, local governments use ‘No Drone Zone’ signs a lot, even though one isn’t distributed by an official regulator in the United Kingdom – in this case, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). If you want to know if a sign is legitimate, look to see if there’s a law or regulation quoted on the sign. If there isn’t, it’s basically the landowner, a corporation, or an event planner stating they don’t want drones in the area.

If there's a law or regulation quoted on a sign, chances are it's a legitimate warning. Photo: Ryan Lackey

In the case of Kitch-iti-kipi, back in the United States, launching and landing a drone on the raft (or platform) visitors use to cross the natural Spring in Palms Book State Park is prohibited. Otherwise, flying in and around the area, at or below 400 feet AGL (above ground level), is perfectly legal so long as the drone pilot follows all FAA regulations for UAS flight.

You may see a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign without any law or specific regulation printed on it and assume you can still take off outside the area and operate overhead in its airspace. Even though the sign may not be official, it doesn’t mean that you’re clear to take off anyway. The sign could be in an area with an active TFR.

This year, the Lollapalooza music festival in downtown Chicago was able to secure a TFR for all three days of the festival unlike years past. In the event of unofficial-looking 'No Drone Zone' signs hanging around the area, it would be foolish to assume they're unauthorized and not check your UTM app beforehand.

No Drone Zone signs elsewhere

We’ve covered ‘No Drone Zone’ rules in the United States and the United Kingdom. Since DPReview’s audience is global, I was curious about how these signs are implemented and received in other countries. In Australia, drone rules are similar to most Western countries but the citizens have a more relaxed and self-governing attitude.

This is a 'No Drones' sign posted outside the Lollapalooza Music Festival in Chicago. Back then, this sign was posted because event planners didn't want drones in the vicinity. Recently, they were able to secure a TFR, making any drone flight illegal. Photo: Rich Wickersty

‘In addition to controlled airspace restrictions, (airports and defense force areas) drone flying restrictions apply to conservation parks, security-related facilities, ports, and other infrastructure. A few local councils in tourism hotspots are strict also – requiring drone owners to apply for permission to fly and charging a fee,’ says Fiona Lake.

‘Random members of the public who tie a ‘no drones’ sign to their gate – the signs are meaningless – people can still fly a drone above their land (as long as they’re abiding by other CASA rules). However, "No Drone Zone" signs aren’t as common. I have never seen a private landholder "no drones" sign. That’s not to say there are none at all but the rarity of private signs would be due to having a population 15 times less than the US but in the same sized landmass.’ There are also cultural differences.

Australians tend to be self-regulating – following rules when the reasons are clear/understood, and ignoring rules if there isn’t a good reason for them. As a culture – we tend to ask ‘why’, and then weigh it up. If some random person put up a "no drones" sign without an apparent reason (aviation rules, public safety/amenity, asset or wildlife protection) – many Australians would be inclined to ignore it (albeit with care).’

To the South, however, New Zealand doesn’t have any need for private ‘No Drone Zone’ signs as their unusual rules stipulate that drone owners must obtain permission from all private landowners before flying over their property. Then there are countries and territories that don’t have many drone regulations in place yet.

A 'No Drone Zone' sign, spotted in Australia. Australians generally heed formal signs belonging to government entities managing vital infrastructure such as ports. But many Australians will ignore signs belonging to private landowners unless there's an obvious risk to people, wildlife or property, as privately erected signs have no legal foundation. Photo: Fiona Lake

In a smaller and less populous country such as Guyana, you won’t see any ‘No Drone Zone’ signs simply because you don’t even need to obtain a permit for your drone if it weighs less than 15 pounds and isn’t being used for commercial purposes. 'Fortunately, there are not many laws which restrict us because drones are relatively new here. There are constant revisions to the rules and directives which can cause worry in the operator Community,' native remote pilot and entrepreneur André Smith explains.

Try challenging 'No Drone Zone' signs at upscale resorts, however, and the outcome could be bad – even if you are in the right. 'Resorts in Bora-Bora, such as St. Regis and the Four Seasons, display "No Drone" signs as you enter and require guests to sign legal documents acknowledging the drone ban. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in expulsion from the hotel premises without any refund,' says photographer Larissa Rolley.

Regardless, if you're operating in a different country or territory, you should make sure you have the proper certification and understand both the customs and rules for your own safety.

Just because you can, should you?

This was a question posed to me by a well-meaning photographer when a public spat broke out about my Kitch-iti-kipi photo. In the United States, and many other countries, taking off in National Parks or areas of conservation is strictly prohibited – and for good reason. Several people have gotten in trouble for flying a drone over the famous Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park.

LiveNation does not have the authority to use the FAA's logo on their 'No Drone Zone' signage. Photo: Antoine Tissier

This practice is not only illegal, it’s also hazardous. If a drone malfunctions or collides with a bird, for example, and falls in, it could cause significant damage to the geyser’s ecosystem. A temperature of 70ºC (160º Fahrenheit) will melt the drone and its remains would be hard to locate in a pool that’s 150 feet deep. In dryer areas, the lithium ion battery of a crashed drone could spark a wildfire.

As mentioned earlier, the temperature of Kitch-iti-kipi won’t dip below 7ºC (45º Fahrenheit) and it’s 40 feet deep. Hypothetically, if a drone falls in, it’s possible to retrieve it without causing any damage to the spring. The ‘No Drone Zone' sign at this state park simply means the rangers don’t want to risk people flying drones over the lake, even if it's legally unenforceable.

Legality aside, it's always wise to ask yourself if a drone flight is appropriate given your surroundings.

Still, it helps to exercise common sense and intuitively know when a drone might cause a disturbance. A few days before, some friends were photographing snowy owls in an area with one of the highest concentrations of this species in the nation. Even though there wasn’t a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign, and we weren’t in a National Park or protected airspace, I still had enough sense to keep my drone grounded. My friends would have been incensed too. Legality aside, it's always wise to ask yourself if a drone flight is appropriate given your surroundings.

‘We have a lot of special areas of conservation in Ireland and also around heritage sites but they can’t legally be enforced unless referenced by aviation authority,’ explains Fergal McCarthy. 'The IAA has a link to the Heritage Ireland website which has a list of prohibited sites but nothing will stand up in court unless damage was caused, which has already happened. Because someone embedded a drone in an old castle and a cherrypicker was brought on site to remove it, causing damage in the process, there is now a ban on all drones in that particular area.’

What you should do when you see a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign

‘To be fair, it’s rare you’ll see many signs in public that actually have no basis in the law. So when someone unfamiliar with drone laws sees a ‘No Drone Zone’ sign, it’s easy for them to assume that there’s a reason for it to be there,’ explains Sean Hickey. ‘If I went to picnic somewhere and there was a sign saying “No Picnicking,” I would likely go somewhere else.’

This is a sign spotted in Chicago. Class G airspace is legal to fly in by the FAA's standards, making this particular sign baseless. Photo: Antoine Tissier

This is why it's important to engage in civil discourse. 'No Drone Zone' sign or not, it's critical to know everything about the area you're operating in. No matter what, a drone pilot should always use a UTM app to check the airspace ahead of time. This ensures that you're not flying during a TFR or in a National Park. It's also important to follow basic, common sense rules including not flying over crowds of people or moving vehicles.

It's also important to conduct yourself in an upstanding manner and be a good drone citizen. Many people misunderstand drone technology and the rules. Calmly explaining yourself is sometimes necessary and educating others does a service for the drone community at large.

It's important to conduct yourself in an upstanding manner and be a good drone citizen.

Finally, on the flip side, when in doubt about the legality of an image posted online, it never hurts to ask the creator before lashing out or making unsubstantiated claims in a public forum. In real life, calmly ask rather than accuse someone of operating illegally in front of a 'No Drone Zone' sign. A little civility goes a long way.

Hopefully, all this information clears up the misconception of the 'No Drone Zone' sign for both sides.

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/wgf10IF
via IFTTT

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/VXibcGs

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/MrEtdJI

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/la0vpTk

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/qbIl91p

The majesty of the 1989 Toyota Camry. ISO 50 | f/14 | 1/30 sec | Nikon D750 + Sigma 50mm F1.4 Victoria Scott

Shooting automobiles well is deceptively challenging. A car, after all, is nothing but a series of surfaces made entirely of reflections and smoothed-over creases and glass, which are some of the hardest things to shoot well. Luckily, there are simple ways to make your life easier and make your automotive photography feel less disposable-camera and more Road & Track cover shoot. Many of these tricks, it turns out, are just general photography lessons applied in specific ways.

The first indispensable trick for automotive photography is the humble circular polarizer, whose usefulness goes well beyond just shooting cars. Often found in any landscape photographer's kit, a circular polarizer is a filter that both linearly and circularly polarizes the light passing through it. The mechanics of how this works requires a full breakdown of the polarizer's molecular structure and a decent-to-okay understanding of light-wave physics.

"The first indispensable trick for automotive photography is the humble circular polarizer."

How it works is, therefore, beyond this article's scope. The important part to know is that it is used to reduce unwanted reflections and glare. Landscape photographers use it to make the sky bluer, water clearer, and foliage greener and architecture photographers use it to make plate-glass transparent, instead of a mess of reflections. Its ability to virtually eliminate reflections also makes it one of the most powerful tools at your disposal for automotive photography.

The final effect of a circular polarizer is similar to that of polarized sunglasses but infinitely more customizable to the photographer's taste, thanks to the fact it can be rotated on the front of the lens. Let's look at a few examples of how it's used to make cars – and the world around them – look fantastic.

Case Study #1: My Daily Driver

No polarizer. ISO 80 | 1/640 sec | F6.3 | Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8	Polarizer on. ISO 80 | 1/250 sec | F6.3 | Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8

This is my brand-new-to-me 1989 Toyota Camry. (In true photographer fashion, the car I use to transport my gear costs about 1/5th as much as the gear itself.) I took the photo on the left without a polarizer; I used a circular polarizer in the shot on the right. You can see how the polarizer virtually eradicated all the glare on the hood and windshield.

This scenario – overcast skies with large, flat glass and metal surfaces – is when a circular polarizer truly shines for automotive photography. Instead of being nearly opaque with reflections, my windshield clearly shows my vehicle's interior. The lessened reflections on the hood allow you to see the paint's extensive – ahem – texturing more clearly. Although the car is still the same weathered machine in both shots, the second shot looks more professional.

The reason for the difference in shutter speed between the two otherwise identical shots is that a polarizer, thanks to the tint of the polarizing material itself, usually causes a loss of about 1-2 stops of light, depending on the brand, strength, and positioning of the polarizer. Here, I lost about 1.5 stops, and I had to adjust my tint slightly for identical coloring between both shots, as my specific polarizer adds a slightly warm tone.

Case Study #2: Adventure Camry

No polarizer. ISO 50 | f/20 | 1/30 sec | Nikon D750 + Sigma 105mm F2.8	Polarizer on. ISO 50 | f/20 | 1/13 sec | Nikon D750 + Sigma 105mm F2.8

For the next example, I went out adventuring on a day with clearer skies and found myself at an interesting cliff formation at sunset. The shot to the left has no circular polarizer, and it seems I don't need one at first. After all, the large, flat rear glass of my Camry is almost entirely transparent without the polarizer, thanks to the direct light falling at a 90-degree angle to the window.

But adding a polarizer can still help immensely here, as seen in the shot to the right. For one, the polarizer helps in the traditional landscape photography way: since I'm facing almost exactly 90 degrees from the sun, the polarizer is at its peak effectiveness for the sky. It adds immense contrast to the distant mountains and clouds.

Beyond its landscape-photography assistance, the polarizer also cuts down on the glare on my Camry's side, making the red paint look more vibrant. The side window glass is also clear, and the tires and black plastic bumpers have less glare and more contrast. The car looks overall more vivid and pops more with the polarizer on, despite the identical editing and settings to the unpolarized shot.

Case Study #3: Diffuse Light, Swooping Lines

No polarizer. ISO 100 | f/9 | 1/160 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikkor F1.8 35mm

Here is a shot of a friend's Toyota Yaris. The overcast sky and the mid-aughts bubble-car styling combine here to make every surface of the Toyota extremely shiny (even though I definitely didn't wash it to take this photo). While it might look clean, that reflectivity greatly clutters the car's lines and washes out the contrast between the windows and the silver paint. Magazine-style automotive photography usually minimizes reflections to help emphasize the design and paint of the car and make the sheet-metal creases stand out.

Polarizer on. ISO 100 | f/9 | 1/60 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8	Polarizer on, rotated 180 degrees. The side is now clean of reflections. ISO 100 | f/9 | 1/60 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8

On the left is the same shot as above but with a circular polarizer. Here, the front glass is clear, and the styling creases on the hood and front fender have more contrast. Because of how diffuse the light is in this shot, the side of the car is also still cluttered with reflections of clouds.

This is where the fun and individual preference component of using a polarizer in automotive photography comes into play. When shooting landscape photography with a circular polarizer, it frequently only works best in one rotational position and is the most effective at a 90-degree angle to the sun.

"When shooting landscape photography with a circular polarizer, it frequently only works best in one rotational position, and it is only most effective at a 90 degree angle to the sun."

With a car in diffuse light – especially one as bubbly as this Yaris – the polarizer is effective through its complete rotation. The reflection-reduction effect changes as you rotate the filter. I left the polarizer on for the right shot of the Yaris, but I rotated it 180 degrees from the previous photo. This changes the reflections it blocks out; now, the side of the hatchback is devoid of reflections, but the front glass has them again. You can play with the rotation you prefer; for me, I tend to do it on a case-by-case basis for the vehicle.

With this Yaris, I would go with the shot to the right if I had to choose. It shows the crease in the sheet metal running from the taillights through the door handle more cleanly, and the side is also the surface with the most glass showing to the viewer. Eliminating reflections from as much glass as possible is usually the best bet.

Polarizer on (two-shot composite). ISO 100 | f/9 | 1/60 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8

However, I don't have to choose between the two. To get the most polished, auto-advertisement-ready look, blend both images in Photoshop. In this shot, I stacked the photos taken at 0 and 180 degrees of polarizer rotation and used a layer mask to show the reduced-reflection layers of both images. I chose the shot where the reflections in the sunflower leaves were minimized to be my base layer to get the maximum effect of the polarizer throughout the image.

"Eliminating reflections from as much glass as possible is usually the best bet."

This takes the most work (and a tripod), but it is a lifesaver when working with challenging cars (such as ones with very dramatic glass or glossy black paint), and in diffuse lighting conditions, it gives studio-like results.

Clunker to Cover Story

Polarizer off. ISO 100 | f/11 | 1/160 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikon E-Series 50mm F1.8	Polarizer on. ISO 100 | f/11 | 1/50 sec | Nikon D750 + Nikon E-Series 50mm F1.8

A circular polarizer isn't the be-all, end-all trick to taking interesting car photos, but it is a crucial part of an automotive photography toolkit. Even in situations where its impact is relatively minimal – such as this shot of my Camry on a reservoir beach – it still helps with some of the bright rocky ground's reflections on the lower portion of the door sills. Of course, it also makes the background water and sky significantly more dramatic, which is a welcome bonus in this case.

In this shot, I purposely spun the polarizer until the windshield faded from reflected to clear for a more dramatic effect. ISO 800 | f/4.5 | 1/200 sec | Nikon D750 + Sigma F1.4 50mm

It's no dramatization to say that I leave my polarizer on for about 90% of my shots, and the specific effect I aim for changes based on the lighting, car, and desired style. Usually, I try to focus on getting the largest portion of glass possible clear of reflections and then tweak the specific look from there.

For example, in the shot of the Acura NSX above, I adjusted the polarizer until the windshield was clear and then intentionally spun the polarizer about 20 degrees further. This added just a bit of reflection back to the windshield (seen on the passenger side). This adds drama, and since the fog kept the reflections clean, I could achieve the look without cluttering the car's lines.

Of course, the best way to develop a style with your polarizer is to practice, and I hope I've shown you don't need an NSX to do so. Any old Camry will do.

Happy shooting!

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/Zc29egt
via IFTTT

Nikon's Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S 'Plena' is the company's second Z-mount lens with a unique monitor, which seems to suggest they think it's something special. Nikon has described the lens as a must-have light-gathering beast for photographers, one which minimizes vignetting with clean edge-to-edge brightness, has exceptional clarity and sharpness for fine details, hair and skin tones, as well as minimizes cat's eye bokeh to produce round specular highlights throughout the frame.

DPReview’s Shaminder Dulai gets some hands-on time with a pre-production version of the new mid-telephoto portrait prime to see how those claims measure up in our latest episode of DPRTV.

After the video, learn more about the 'Plena' and peruse some out-of-camera JPEG sample images.

---

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV when they go live.

---

Buy now:

$2500 at B&H

---

from Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) https://ift.tt/0DwFg7b
via IFTTT

via Fstoppers https://ift.tt/ZzTJYgL