Kuwait Bans DSLR Cameras Use For Non-Journalists

DaveNJ1987 writes "Kuwait has banned the use of Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras in public places for anyone who is not a journalist. The ban, which was passed by the unanimous agreement of the country's Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Information and Ministry of Finance, prevents the public from using DSLR devices on the streets of the Middle Eastern State. Tourists are to be affected by the new laws and must be aware of this before travelling to Kuwait. Smaller digital cameras and camera phones are exempt from the ban."

Comments

funny and ironic

[yagu]

An ironic twist I think... I know many people whose DSLR pictures totally suck because the camera is beyond their ability to master even simple photographs. Also, ironically, anyone who would want useful information from digital pictures can readily shoot quality pictures with non-DSLR digital cameras. Is this for real?

Re:funny and ironic

[Monkeedude1212]

An ironic twist I think... I know many people whose DSLR pictures totally suck because the camera is beyond their ability to master even simple photographs. Also, ironically, anyone who would want useful information from digital pictures can readily shoot quality pictures with non-DSLR digital cameras. Is this for real?

I think the idea is to cut back on some form of spying. Lets face it, if you are a journalist, you want REALLY good pictures for your articles, like national Geographic quality if possible. Thats why they're allowed DSLR's.

But if I'm a spy, and I see a hand off going on between some military personel and some 'civilian' - I'll be all dressed up as a tourist with my nice HUUUUUGE Telephoto lens, snap a few quick shots. If someone gets suspicious you either delete the pictures if you don't have much time or if you think you can without noticing, switch out the memory card.

Asta Lasaugna, don't get any onya.

Re:funny and ironic

[Monkeedude1212]

Forgot to mention: the point being that you can't get that kind of zoom level with a regular digital camera, in case I didn't make that point obvious.

Re:funny and ironic

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It sounds like classic security theatre to me. It has, somehow, become an article of faith in jackboot circles(the world over, apparently; our Limey friends on Airstrip One seem to be the most enthusiastic; but the notion is international in its appeal) that 'terrorists' simply cannot function without extremely high quality photographs, taken personally with professional grade equipment, even if their target is some tourist trap with 10+ million publicly available images on the web... It has further, somehow, become an article of faith(among both jackboots and photo-n00bs) that DLSRs are the magic ticket to being the next Ansel Adams, while anything without interchangeable lenses might as well be a webcam from 1993.

How exactly these beliefs persist, I'm not quite sure, when any moron who spends ten minutes in the camera aisle at Best Buy can see that contemporary happy-snapper gear is pretty competent(particularly when paired with contemporary flash memory that will give said happy-snapper 10,000 chances to get it right for under $40...) and trivially available stuff like Photosynth demonstrates the power of huge numbers of shoddy images combined with some algorithmic cleverness...

Re:funny and ironic

[tverbeek]

Non-SLR digital cameras have gotten very good in recent years. As an old-school 35mm SLR user, there are times I'd love to have a DSLR, but a 10MP non-reflex camera with a 10X optical zoom lens (such as the one I have) can take pretty much the exact same photos, albeit with marginally lower image quality due to the optics. So they're accomplishing nothing except to require amateur photographers to use smaller and less expensive cameras.

Re:funny and ironic

[erroneus]

It has been discussed many, many times. Belief beats fact. Fear beats belief and fact. This seems to apply to everyone across the board. It's like the anti-gun groups who conveniently ignore the reduction in crime in the US states where CHLs are issued and continue to cry "blood in the streets." It simply doesn't matter how much fact you shovel out. They won't see anything but what they want to see... and by "they" I mean pretty much everyone including you and me.

Re:funny and ironic

[Cwix]

Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.

Re:funny and ironic

[Achra]

Hm... I wonder if a technology ANALOG SLRs that don't use film would be effected by this? For example, using a CMOS analog sensor instead of a digital image sensor. And instead of storing bits, store voltages on some kind of media. I suppose the Kuwaiti photography market might not be large enough to support such a device being created [if it does not exist already], however

If only there were some kind of pre-existing analog SLR format that could be readily used... Some method, perhaps, wherein photons interact with molecules of silver hadride to form a latent image on some kind of plastic based substrate.. One could envision a method for retrieving the so-called "latent image" via chemical means.

Re:funny and ironic

[EvanED]

Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.

While this is absolutely true, having a good camera definitely makes it much easier to take good photos. The easiest place to see this IMO is in low-light situations. Even the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both high-end point & shoots, hit their highest ISO setting at half the speed of the highest (non-boosted) setting on the respective entry-level DSLRs. The flagship DSLRs increase that even more. Put a reasonably fast lens on, and you'll get pictures that are half as blurry. And the larger sensor means that the noise level is likely comparable at the high end, so it's not like the DSLRs present a tradeoff in that dept.

The way I describe camera choice is this. It is demonstratively possible to take great, interesting photos with even "crappy" cameras. But, if you have a specific image that you want to capture, it can easily be the case that if I give you a crappy camera you won't be able to take that shot and have it come out the way you envision.

Re:funny and ironic

[interval1066]

If I'm a spy and my target is something in Kuwait I think the last thing I want is a bulkier SLR, I'll take a digital. In fact, I'll buy one there in Kuwait, snap off pix of my target(s), and send them over the internet. No need to go through customs anything that might be connected with spying. Seriously, the people who run governments need to step up their games.

Re:funny and ironic

[tirerim]

Indeed. But a bad camera can still hinder a good photographer. If your camera takes half a second between pressing the button and taking the exposure, it's much harder to take action shots (unless they're very predictable action shots). If your lens can't focus at close distances, it's much harder to take photographs of small things. If your camera doesn't offer control of aperture and exposure length, it's harder to take pictures of contrasty scenes.

Re:funny and ironic

[blair1q]

That's what you believe. The fact is that gun control prevents gun crime:

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Re:funny and ironic

[KingArthur10]

Annnnnnd.....you know nothing about photography. A 5x lens can be a 8-40mm (35mm equiv), or a 100-500mm lens. The "X" is nothing more than a ratio of the focal length at the widest to telephoto end of the lens. Also, with smaller sensors, aperture is the limiting factor for lens/sensor resolving power due to diffraction issues. Most lenses on compact cameras cannot resolve beyond 8-10MP anyway. And no, you cannot build a 500x zoom on a P&S nor a dSLR. It's impractical and extremely expensive. There's a reason you rarely see beyond 10x zooms on dSLR cameras and 16x on super-zooms. Like those politicians, you should not ever be put in a position to make policy.

Re:funny and ironic

[swillden]

Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.

This is why top photographers prefer disposable film cameras over DSLRs.

Oh, wait...

A good photographer can take good pictures with any camera -- but only because he factors the capabilities of the camera into the decision of which shots to take. Many images which could be captured with the flexibility provided by a high-end DSLR with the right lens cannot be captured effectively with a cheap point & shoot. Good equipment provides options. A poor photographer won't know how to use those options, but that doesn't mean a good photographer doesn't need them.

Re:funny and ironic

[lwsimon]

It's also apparent that the overall homicide rate is consistent with the trend prior to the enactment of the gun bans of '94-'96.

I'm not sure why Aussies seem to think it better to be stabbed or beaten to death than to be shot, but more power to you, I guess. Myself, I prefer to be able to adequately defend myself.

Re:funny and ironic

[KingArthur10]

Annnnd..... you missed the point entirely. You CAN build a 500x zoom for a p&s. period.

Oh so wrong. A 500mm lens is easy to build (well, 500mm in 35mm equivalence. A 500X lens would be an incredible feat. Lets say it's 10mm on the wide end (VERY close to fisheye). That would be a 10mm-5000mm lens. Hell, you find me a 5000mm lens on any system and I commend you. Technical knowledge, you know not.

Lenses are not special on dslrs in any technical sense of the word. I specifically said that dslrs are more capable of producing better pictures. My recommendations on limiting quality are also more effective than the uninformed "ban all dslr" policy that is in place.

Lenses on dSLRs are not special in any sense of the word. The issue is that your caps on pixel count is absurd on small format lenses. Diffraction, the scattering of light passing through an eyelit, as modified by smaller absolute apertures (although equivalent relative apertures), limits the camera's ability to resolve beyond 8-10MP. Even the significantly larger 4/3rd sensor on the Olympus and Panasonic system is diffraction limited to f/6ish. So, your arbitrary limitations would be useless and simply limit a company's ability to market their new 50bajillion megapixel camera to the public. It's as arbitrary as banning dSLR cameras.

Yes, i know that you really can only subjectively measure quality, and sensor size matters when calculating relative zoom, but that isnt practical as a policy. What would be practical would be banning higher powered lenses, and limiting quality of sensor.

"Higher powered lenses" are an arbitrary assignment. Are you saying banning telephoto lenses beyond a certain throw is a good idea? 'cause that MIGHT be more worthwhile. I can find you a 1x lens that can spy a rivet on a bridge across town easily. Again, the multiplier has no bearing.

Issue is, how does anyone enforce that? Smaller sensor cameras use smaller lenses. There are some amazing 300mm+ lenses on P&S cameras that fold up into the body. Do we have all police become considerably more technically sound than yourself?

It all reeks of political stupidity. Are they also banning EVIL cameras (no reflex mirror)? Interchangeable lens systems? Does that include adapters screwed onto the front of fixed lens systems?

Point is, what you propose is nothing more than what they propose. It's all stupidity by those with no technical knowledge on the subject area.

So you can act like a smug dick all day, but to imply that the slr aspect of a camera is what defines its capacities is wrong. Just. Wrong.

Awwwwww.....did you not comprehend my previous post? Exactly my point. You, and those like you, are sadly the ones making these arbitrary rules.

Re:funny and ironic

[theapeman]

OK, '640mm effective' or '640mm equivalent' are bad nomenclature.
The problem is that in the past there was only 35mm, so focal lengths were usually used instead of angle of view.
And the tradition has gone on of quoting an equivalent focal length for small sensor lenses, because it is easier for people to compare different cameras by using the 'equivalent' focal length - People have a good feel of what to expect from a 200mm lens compared to a 28mm lens.

Its too late to change it. Just get used to it - a 840mm lens no longer means a lens with a focal length of 840mm. It means a lens with the same angle of view that an 840mm lens would have with a 35mm image frame. This makes things especially confusing when the same lens might be used with a full-frame or APS-C size sensor. You can blame the journalists (so tedious to always say 'equivalent') or the camera manufacturers (what would sell better 5-100mm or 25-500mm?), but it isn't going to change things.

It is rather like using equivalent MHz as a CPU speed measurement unit.

But the point is that these smaller cameras can have amazingly small angle of view. Smaller than almost any DSLR lens. You can get a camera which has the same angle of view as an 840mm lens on a 35mm camera, and it will resolve more detail than than many older full-frame DSLRs (in the right conditions).
In good lighting conditions these can take excellent pictures. A DSLR will take better pictures in less well lit conditions, may focus more quickly and more accurately, and may take more pictures in quick succession. And a picture taken in good conditions with a long DSLR lens might resolve more detail than a good small camera. But there is not very much in it - and a small camera is certainly easier to carry around and handle. (And in Kuwait in daylight I expect the lighting conditions are quite bright).

With a small sensor you get a greater depth of field (for the same angle of view and aperture). But you get greater problems with diffraction - some cameras reach the diffraction limit at f5.6, so stopping down does not improve the image.

p.s.
I am aware of medium and large format in addition to 35mm. But they were (are) always relatively specialised, and people who used them know what they are talking about and dont buy things based on meaningless paper specs, unlike many of the people who talk about 35mm equivalent focal length.

Re:funny and ironic

[Daniel Dvorkin]

the cameras we have today (even the point and shoots) are MILES above the top of the line film cameras from even a couple decades ago

Then that explains why my fiancee, who is a photographer, is holding on to her 1967 Pentax SLR for dear life?

There are a lot more widgets on modern cameras, to be sure, and they're very helpful to people who take shots kind of at random. And of course not having to worry about burning through rolls of film -- so you can, for instance, take ten shots of the same thing and hope one of them turns out well -- is great. But the quality of the optics is no better than it used to be.

Also, until very recently, the resolution on the types of CCDs that get put into cameras wasn't as good as that of film. They've just about caught up now, but quality control on dense CCDs isn't that great -- you're a lot more likely to get dead pixels than you are dead spots on high-quality film. It will probably be several years before this is really resolved.

Re:funny and ironic

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

But the quality of the optics is no better than it used to be.

Actually, that's not true. The field of optical engineering is seeing very rapid advancement, in part due to new lens coatings and in part due to the ability to model complex series of lenses in computers, rather than having to build and test them experimentally.

Strictly speaking, that's been the case since the 80s.

The result is that today's top-quality lenses are sharper and have less distortion (chromatic abberation, barrel and pincushion distortion, etc.) than older lenses. And the new technology is making some things possible that simply weren't before, like the new crop of superzooms that actually have reasonable performance across very wide zoom ranges.

And actually, one of the newest techs is the use of software instead of optics to correct chromatic aberration and curvilinear distortion. I.e., if your camera's viewing and capture systems are all-electronic, your lens design can be relaxed when it comes to those, as long as you can profile it accurately and correct it in software with a reasonable loss in quality.

This is actually one of the reasons those superzoom cameras work as well as they do.

Re:funny and ironic

[the gnat]

If you need any reminders that the middle east is not the USA, remember the hikers that are still hanging out in Iranian prison for being spies with no proof or evidence.

Uh, I'm no fan of the Iranian rulers, and I can think of many other reasons why the American system of government is vastly better to Iran's, but we've held a lot more foreign nationals indefinitely without evidence in the last decade. And although lots of Iranians have died under "questioning" in their prisons, so far there's no indication that any of the hikers have been tortured, let alone killed - and our record there isn't too great either. I hope the remaining two get out soon, and I hope our government presses for their release, but this is one case where we have no basis for a smug feeling of moral superiority.

Re:funny and ironic

[dgatwood]

I've seen this argument before, and frankly, the cameras we have today (even the point and shoots) are MILES above the top of the line film cameras from even a couple decades ago. Yet, somehow, the photographers from that era (and earlier) managed to get these shots that people think are impossible on lower end models of today. All it takes is a little understanding of your in most cases.

No, they're really not. A good film SLR from a couple of decades ago would likely have metering and probably even auto-exposure, and probably even automatic focus. That camera, coupled with modern film, will take pictures that are roughly on par with as a modern DSLR, and the lenses from that era still generally spank the lenses built into point-and-shoot cameras in every way---the light gathering of the lens, the amount of chromatic aberration, the amount of barrel and/or pincushion distortion, the number of blades on the shutter, etc. All of these have a very real effect on the quality of photos, and there's really no way around it. Sure, you can take photos with great composition with any camera, but it will still be of noticeably lesser quality than an otherwise identical shot taken with a DSLR or even a thirty-year-old film SLR, assuming a good photographer who is familiar with the equipment.

And no...a good photographer doesn't need all these options on the flagship models.

It's not that good photographers need all the features of the high-end cameras, but rather, that they need the ability to disable all those features. A good photographer dealing with tricky lighting conditions will find him/herself wanting to throw a point-and-shoot within about a minute. Most of the point-and-shoot models I've used over the years were designed for people who only care about point-and-shoot photography. As soon as you need to put one of them into anything approaching full manual, it's an absolute pain in the backside. There's rarely a manual focus at all, and even the other manual controls---aperture, exposure, gain (ISO), etc.---are usually very clumsy to use when compared with a DSLR. It may sometimes be possible to get some of the same shots with lower end cameras, but it's as much fun as a root canal without anesthesia. Just about any film SLR ever made is easier to use as soon as you need to set up a shot manually.

what about non-digital SLRs?

[mschaffer]

What about regular SLR cameras? Why ban D(igital)SLR cameras?

Re:what about non-digital SLRs?

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm guessing digital SLRs are banned because the photos can be easily copied/uploaded whereas those on actual film cannot. Control the flow of information.

Re:what about non-digital SLRs?

[lazlo]

Or what about interchangeable lens cameras with an LED-based "viewfinder" that do not actually use a reflex mirror? I think they're called by some "bridge cameras", and I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)

In reality, I suspect that the term DSLR is being abused similarly to "assault weapons" is in the US. The law really means any camera that looks too scary to be permitted to civilians, and the real definition will be defined ex post facto.

Re:what about non-digital SLRs?

[SuricouRaven]

Do you want to explain the distinction between an optical and electronic viewfinder to the local police?

I agree

[michelcolman]

Using a DSLR camera while standing in the middle of the street, is just unsafe.

illegal in USA too?

[index0]

Are these cameras legal on the streets of USA? From this past decade of news, it seems like it is illegal in USA too.

Re:illegal in USA too?

[jmottram08]

Right, compare the US to a country that bans cameras. Everything is about you.

The current police filming incidents are headed to the supreme court, where they will be overturned.

This makes journalists easy to identify.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.

Re:What what?

[Jugalator]

Why? Is there any reason at all for this ban? Help me out here.

I guess they don't want HQ telephotography of abuse of power from safe locations etc, where they won't even know who's photographing them so they can't see who they should arrest. :-p

However... Smaller digital cameras OK? Uh, what about the Canon SX30 IS with 35x zoom? That's better than my Nikon D90 with my 200mm lens. While perhaps not the same optical quality, this doesn't matter at all unless they're trying to ban photographs with a nice bokeh, or low noise levels, haha. :p

Photography is Not a Crime!

[dcollins]

Oops, I guess it is.

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

Maybe they believe DSLRs will steal their souls...

[Tangential]

We've all seen or heard about such things. Primitive, uneducated, unsophisticated peoples often fear that cameras will steal their souls.

Maybe DSLRs are considered big enough to steal souls while camera phones and point-and-shoots just aren't big enough to hold a soul.

Re:Tyrants don't need a reason...

[AnonymousClown]

They did it because they can, and because nobody will punish them for their temerity with a bullet in the head.

They can't be tyrants because we, the US of A, liberated the Kuwaiti Royal Family and this monarchy from the evils of Saddam Hussein; which we then invaded Iraq to free its people from the oppressive tyranny of that tyrant in order to install a democracy.

Don't you just love US foreign policy?

Re:London (City) does this too...

[Dominic]

Really? Not noticed this, and I'd have thought that I would, what with living there and everything.

Digital Self Loading Rifles

[bugs2squash]

are clearly a danger to the public and should be banned. Thanks to the Kuwaiti government for finally standing up to the kuwaiti second amendment bullies.

Re:I have to ask...

[mysidia]

Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?

Not only that... but there are non-SLRs that have Telephoto lenses you can attach, I am pretty sure. Some of the compacts with Zoom capabilities are probably SLRs, technically

There are some "SLR-LIKE" cameras that are not SLRs, because they have a separate viewfinder which does not look through the main lens though.

By definition a SLR is a camera that has a single lens, and a mirror, the viewfinder looks through the LENS a Prism is used to restore the orientation of the image, in a manner, that when you look through the viewfinder, you see the photo will be taken. Any camera that has a single lens and uses this method reflection, so that the viewfinder and the image sensor both utilize the same lens is called SLR.

A DSLR just refers to digital technology.

So this should be easily circumvented by using any camera that is not a SLR, I guess, i.e. any Camera that has a viewfinder which that its own lens on the front of the camera and does not look through a single lens, OR uses a mechanism other than reflection to duplicate the image in the LENS to the viewfinder.

For example, a camera that electronically displays a rendition of the image hitting the image sensor using an electronic backlit display, without any reflection, instead of passing the image straight to the person viewing.

I suppose viewfinders that incorporate an electronic display, will, however, be more expensive than the reflection technique, and the image appearing on the display will be less true in quality than the actual picture.

Re:London (City) does this too...

[slick_rick]

I was in London last year and took quite a few photos with an DSLR. Hell, I even got a bobby to pose for me.

Re:"DSLR" is meaningless

[b0bby]

The point of DSLRs is that if you have sensors that are designed to only capture when the mirror flips up, they can be much more sensitive/less noisy than sensors which have to run all the time and produce a video stream. Now, some of the newer DSLRs which can record 1080p, obviously they can handle it and maybe they don't need the mirror, but theoretically at least you could still design a better sensor for a still-only camera.

Re:Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs

[Goaway]

What?

Re:London (City) does this too...

[gstoddart]

calling bs on this. Provide citations of ANY of the above happening.

Well, they issued new guidelines, relaxed restrictions on "registered photographers", stopped using section 43 and 44 of the Terrorism act, had a 'snitch campaign', hassle people with commercial permits, and even push people down stairs.

If you aren't aware of the myriad ways in which the London Police have gone completely batshit crazy with photographers .... well, you haven't been paying attention to the news. Do a google search for "london photography police", and read.

There are loads of documented cases of some cop or another deciding they have a law on their side which allows them to do almost anything to photographers. And, in fairness to London, I'm sure this isn't the only place this happens.

The citation for what the GP suggests is bloody easy to find.

Tourists?!

[Copley]

"Tourists are to be affected by the new laws..."

What tourists?! I live and work in Kuwait... As a country, it's really not a tourist hotspot! Any tourist coming here, even if they took snaps of the the most interesting features, would leave with only images of scrubby desert, busy highways, shopping malls, a few skyscrapers, and the Kuwait Towers.

But, yes, it's a daft rule, and it may well affect the local amateur photography enthusiasts. However, Kuwaiti law is not consistently applied: If you're a Kuwaiti citizen, you'll often get away with something that a non-Kuwaiti would not - especially if you have a bit of 'wasta' (i.e. your father knows the second-cousin of the minister's uncle!)

DSLR doesn't mean superior

[waldonova]

"Banned" Nikon D40 DSLR
6.1megapixel
Standard 18-55mm zoom lens

"Legal" Nikon P7000 digital camera
10.1 megapixel
28-200mm zoom lens

Both cameras feature an "automatic" setting that allows the camera to take great pictures. The legal one looks much less conspicuous and doesn't have to be held at your eye to take a photo.

Re:London (City) does this too...

[gstoddart]

Really? Not noticed this, and I'd have thought that I would, what with living there and everything.

But, surely you're aware of many of the high-profile things that have happened in London with police and photographers? They certainly talked about a permit system for "registered" photographers. (Now, that appears to be within a narrow area, but ...)

After registration, which can take up to 28 days, photographers wanting to photograph on the street will have to again attend either Charing Cross police station to be issued with a thin fluorescent waistcoat fitted with an RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag which is to be worn over other clothing.

Seriously, you may live there, and maybe this goes under-reported for you ... but google for "london photography police".

There have been several Slashdot stories over the last few years covering this kind of stuff. He's hardly pulling claims out of his backside. London police have been well documented telling people they can't photograph in public spaces when that is patently false.

this law is PERFECT for the US

[acedotcom]

last time i was in Chicago, i was trying to take a picture of a seagull with my Canon 50D, i was told that i could not despite the fact that i was on public property along the Chicago river. the officer told me it was for "security". and i had no idea why until i got home, I was on the same block as the Boeing world headquarters and i GUESS that i COULD have been taking a picture of the Boeing building SO it was just easier to tell me know. i didn't really bother with arguing, i didnt want to spend another vacation getting patted down by the FBI, even though i should have.

Thankfully, we dont have LAWS like the one in Kuwait!

Re:this law is PERFECT for the US

[acedotcom]

having been arrested and detained on two occasions for fighting for what i believe in, i can honestly say FUCK YOU. sorry you didnt like my attitude that ONE TIME, but im honest about it. and when i am one a FAMILY VACATION with my kids, I'm skip the civil disobedience for once. Could i have done more...fuck yes, do i feel bad about it...not at all. pick your battle, dont be a fucking retard just because the law says you can. Unlike you im not going to talk big on the internet and judge other people about their decisions. oh yeah, here is a video of me getting arrested . now kindly, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs

[fyngyrz]

On my full frame sensor is 400 on my crop sensor SLR its about 600mm.

No. It's 400mm in both cases, You've conflated field of view with magnification. The lens puts the same image at the focal plane; the crop sensor doesn't capture the edges (because the sensor is smaller) and this gives you the same field of view as a 640mm lens, but the information in the crop isn't any larger.

There are only two factors that affect captured magnification: One is the lens; the other is the sensel density on the sensor. For instance, if there are twice as many sensels across a specific linear measure of a sensor as compared to another, it will give you twice the detail, exactly the same effect as doubling the mm of the attached lens.

If, however, you have a crop sensor and a FF sensor of the same sensel density, moving a 400mm lens between the cameras will give the same magnification, but not capture the edges on the crop sensor.

Practical example: Canon 20D, a crop sensor camera, and a Canon 5DmkII, a FF camera, both have sensel densities of 6.4m. Consequently, if you put your 400mm lens on one, then the other, given that the scene hasn't changed and the cameras are placed on the same tripod, they'll capture exactly the same image in terms of magnification. But the 20D will not capture the image at the edges, because the sensor is smaller, which effectively "crops" off the edges.

Re:Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs

[MichaelSmith]

All the birds in Kuwait are covered up and not worth photographing.

Re:I have to ask...

[Algan]

Talking about 10x or 20x is irrelevant. Ten times what? A 200-400mm lens is technically only 2x, but it goes further than any point and shoot camera. Most point and shoot cameras start at around 20-30mm and go to about 100-200mm focal distance, since that's the range most people want.

A Kuwaiti's Rant

[MBHkewl]

I'd like to note that those government officials keep pulling up crap like that every once in a while. It's kind of entertaining and frustrating at the same time.

Last year, one idiot in the Ministry of Communications issued an order to all ISPs to ban youtube. Needless to say, the ban was lifted the next day.

As for this DSLR thing, it's probably one dude who was taking a picture of scenery and some idiotic women shouted that he was taking pictures of them. It could be, but who'd do that with a huge DSLR?!

This is not some sort of media control. It's a fling & hopefully will be gone soon. I wish those morons get fired, but I know they'd just rotate to another ministry :/

Re:Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs

[hedwards]

The GP was referring to the GGP talking about his SLR which implies film, and he's right you can't easily delete a picture. You can however take the back off and completely obliterate it in a way which is a challenge for digital images.

On a side note, despite what some security officers or law enforcement might say, they can't force you to delete the photos under any circumstance. Either it is not illegal for you to take the photo or it is and you'd be destroying evidence. Which they can't order you to do.

Yeah sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

USians simply don't grasp the fact that, bar war zones, they live in some of the places with the highest homicide rates in the world.

The mental blockage to link phallic enthusiasm for guns and homicide rates eludes other wise reasonable pople (oh wait, half of you would vote for Sarah Palin if given a chance. Forget what I said)....

Re:Yeah sure.

[the_womble]

Except most of the murders are not committed using guns, and even if you excluded gun murders the US would still have a very high murder rate by developed country standards. On the ohter hand lots of places have high gun ownership and low murder rates.

When the UK strengthened enforcement of its guns laws (i.e. making for effort to find and seize illegal guns) the result was an increase in knife murders.

I have always lived in countries where civilian use of guns is tightly restricted, and my instinct is to sympathise with the ban, but I think the "guns don't kill people. people kill people" lot have the facts on their side.

Re:Yeah sure.

[modecx]

You mean countries/territories like:

El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, South Africa, Belize, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Mexico, Russia, Swaziland, Panama, Paraguay, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Costa Rica, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Lithuania, Thailand, Zambia, Belarus, Barbados, Seychelles, Uganda, Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Kenya, Argentina?... In that order of homicides per capita?

All of whom lead the US in homicides, and all of whom have strict gun control laws? Admittedly, a lot of these places are shithole and third world countries, but there are many which aren't.

Maybe, just maybe it's about their culture? No... Then you would next recognize that a few of the US's larger cities are responsible for the vast majority of our so-called "gun crime", not because they have more guns, but because they are more prone to a culture of violence and lawlessness in general. You would also then learn that not only do they have vastly more firearm related homicides, they also have more non-gun related homicides per capita than any of the rest of our fine country.

You'd also find that many "USians" live in places with virtually no homicide, firearm related or otherwise, and it's a really big fucking deal when someone is killed--usually when some tramp comes to town, or in the passion of a domestic squabble. These are also the places which tend to have higher concentrations of gun owners. Imagine that.

Re:Yeah sure.

[dbIII]

It gets compared because various nutters in the USA use the Australian gun buyback as an example where the lack of guns created a Mad Max/Road Warrior post-apocalyptic situation.
It didn't affect many people since not many people had semi-automatic weapons anyway. It was a reaction to an event where a guy with a semi-automatic rifle killed 35 people and wounded 21 others. The answer to all the "they could have defended themselves with a handgun" idiots is to think about reality and not movies where the hero can hit a fly testicle at a mile with his magnum. If the victims had handguns they would still be dead.

Re:Yeah sure.

[Eivind]

Just out of curiosity, which of these countries are at a development-level comparable to USA ? Does even a single one of them have a GDP/person that's atleast 1/3rd of that in usa ?

Can you find me a country where wealth/person is atleast half of USA, and where homicide-rates are comparable ?

If you're happy to beat Kenya, then yeah, fine, more power to you.

Re:Yeah sure.

[thegarbz]

Call me crazy but I greatly prefer someone lunging at me with a knife in their hand. Fuck give them two knives. I also know that if I am running away from an attacker I greatly prefer they have something in their hand which requires close contact to be effective, and not a projectile weapon. Pre-meditated murders will still happen, but it's the jealous ex boyfriend, or cool dude you insulted infront of gang that will give you a fighting chance (or a running chance), even if they are armed with a fucking sword.

Re:Yeah sure.

[metrix007]

Americans. Not USians. Americans. Retard.

Re:Yeah sure.

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I have always lived in countries where civilian use of guns is tightly restricted, and my instinct is to sympathise with the ban, but I think the "guns don't kill people. people kill people" lot have the facts on their side.

Ah, but that's clearly not reading the statistics right. The correct formulation would be, "Guns don't kill people. Americans kill people." If you contrast the prevalence of guns in e.g. Norway (tons of guns, more than the US) the adage becomes "Americans with handguns kill people."

Re:Yeah sure.

[modecx]

If I tried to find a country which is truly comparable to the US to make such a comparison, I would fail from the start. Our place pretty unique amongst the world's countries-one for being a relatively young nation, and two for being more diverse than most.

Besides the GDP and other social issues you bring up--and I agree with those points you've made....There's also the 'melting pot' factor of the US, it's certianly had it's positives and negatives, but I believe the former outweigh the latter. Outside of the recent immigration of millions of African/Turk/Arab (etc.) followers of Islam, I don't think many Europeans can truly appreciate how diverse our metropolitan cities are. If you point randomly on a globe, it's a guarantee we have people from that place!

At first, most all US immigrants formed ghettos around their cultural ties, and more or less left everyone else alone. The next generation saw more intermingling and more strife. And eventually it started to level off and finally reach a state of assimilation... However, the two cultures in the US which are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violence and crime are fractured from the culture-at-large and show no little need or want to assimilate--much like Europe's new Muslim contingent.

While there are surely different cultures and ethnicity in European life, you've mostly lived with each-other for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I think Russia shares similar problems thanks to the expansionist philosophy of the Russian Empire, which was going strong until the 19th century, and then it really picked up with the advent of the Soviet Union.

The USSR tried to force assimilation en masse--we see how well that worked out! I don't say these things to be racist, I'm fine with other peoples and cultures--but it's the way I see how all of these things came to be. It's a big complicated issue at any rate.

Re:"DSLR" is meaningless

[macshit]

Another attribute that currently differentiates most DSLRs from non-DSLRs is that DSLRs can use "phase-detection" autofocusing, by redirecting some of the light to the phase-detection sensors in the mirror-down state. Phase-detection autofocusing is typically much faster than the "contrast-detection" autofocusing used by most cameras without a mirror, and fast autofocusing is hugely important to many professional photographers.

[The reason that it's faster is pretty simple: with phase-detection, the camera can tell which direction to adjust the focus in, with some indication of how much, whereas with contrast-detection systems, it can't tell those things, and in fact, doesn't even know whether the picture is in focus or not without adjusting the focus and seeing what the effect is. So contrast-based systems have to "hunt" for proper focus, and even with clever algorithms, hunting involves mechanically adjusting the focus, which is slow, especially as it typically needs to constantly change direction.

I'm not entirely sure why a camera without a mirror can't use phase-detection focusing, except that it involves having something in the optical path (the beam-splitter that redirects light to the phase-detection sensors), and maybe that unacceptably degrades photo quality. [I suppose maybe you could have a camera without a mirror, but with a PD beam-splitter that flips out of the way like mirrors do in DSLRs...]

It's about keeping track of journalists

[dbIII]

It's about keeping track of journalists by limiting an easily identified tool for journalists and a way of throwing "unregistered" journalists out of the country. They see that journalists carry DSLRs so that's what they limit for all of those situations where a journalist has to put a different profession on the visa to be allowed into the country. The technical details of the cameras are not important since it is a tool of social control, which we will find when a journalist with a point and shoot camera is charged.
Kuwait is a very corrupt country but depends on having a good reputation so they don't like journalists poking their cameras into unexpected places.