The capabilities of any modern, advanced DSLR, whether Canon or Nikon, usually far outstrip the capabilities of the person using it.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It would be entertaining to see how this plays out.
A big question is whether or not the photographer actually went to the trouble of getting a copyright on the photo in the first place. (Yes, lots of people put the copyright symbol on their photos but never bother to file the paperwork. Doing so preserves some rights, but it's not an absolute guarantee of copyright)
I suspect that in this case, had the photographer actually copyrighted the picture, then Wikipedia would be in quite a weak position because the copyright would serve as an official designation that the government has declared that the right to the photograph belongs to the photographer. If you have an official copyright from the Government, it's unlikely that a court is going to say that is invalid.
But, if the photographer simply placed a copyright on his files and never followed up with paperwork, well, then that's another question. If that's the case, then Wikipedia could well argue what they are arguing now -- which is that he never had the ability to secure the copyright. Under that situation, the photographer is likely to have to prove that he does indeed have the right to a copyright.
First situation, Wikipedia would have to prove he never had the right to the copyright -- burden of proof should be on them to show that the government erred in awarding the copyright.
Second situation, photographer must prove he has the right to copyright the photo -- burden of proof likely to be on him to prove that he should be awarded the copyright.
Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright.
Additionally, since the copyright protects the photographer's financial interest and is not an absolute bar to using the photo, court might have to determine what his financial loss is from the violation. He could win the copyright case and be awarded $1.
And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.
This may never be litigated, but if it is, it will be interesting.
I kayak and have a small pelican case just big enough for my camera and most used lens. It rides between my legs in the kayak where I can get to it quickly. I carry two other lenses in a dry bag in the hatch. I rarely ever change lens, but I have them if needed and will stop to retrieve them and change them out.
I do a lot of trekking and have found the best solutions for keeping camera gear absolutely dry is to use Beta Shell cases for your lenses (see www.betashell.com for info) and to use the large Wanganui case from aquapac: http://store.aquapac.net/explore-product-range/waterproof-ipad-laptop-cases/large-whanganui-fits-ipads-668.html to store your DSLR. I have found that if I remove any tripod mount, I can even keep my 5D Mk III in the wanganui pouch with a 24-105L or 16-35L II mounted on the camera.
All of these products will survive submersion for several minutes if used in accordance with the instructions. For extra protection I put the betashell cases inside a kayak dry bag (in my case the dry bag is used as a rucksack liner). Hope that helps.
As one who has made a career photographing from water, I know from costly experience there is no way to be "totally waterproof". But, you can vastly improve your odds if you take a few precautions.
The hard plastic case (Pelican or similar) is one of the best solutions, but, as pointed out, is probably too bulky to be useful when kayaking. Same goes for what I usually use, a large cooler, in which I fit two or three bodies and a few long lenses.
I also kayak quite a bit and, when I do, I use a dry bag. While it would be smaller than a case, I'd make sure it was large enough that your equipment could be quickly taken out and stowed inside. (Not sure what is worse, missing that important shot because you didn't get to your camera fast enough or ruining it because you couldn't put it back before the big splash.)
Before you set out, I would make certain that your dry bag is truly dry. I'd run a test each time you use it, without any gear, just to make sure the all the seams hold and there are no pinhole leaks. It might have worked fine the last time, but setting the bag down on a rough surface, like rocks or gravel, even a small piece of class hiding in what you thought was a safe spot, can cause a puncture (likely one you can't see, but will still let water in). Also, avoid quick changes of temperature, as taking the bag from warm to cold, or even cold to warm, yields condensation.
Just to be extra safe, carry a towel in the bag as well, and use it to wipe up any moisture before it has a chance to find its way to your gear.
And, one more thing, make sure your bag is well-sealed, so give it at least three turns.
And keep in mind, you are not after the best solution, you are after the best solution that will fit into a kayak.....Either do it right or be prepared for the worst.Do you have a recommended approach other than those already suggested that you consider to be the "right" way?
There are also deck bags that you can bungie onto the top of your kayak.... but the seal isn't as good as a dry bag. They are more convenient though...
I won't be home until late tonight, but when I do, I'll try to remember to post some photos of various solutions... expect to see them tomorrow evening.
BTW... are you talking about a sea kayak or a river kayak?