Fascinating images from a bygone era, thank you for posting these.
Hmmm....a few years ago I owned the Z20, AKA 'the noise machine'. The high ISOs required to handle 1200mm would mean that image quality would suffer terribly, unless you decided to print no bigger than a postage stamp.
Yes, I would agree with other that this is a gimmick.
Mssimo: That is real pizza..not the junk we have here in the US.
Yeah excess salt, fat and carbs, are what Americans have been surviving on for years...and who ever sees obese 'merkins...;-)
I personally like the idea of apps for cameras which will open up a new world to the photographer. Much like Magic Lantern has been doing for some time.
Hail new technology!
Bangers and Mash: Tells a lot about the ungodly society we live in.
Somehow, I think they need a lot more than mumbles to a false deity...,
Some of the images are blurry, some are out of focus, some have very strange compositions...yet they all work!
Excellent article DPR, thanks for posting.
Henry M. Hertz: i know how focus stacking works.i use zerene stacker.
but what i don´t know is how you keep the critter still while your shooting.
i suspect many insects shooter use the fridge to cool down their subjects...
FWIW, I do quite a lot of image stacking on mosquito larvae and small amounts of movements are usually not a big drama; it is possible to manipulate/distort a layer so that it appears natural.
Dear Bobbarber, 15 years ago when I was using a Sony FD97 or more recently a Panny Z20, I would have agreed with you, however these days I use a 7D and a 5DIII, and now have a very different opinion. The quality of an upper end DSLR produces vastly superior images, particularly when enlarging to a metre or more in width (I did this with a recent exhibition of mosquito images). Compacts can not cut it as the images lack the clarity particularly if high ISOs are employed. These images also can not cope with post processing as much. Additionally, I love the small DOF of the 5DIII which can isolate the subject very effectively from the background. Having used both ends of the digital spectrum, the $3K camera wins by a country mile and I will not be going back.
Mssimo: Take a look a Geordie Wood's photos. Its the last one.
I have to be honest and would say that they are fairly average, is this what you are trying to point out?
Barry Fitzgerald: I think they mean "Christmas Gift Guide"
Barney, you also forgot the atheists, in which case it is 'Happy Christmyth'!
Harlz: Australia isn't on the list, awwww... looks like fun for those involved!
Gee I have a great shot of the big prawn, that would have been an instant winner ;-(
CameraLabTester: Wondering how the resale value of the 7D will be affected.
An aging camera just got a massive adrenalin shot.
So from now on... brand new 7D buyers should check for version V2.0.0 before purchase.
Just curious why would you worry about the FW in a camera you are considering buying 2nd hand, when it can be easily downloaded for free any time?
healer81: Lens looks interesting, especially for canon shooters since nikon already has a 14-24 which is spectacular. Canon doesnt have an answer for super wide angle at this moment so this lens will accommodate.People in this site is always complaining about something, dont mind them.
Ummmm, you obviously have not heard of the Canon 8-15. It seems to me that Nikon has no answer for the super wide at this moment!
I feel like singing...
"to dream, the impossiblle dream..."
So does this mean a total customer recall and refund!!!
Lajos Hajdu: Most of you seem spoiled brats to me. You have no idea how lucky you are if you can even consider buying such a camera, whether by Nikor or Canon. A very small percentage of the world's enthusiast photographers can afford to dish out three thousand dollars for a camera body only, plus at least as much for good lenses. Be grateful for your good fortune - it may not last forever.
Gee, I was thinking of buying one and having it gold dip, with the addition of a few diamonds...just to place on the bonnett of my Ferrari!
Do they support ETTL as per the Flex TT5 and Mini TT1?
Mike Griffin: It is my experience that small sensor cameras give superior depth of field for macro photography. I don't buy the diffraction argument. You may have to stop down to f:16 and beyond to get acceptable depth of field with a DSLR and suffer from diffraction limitations but a compact that is diffraction limited at f:4 has great depth of field at f:2.8.This article explores the argument further. http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/showthread.php?4538-Small-sensor-macro
Yes and no. Smaller sensors do have greater DOF at the cost of increased noise and many bridge cameras have various de-noise algorithms which degrade the image. This often results in a water colour painted look that is not very pleasing to the eye. If you took a shot of an insect that was the same size on the sensor with a FF, a crop camera and a bridge, then there would be no difference in DOF. Of course this would defeat the purpose in having a FF camera!
My choice is a crop DSLR (the 7D); the DOF is greater than say a 5DII (I have both) but the 7D is not subject to the noise of a bridge camera. Despite the increased noise with the 7D over the 5DII, noise reduction software can reduce the noise without substantial image degradation; this can not be done with smaller sensor.
Sadly would not download for me here in Australia :-(
Thanks very much for the informative article, the first image is very beautiful. I also love your signature; what font is that?
Ranger 9: Don't buy the Kindle edition! The illustrations often don't match up with the text, making it difficult to follow. If you really think you want this book, get the print version.
As to the book itself, I didn't think nearly as much of it as Adam did. I am more in line with this:
Considering that 167 out of 180 people gave it five stars on Amazon, this review is atypical.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review