QuarryCat: I tried it at photokina,the AF is not impressing, it runs always in the wrong direction, with every lens and I tried several bodies.Firmware is not ready yet - they told me. Sony needed 3 years to get the AF good working and Fuji still try's to get it right:So from Panasonic or Olympus or Nikon 1 - they all are far behind and the Samsung NX1 is now lightyears back.Panasonic does the best AF-Job so far even better then Canon and Nikon - but Superteles are missing badly.And Photo is not yet like TV or smartphone - you can see who difficult it is für microfourthirds to step in the market and Sony ist still far behind Canon and Nikon.Maybe some day there are people taking pictures with Samsung, maybe.
I was also playing with the NX1 at Photokina as well. At first I was astonished that writing a picture on card took 4 seconds. I asked a Samsung guy if this was normal, but he denied it. After he made sure himsef, he recommended me to chose another camera. Regarding the AF, it didn`t impressed me at all. I made several bursts on swinging lady arranged there for testing the NX1`s AF capability and I count in an average 8 sharp pics out of 18 in high speed burst. AF also missed when several spot ceiling lights were composed to the frame. I also tried their 300 mm f/2.8 lens, but it exhibited too much focus hunting for my taste. The NX1 specs are pretty impressive on paper, but reality is (at a moment) a little bit different.
vadims: I think it's about time for ISO to introduce another, logarithmic scale for measuring sensor sensitivity. The fact that the numbers look crazy does not mean that the sensitivity per se is "crazy" -- it's still far cry from the capabilities of the human eye.
BTW, "who needs more than ISO 6,400" sounds to me suspiciously similar to "640 kilobytes should be enough for everyone".
Just to remind that "kilo" shoud be wtitten with no capital.
DimensionSeven: I wonder whether the 16-35f/4 IS will be good for infrared. The 17-40 is, but it lacks sharpness in visible light, esp. in the corners. The 16-35 f/2.8 is a better performer in visible light but has a nasty hotspot in infrared.
So do I. This prevents me at a moment to sell the 17-40L and order new 16-35 f/4L IS. BTW, have you any exerience in IR photography with 24-70 f/2.8L II?
Some time ago I was fascinated by bubbles too. Here are some pictures I took back then:http://mmartphoto.webnode.sk/fotogaleria/zatisie-still-life/photogallerycbm_847089/24/#bubbles-8902-jpg
Tiny issue? I am already sick and tired of manufacturers putting their bug products on the market just in order to overtake the competition. The customers are then very often persuated by service that it is not an "issue", but "property" of the product. I had similar experience with TV, mobile phone, lens. What kind of strange world do we live in?
There is not too much to explain :-) I used black background and remotely triggered flash. The particular bubbles had different distance from camera, that is why some of them were pin sharp and others - out of focus.
Great shot! Having known the sculpture existed, I would have visited this place during my July stay in Singapore :-) BTW, I was deeply impressed by this city.