vadims: "DSLRs can capture the moment better than mirrorless, because you're viewing directly, not through an LCD."
This reminds me those medieval scientists who refused to follow Galileo and use telescope because they believed that lenses were "distorting reality" and therefore insisted on observing with naked eye.
But if you had a viewfinder on your mirrorless that wouldn't be a problem.................... So often with a new model the comment is "no viewfinder, no buy" so maybe that's what is keeping mirrorless sales so low in the USA.
bigley Ling: based on what I can see from the crops, the out of camera JPG is superior to ACR converted raw with noise reduction. ACR without noise reduction is sharper and has more details than out of camera JPG but then the result seems rather noisy.
Be aware that the 1020's ISO 1600 may be close to ISO 400 on comparable cameras.
Noting that I don't have a camera of any sort on my phone, it's a phone, I too think the jpegs are better than the conversions overall. I'm sure that some minor tweaking with the backlight adjustment in PhotoScape, my default simple and easy to use PES, would bring out similar detail in the "horse tail" image, if editing on my PC. Analysing and editing images like this to a micro level, quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns IMO. So much so that you can easily get to the point where you give up, start over, and get an acceptable result with just a couple of clicks.
Firstly I've no interest in this camera, way out of my league, but clicked through to the Conclusion as you do. Read the "Cons" and then scrolled down the Award given. GOLD! I then went back and read the Cons again. For me a pretty big miss match. Haven't seen Bronze on anything for a while but thought it might just scrape a qualified Silver.
I've just revisited this thread to see if had calmed down/bottomed out. Still fairly lively it seems. Pity that hardly any of the comments refer to the context of the article but to the A7 and its own foibles.I would think that since posting it BB and the team have been smiling and shaking their heads. It doesn't affect me as I don't even have a DSLR but read it out of interest. To me it was a fun article about what you can do with older lenses. I'm sure it would have been just too easy for BB to ask around the office for a selection of much better, modern ones. That wasn't the idea though IMO. It's often more fun to go out for the day with an older lower spec'd camera and challenge yourself to take some pictures you like. They don't have to be technically perfect, the best pictures rarely are. If the image comes up on screen and you say "I like that" and someone looking over your shoulder agrees, that opinion is immediate.Thanks Barnaby, great pictures, I enjoyed your article.
I'm all for a QI over IQ if you get my pixel peeping drift, and as said, most of these show lots of manipulation. Generally I'm fine with 'shopping as long as the image remains very close to what could have been SOOC. Having said that and noting the size of images offered for the contest and with no equipment details (without going back into the files) I'd like to see a contest like this won by a smart phone. That would bloody a few noses. There are a couple, or more, here that could well have been done on a phone.
For some additional views and more inside info on how they were taken, have a look here. Using Bing translate is useful.
rtogog: This camera looks very good. It will be very special if the lenses also small. The kit lens is small but still looks not proportional against the body. Give me some pancake lenses to represent classic focal lens as 24, 28, 35, 50, 105. It will be a killer for traveller.
"It will be a killer for traveller."I'll read that as a negative. Do you really want to travel with 5 primes?
The smug arrogance shown in the header pic says it all.....
deluk: I've been getting annoyed with this for the last few days. I'm just getting the black screen with nothing in it. I'm having to scroll to the bottom and click on "Use basic version" to get any site info and links. Looks as if it will be good if I can get it to work but at the moment it's just a picture album. Recently I've been using image search just to find things rather than wading through all of the selling sites and all of the generally irrelevant stuff that seems to come to the top of most searches.Unles anyone has any ideas it looks as if I'll have to mail Google.
I've been running I.E. for 15 + years with no problems or aggravation and have no known extra extensions running on my current IE9 (Win7/64) so probably not the problem.Google has had several annoying changes lately and more to come, iGoogle being axed for example. I'm of the don't fix what ain't bust mentality. I'm running Google Classic for example as I didn't like how the new version worked and Google may well say that you need to use the new version to make the new image search work. Ho Hum........
I've been getting annoyed with this for the last few days. I'm just getting the black screen with nothing in it. I'm having to scroll to the bottom and click on "Use basic version" to get any site info and links. Looks as if it will be good if I can get it to work but at the moment it's just a picture album. Recently I've been using image search just to find things rather than wading through all of the selling sites and all of the generally irrelevant stuff that seems to come to the top of most searches.Unles anyone has any ideas it looks as if I'll have to mail Google.