This lens appears to be good ... if you only plan on using the center 40% of the image. Just wondering who's making lenses for Nikon now ... Hasbro?
If the focus was on the back trees I could judge the lens quality much better.
For indoor shots those photos look quite good, except the contrast is a bit too low and the black level too high, a phenomenon that's usually caused by the presence of pure evil in the scene.
So if I understand correctly, a textured digital 3D model of the subject is made, then printed with a 3D printer? And is the digital 3D model textured manually by a 3D artist or with automatic software? And is the physical 3D model painted by hand?
1 million minutes? Not impressed. Now if they had 60 million seconds, I'd be very impressed.
Well, for a small, cheap super-zoom the pics look not too bad.
MyReality: Samuel Dilworth -- Are you being sarcastic? I hope so. Why do you need sharp pixels except as a technical exercise? The quality of the pudding is in the tasting. I can make 3'x5' prints with this camera that will sell.
So, in this over-saturated photo market where everyone and their dog has a camera you can still sell prints? Hard to believe.
I stopped reading when I realized it has one of those etty-bitty, teeny-tiny lil sensors that have a habit of smearing trees and grass into a green mush.
samfan: Nice tech but still and ungodly ugly camera and now it's also big. Good thing Oly makes nice and small cams, hopefully the M10 successor will be good.
No such thing as an ugly camera. An ugly photo - yes, an ugly painting - yes, an ugly wife - yes, but not a camera.
caravan: I might be interested if it did not have,4K video,Touch Screen,Anything that Articulates.
Just drop some super-glue on the screen hinge and the video button and you're all set.
justmeMN: Most importantly, how good is it at making YouTube cat videos? :-)
If it can take a clear photo of a black cat on bright snow then I'm sold!
I think this darker version looks more natural and better in every way. A good shot overall.
That dog looks super-creepy ... gives me the chills.
maxnimo: Taking portraits wide open with a FF camera is just silly. Sharp left eye, blurry right eye; sharp nose, blurry eyebrows; sharp lips, blurry nose ... ridiculous.
fmian - Any cinema film maker that makes a video with only a small part of the actor's face in focus will get a thumbs down from me. If they can't properly judge distance, aperture and DOF to get it right they'll keep getting my thumbs down until they learn. Of course, they may get a million thumbs up, but it won't include my thumb..
Pretty cool if you ask me. I hope high FPS cameras continue to evolve.
The "normal viewing size" for 99.9 % of humans is a low-res web picture or a 4 inch print, so it seems there's a bit of communication confusion.
The bottom line for me is that you will never, EVER convince me that a portrait with a sharp eye and blurry nose, lips and hair is a good portrait. But that's just me ... and what do I know ... I'm just a nobody.
Also, a great bokeh can always be created in postwork; a sharp face can't.
"But viewed at a normal size, quite striking."
I suppose that's true. At 800 x 600 web resolution even a photo from a $19 toy camera with a plastic lens will look razor sharp.