maxnimo: I pretty much agree with the author, but I'd like to add that in most landscape photos the real artist is Nature, not the photographer.
DME, perhaps you can solve this mystery: Why is Nature considered paganishly evil and God good? Is Nature the Devil's work? Did God create Nature or did Nature create God? Is God part of Nature or a separate entity? We see nature every day, but why don't we ever see God?
Scottelly, how long would it take you to make a beautiful 20 billion ton mountain with a million trees, and at what cost? Just curious.
justmeMN: HDR is the Devil's work. :-)
Then our eyes must have been created by Mr. Devil.
AbrasiveReducer: People who were trained in traditional photography (no computers, no software, no instant gratification, no fixing it later) have inflexible opinions on how a photograph should look.
If HDR worked as it should, it would be possible to compress a huge brightness range overall, without reducing the contrast of things that are already flat. But it doesn't. HDR is not "smart" or selective. The result is (usually) an odd look where some parts of the image are fine while others are smoky and hazy and stuff that moved, like clouds, become a sort of gravy or soup.
As for why many people don't like it, it's not resistance to change. It's that unless HDR is done really well, it looks a bit off, like food that's probably ok but doesn't really taste right.
Yup. Doing HDR is like doing special effects - if done right it looks great, if done poorly it looks stupid.
Just curious: Is the Alpha 7R II capable of taking 4K photos and videos at much higher ISO by binning the pixels into a smaller image?
I pretty much agree with the author, but I'd like to add that in most landscape photos the real artist is Nature, not the photographer.
From the samples I conclude that the only way to fully utilize all those pixels in this camera is with low ISO and a really good lens.
Rick Knepper: Impressive from the standpoint of illustrating the detail and sharpness high resolution sensors can provide although there is nothing here to suggest this camera can do something that other high-rez sensors can't do.
I should mention that the Batis 85 is looking good here.
Hi-rez sensors are useless without a good lens.
The next big thing - a bulletproof case for drones.
StevenE: All this worry about Drone privacy invasion, I have not even seen one in flight yet in Toronto (Population over 4 million), Ottawa (pop 1 million), New York, Washington, etc etc. Where are all these drones that people fret over?
That's because the moment you glance at one they instantly hide behind a bush or a tree.
maxnimo: The first thing I noticed is that this sensor is really struggling to capture fine detail, like vegetation, even at low ISO. I believe they crammed too many pixels in it.
When you cram too many pixels in a sensor of a given size, the per-pixel image quality suffers. From these samples it's visually obvious to me that all those pixels are not optimally resolving all the detail that they theoretically should. And if you were to cram 100 or 200 or 500 million of those pixels into that same sensor, your image quality would not improve at all. But then again, most photographers don't even know what optimal per-pixel image quality is or what it's supposed to look like.
Take a good look at grass and trees from a large-sensor camera and a small-sensor camera and compare. Unless you're blind, the difference will be blatantly obvious. One will look like grass and leaves, the other like green mushy cooked lettuce.
The first thing I noticed is that this sensor is really struggling to capture fine detail, like vegetation, even at low ISO. I believe they crammed too many pixels in it.
Rouseabout: If I had X mount I'd buy thisIf I had ef mount I'd buy CanonIf had f mount I'd buy NikonIf I had mft mount I'd buy thatBut I don't!I'll 'mount' them all and overwhelm them with the sheer perfection of my 'sensors' size.
I don't buy cameras anymore - I mount all my lenses on my living room wall above the fireplace.
maxnimo: "adds advanced infrared technology to see light from the ultraviolet (UV)....."
Okay, I'm confused. UV is even higher frequency than blue and basically the opposite if infrared ... so what do they really mean?
Sorry, but he wording is confusing and poorly worded.
They should have said:
"It's capable in capturing the visible wavelength between 380 nm and 760 nm, as well as the infrared (IR) portions of the spectrum (760 nm – 1,000 nm)."
"adds advanced infrared technology to see light from the ultraviolet (UV)....."
These Fujinon lenses never fail to amaze me. The images they produce put Nikon and Canon to shame. I was thinking of migrating to Samsung or Sony, but I may just stay with Fuji forever.
maxnimo: Yup, this proves that there must be a God's 11th commandment that states "Thou Must Only Use Tiny Sensors In Tough Cameras".
Serenity, I believe you are confusing an excellent photo subject with an excellent quality photo - two completely different things. A fuzzy, blurry photo of an alien UFO might be fantastically great, but it would still be a crappy quality image.