Image quality seems very good for an MFT sensor. The cat at ISO 5000 is impressive, but a true test would be a black cat on bright snow.
maxnimo: Is this how all new sample galleries will be displayed? I find it very annoying. The old version was much better.
Over the years I've seen many websites that get "upgraded", but the user experience - the look and feel - gets downgraded.
Is this how all new sample galleries will be displayed? I find it very annoying. The old version was much better.
I thought New Zealand was covered with trees and lush, green vegetation. Hmmm...........
ChrisH37: Some say that Internet comment sections bring out the worst in people, I think Sony a7RII threads are as good an example as any to back this up.
Never has a camera seemingly struck so much hate (and dare I say fear) into so many people who apparently have no intention of ever going near one.
skookum8 - That this camera poses a threat should be obvious. If my wife ever gets her hands on it I will become obsolete, ignored and completely forgotten, doomed to spend eternity alone and loved no more, as her fingers dance upon the camera buttons instead of me.
ChrisH37, are you trying to say that this camera wasn't created by Mr. Lucifer in the depths of hell and will turn us all into raging demons, bringing about the extinction of humanity?
At least that's what my priest said.
Neil189: Sheesh, more elitist comments from unhappy people taking the liberty to complain about whatever issue they feel they are entitled to complain about. Who cares what you think of the royal family. Everyone here complaining should stick to their whiny little attitudes you know where and comment of the subject at hand. They are uncomfortable with their children being photographed, period. Would you be any different with your children regardless of your circumstance? Get over yourself and save your comments for some other bitch forum, like what I imagine your dinner table would be like.
Neil: Every sentient being is entitled to complain about whatever issue bothers them. Period. Anyone taking away that right is paving the path to war.
I can see the logic of having a photo of the most beautiful woman in our galaxy, but a photo of some strange kid that looks like any other kid? Weird.
This sort of retardant is mostly a fertilizer with added red dye and is used to keep a fire from spreading across the sprayed path until ground crews arrive. They claim it's non-toxic, but that's still debatable as there are reports of marine life in rivers being killed off.
The Squire: DO any pro photogs make use of green-screen for otherwise traditional still portraits? Or is it unnecessary because for stills it's easy enough to deal with the background in PS?
The green-screen just makes things way, way easier.
Eric Hensel: I'm happy to see I can use it in Paint Shop Pro...I have no need for Photoshop.
In version 9 you were able to completely customize your interface with little icons anywhere you wished. And you could compare multiple images side by side. And you could simultaneously open multiple images to merge and paste. And you didn't need internet to use it.
Paint Shop Pro used to be the greatest, most loved and most user friendly image editor. I don't know if it still is, as I still use the pre-Corel version.
If you resize these images to 4MP they look very nice, so in my book this camera has 12MP too many. Aside from that, I like it.
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, the established church seems to treat Nature as evil since they consider both nature worshipers and animal behavior as very bad, ungodly and satanic. Just an observation.
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.