Kurt_K: Some folks here may be scoffing at the alarmists, but I think wildlife photographers are going to need to have a very serious discussion about the ethics of using drones in their work. And I think that those who can't see the potential impact of drones on wildlife are either very naive or very short-sighted, or perhaps both.
So the onus should be on the intelligent to prove the obvious to the naive? Are you sure that's the kind of world you want to live in?
RichRMA: Did a liberal ever live who didn't want to ban, regulate, prohibit, control, oversee, observe, meddle with EVERYTHING IN SIGHT?
So drones are a liberal vs. conservative issue now? Really?
Some folks here may be scoffing at the alarmists, but I think wildlife photographers are going to need to have a very serious discussion about the ethics of using drones in their work. And I think that those who can't see the potential impact of drones on wildlife are either very naive or very short-sighted, or perhaps both.
Photography based on fun and creativity. Who'd have thunk it?
Thanks but no thanks, Tamron. I would love to see some third party interest in the micro four thirds camp (long zoom anyone?), but not if it's just going to be more slow lenses covering the same old ground.
I don't know why they would add 5-axis stabilization and still withhold the option of shooting RAW. Seems like a big missed opportunity.
I keep reading about how great IQ is on this and other Fuji bodies, but I'm just not seeing it in the samples I've looked at. To my eyes it appears that Fuji is applying too much NR to its raw files, which I think is the reason for the watercolor look some people have already complained about. And given the fact that there isn't a DXO-style test for x-trans sensor performance, I think it's going to be hard for anyone to prove that Fuji isn't cooking their raws. I personally don't own any of the new trendy cameras, so it's not like I have a dog in this fight. I'm just calling it as I see it.
ozimax: Astonishing images. And just think, it took a Creator God to make these impossibly complex animals. He not only makes things work, He makes them beautiful at the same time.
Kudos to the photographer.
Well, it wouldn't have bothered me if he hadn't said "Kudos to god, who cares about photographer..." That's kind of disrespectful, too, no? Especially given that this article is *about* the photographer and his work. Thank you so much for the lecture, though; I do feel properly chastened. ;-)
How about we just leave "god" out of this. The article is about a photographer and his photography.
These are amazing. True works of art.
A wonderful set of photographs. Makes me nostalgic for my own childhood.
Their strategy, as far as I can tell, is to fleece those who want a mirrorless system, but are too brand-loyal to look at anything that doesn't say Nikon on the front.
The 70-300 is an interesting lens, but not at a thousand dollars.
I guess that class-action lawsuit was all the incentive they needed.
I think one thing that isn't often taken into consideration is just how many excellent models are available for peanuts on the used market these days. Surely that must be cutting into new sales to some degree. I would also agree with a previous poster in saying that some of these companies need to focus on fewer models and then push them with more aggressive marketing.
As ugly as I think this camera is, it's nice to see new design choices.
I can't say I agree with a few of the choices (#3 for instance), but to each his/her own. 1, 8, and 9 are my favorites.
Looking at the raw comparisons (between ISO 800 and 3200), the detail appears faintly smeared to my eyes. It's subtle, but it looks as though Fuji might be applying slightly more RAW NR than its competitors. With that being said, though, the results still look great. This X-T1 is a very nice addition to the mirrorless world.
Sony camera review: 1500 commentsBeautiful photography: 25 comments
Congrats, everyone. Some very impressive shots.