Photo is action packed, no doubt about that, but that little retouched triangle on the bottom right side kind of ruins it. I have nothing against removing and editing things that aren't needed, I do it myself all the time, but this looks like "hey, you removed the ramp/hill right there." Take a little more care with retouching and all will be good and believable. :)
I especially like the colors of this image! Absolutely outstanding, dreamy.
SeeRoy: One wouldn't have suspected that the Chinese government were capable of something this witty.
It won't be too long, as the world's population goes on expanding, with the level of consumption ramping up (as required by the prevailing economic model), before they'll have to put up posters of the current pollution levels to remind people what a paradise has been destroyed.
Population growth. Maybe a few wind farms will help.
While I agree that current economic model is horribly wrong, it's not how many people could fit the states or square per meter. What's destroying this planet, besides this "economic model" are the needs of those people that could "fit the state of Texas" and their total egoistical manners.
Just one human can exploit thousands and thousands of forest acres, pollute the very land and waters just to be able to satisfy the demand of the few.Unfortunately, the population is so extremely high with everyone thinking about material satisfaction goodies that I cannot see how any positive change in the economic world could change the lifestyle of the majority. Nothing, except the big catastrophes, be it natural or human induced.
babalu: I think the intention and the angle are excellent .. pity however that the photo is slightly off focus, as if it needed an image stabilizer .. or is this a large crop?
Great funny image. It's not out of focus, rather that lens couldn't reproduce the sharpness throughout the whole image.
maboleth: I eagerly waited for 6D to come and was thinking to go from 7D to FF on the budget. However, with all the shortcomings, there's no way for me to go from superior machine and ergonomics to inferior 6D.
Major let-downs for me:1. Lack of M-Fn button and joystick.2. SD card instead of CF3. Inferior autofocus4. Plastic camera top without the flash (really makes no sense)5. Only 1/4000 and 1/180 flash-sync6. Don't mind 97% VF coverage, but yeah... 7D has 100%
Unfortunately, I'll just have to wait to earn more money and go straight to 5DMk3.
Why pop-up flash?It might be weak and plain ugly for lighting the scene, but is fast and cheap as a commander of other wireless flashes in a studio and indoors!Other uses? I do lots of stuff that require model releases. Instead of scanning them, I snap them with my camera. Pop-up flash is perfect for that. Paper isn't glossy surface but a diffuse one so no problem with direct pop-up flash.That are my 2 main uses for pop-ups.
But yeah, I understand, plastic for wifi/gps. Wonder how will they implement that in full-metal bodies in the future.
These were a let down because I _expected_ more of "entry" level FF camera with the reasons I stated in the text. Where did I say that I bought this camera? Nowhere. I haven't, nor do I plan to buy it.
I eagerly waited for 6D to come and was thinking to go from 7D to FF on the budget. However, with all the shortcomings, there's no way for me to go from superior machine and ergonomics to inferior 6D.
Big Tom: "Landscape tips for smartphones" - but only talks to iPhone shooters recommending iPhone apps...can we headline the articles a little more accurately so us Android users don't waste too much time? Thanks!
Exactly my thoughts. I'm tired of this.
Uh oh, look at those kids playing with 'chutes. Now go watch Felix play! :P :P
The biggest issues here for me are:
1. No CompatFlash. Sorry, using SD for a professional work is a serious no-no for me.2. Only 97% coverage. I like to get what I see or WYSIWYG.
Built-in Wi-fi is a great thing though. It just proves the fact that Canon had wi-fi technology at their disposal when they made 5DMK3, but they intentionally left it behind. Sad.
All in all, I'm still saving for 5DMK3.
Paul Farace: We can get very good images of the outside of Russian and Chinese military sites and missile bases with this ... as well as mud-brick huts of Taliban strongholds.The Russians and Chinese on the other hand will just obtain every one of our secrets from WikiLeaks... And then the Japanese will build a Canon Rebel equivalent so that Soccer Moms and Hockey Dads can photograph their little superstars at play with Giga-Gazillion-byte size files that they will try to email to relatives instead of a 45 kilobyte size photo file.That is why I need therapy and a bottle of Jack Daniels... :o)
Yeah, Paul is the person who buys everything US mass-media delivers. Makes his government happy.
Outrun! Where's the blonde? :P
Natan Lorenzi: So, I downloded the Nikon D800 (1600 - 25600) raw files and resized @ 22mpx. Both cameras has the same results at same iso ans same size (22mpx). But Nikon has more advantage because you can apply more Noise Reduction and more USM without degrade image, before you downsampling the image.
if you doubt it, try it.
Yeah, I agree, the 3rd concern is a temporary one. But I thought it was worth noting. Before blindly purchasing it and expecting to do-everything, one has to see all benefits and drawbacks.
Extremely cool perspective and 10+ for idea!
The d800 seems like a dream camera, but those people who tried it said three very important things:
1) Focus must be spot-on every time, there's no room for error at 36mpx. Shooting at f1.4 or f1.2 is VERY hard. And unfortunately, the camera DOES miss the focus now and then.
2) Camera shake is also more pronounced, so it's advisable to use higher shutter speed than usual rule of thumb based on the focal length alone.
3) The PC or Mac and cards that host those images must be up to date and very large. Even in 2012, opening a 21mpix raw file in LR4 from CanonMK2 on a modern machine isn't THAT much fast.
So, if you consider and accept those three remarks, you'll be very satisfied with D800. But keep them in mind.
Something is wrong here... MK2 looks better in low ISO in shadow ranges! MK3 ISO100 is noisy in shadows, especially in green areas.
Paul Ennis: Nikon shows total contempt for it's customers, does anybody think it's a "local internal systems error"? How stupid do they think people are?
Still, UK people will buy them, stupid or not. That's what matters to Nikon... Sad but true. And Nikon is not alone in this, on the contrary - EVERY big corp does this more or less.
Painfully slow on i5 quad core, 8gb ram, sata3 hard drives. Welcome LR3.6 again.
36hike: I'm again amazed -- as an old timer returning to photography after a number of years -- at the utter gullibility of today's consumers. What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality.
I suppose it's a wonderful thing for those suffering from tendinitis in lugging around cumbersome dslr's. But the real motive for companies isn't tech. advancement. It's profit margin by pushing an unneeded segment to market. Small sensors equal greater profits and slow down the demand for REAL innovation, particularly in the area of anti-aliasing and color.
Often quite misleading fact about small sensors is about how good they have become with noise and how much more mpx is packed into a small package. Yes, we may see a 18mpx micro fourthirds or whatever, but BIG disadvantage about small-ish sensors is their physical size that result in large depth of field and lack of fine details. While that may be good for macros and stuff like that, it kills more creative photography (dare I say - professional).Even if they make fast lenses - they will be much more expensive than DSLR variants and DOF will again be greater for 2 stops compared to the FF.Speaking of the fine details, you can't beat physics - medium format still rules for professionals that do product photography, fashion, even portraits, etc. - we still need physically big sensors. No the Nikon's 36mpx can't beat 20mpx medium format in terms of details! The bigger the better. Period.
In the current form, I see mirrorless as toys for consumers who replaced their P&S camera.
I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.
So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.
So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.