Some of the shots are very striking: no.1 reminds me of Ridley Scott's style inPrometheus (also shot in Iceland). Generally, however, I get little IR 'feel'. Foliage, lakes and clouds work best with IR whether in BW or faux colour.
By the way, the Fuji system cameras are excellent for unmodded IR photography. I have used the 14mm with a 720 hoya IR filter with excellent results. There is a faux colour profile you can download for use with Photoshop which saves a lot of time. Only thing is that you have to watch out for hotspots on tne lenses. 14mm, 35mm 1.4 and 50-200 mm lenses are AOK. Apparently, the X-Pro1 is an IR star, although the XT-1 is also good. The X100 has also received praises for its unmodded IR performance. Apparently, the later models display a faint hotspot at some apertures.
You should visit Mark Hilliards "Detailed Fuji X-Pro 1 Infrared Tutorial" for further details and some great examples.
Totally correct. Digital cameras are a catastrophe. In film days, my Pentax MG was aperture control only. ISO was determined by the film you bought (generally 100) and the lens was 35mm and fixed. Job done. Focus and press the shutter, trying to ensure the shutter speed was 125 or above. No complexity, just concentrating on what you were photographing.
The saddest experience was trying to find camera for my late brother. Having suffered a breakdown, photography was one of the few things he was interested in. It was heartbreaking failing to find a digital camera as simple as the old film ones, which he felt comfortable with. Oh well, the past is a different country as they say.
As for me, about 50 percent of my photography is now on my mobile phone. My cameras and lenses - Fuji X-T1 and XE2, Sony Rx100 were all bought from a second-hand retailer. As good as new, they cost me about half to two-thirds of the new price.
I have the rx10 and g7x. I love both of them. The Canon may not match the Rx100 mkiv technically, but the extra reach is invaluable. The bright lens on both is a major bonus, allowing high shutter speeds at longest focal range.
At 600 mm you will definitely need a viewfinder. Arguably an add on viewfinder will offer better quality and be easier to use on top than stuck on the side. So i don't have a problem with that. Being detachable means that you can keep the compact size too. BUT wildlife photographers will want better burst rates.
You can get great results on a Tamron 70-300 SP on sunny days but shake can be a problem even on a good tripod. Overall, if the lens were faster and the burst rates higher, I would be interested at 1300.
As it is, you could wait a year until it drops to 700 euros in the shops and then buy second-hand on asgoodasnew.
Well I (and I suspect millions of others) gave up on Sony because they didn't produce any lenses for the NEX system. After using the G7X for a week or so, I have to say I see no further need for these mirrorless cameras.
I was quite impressed by Canon GX7 yesterday in the shops. It actually felt quite robust. The image quality appears quite remarkable.
bill nu: I suggest you buy the A6000 with the kit lens and be happy. When you learn the A6000 buy a prime lens and WOW.
I had the Sony A6000 for two months before selling it. It felt horribly cheap and not a patch on my NEX5n; the tilt screen did not sit flush with the back and felt terribly weak; the viewfinder was horrible and I could only used it for framing a shot; getting the card out was annoyingly awkward; I personally found the menu system even worse than on my NEX 5n; image quality was potentially good, but there was a horrible blue cast at auto ISO that I found difficult (if not impossible) to correct properly. Just my subjective opinion, but it feels that the A6000 was made by a different company that made the NEX5n. Adieu Sony. I bought a Canon 700d: ISO and dynamic range are less good but colour reproduction is far more pleasing, focus is way sharper and the handling is great. PLUS all those great lenses on asgoodasnew!
RichRMA: The problem with pocketable cameras like this is that they are only really pocketable without a case and cameras with motorized lenses sometimes see those lenses jam due to what might be in a pocket, like lint or other particulate matter.
A case mainly helps with grip but can also prevent accidents like mistakenly switching on the camera when it's in your pocket, thereby damaging the lens when it extends. And no pocket is clean - dust can easily collect around the lens. Also, many people sell their cameras after a year or so to get the updated version. A case protects the camera against scratches and knocks, thereby maintaining its resell value.
Actually, most of my processing is done on tablet nowadays using jpegs. I think the apps available today are remarkable and cannot be found on pc (eg. Lenslight, mextures, matter, fragment, scratchcam etc.). Which also means that image quality is no longer such a major issue. My Canon G9 still produces more than good enough image quality for my mobile processing purposes. So these 1.7 inch sensor cams still have a lot of life in them and the size goes well with a tablet on the move.
Trying out my new A6000 with the 35mm 1.8: yes, the sensor seems very powerful : I can crop to within 100 % and still get useable results. But my 700d's sensor is better for sharpness and colour.
Photoman: I think I'd rather use my A5000 and I always have my phone to receive and/or control the camera...if I really need to. Seems a waste to me. Make more lenses Sony like Pana/Oly. Your a bit slow in that department Sony.
I have the 35mm 1.8. Would be nice to have an 85mm 1.8 (like the Canon).
BarnET2: I am going to a concert in 2 monthsLots of movement dark you know the thing.Grainy shots on my girlfriends Facebook the day after.
I can't take a DSLR inside. They just won't allow it unless your press. A small mirrorless like the gm-1 with a prime is a possibility. The qx1 with a 50mm OSS would be even better.
Sony NEX 5n with a 35mm 1.8. It's small enough not to be noticeable and the lens is fairly sharp at 1.8. Only problem is the sluggish start up time.
LOL! Flashing lights. That get covered up when you hold the camera. X-D
Hey Pentax, does it come with a free Darwin Award?
ChrisKramer1: After losing the latest changes to my translation on One Drive yesterday I NEVER want to use another Microsoft product...
Yes, I know. I never trust the cloud normally. But you have to when you are using a company computer on loan and will never see it again. And three months ago Microsoft shut me out of my hotmail account in the middle of an ebay transaction, despite the fact that I answered all the security questions.
My point is, when I saw "Microsoft" mentioned, I thought of my lost email account and lost hours of work (and all the money that went with it). Not "Oh my gosh, how nice are those pics!"
After losing the latest changes to my translation on One Drive yesterday I NEVER want to use another Microsoft product...
Damn! That Tamron 70 - 300 SP is really good!
I only hope they had doggy bags with them...
LR on a phone
Adobe needs to beef up Photoshop Touch. It's pretty good, but nowhere near it's potential.
Actually, that's quite a big reduction. 8-o
Which makes me think that there are really good alternatives out there. For less!:-/
viking79: Really is a nice looking camera. Some texture to the aluminum grip might be nice, but sure looks good
Judging from the Verge's review it's nicer to photograph than to photograph with! LOL!