Roland Karlsson: Surprising and innovative. Impressive result. But ... I see it only as a proof of concept really. The images do not have any interesting content, except the liquid. So - you look - wonder how they made it and then look at something else.
I see what you mean about the larger pictures.
I do sometimes wonder if the guys developing this site are using monitors bough in 1995 - 640 x 480 resolution. Or maybe they think I should only use a smart phone…
What idiot wrote a survey that refuses to let you submit it without every answer filled in? As for many there were things I did not want to answer and things that there was no correct answer for. After inventing stupid responses for five questions I gave up on the sixth refusal.
I wonder who let the intern write the survey and if they will get the sack for not actually checking it?
Peadingle: Not available in the UK? So as a licence payer I pay the BBC to produce this stuff, but am not allowed to watch it!
Barney, I see I've finally got an american to admit to being foreign ;).
But seriously, can you not see why all the Brits are incensed at refused access to British broadcasting company material? Its something we all feel highly connected to, to the extent of americans and your flag. Then to be faced with an utterly meaningless explanation on a f*.k off web page...!!!
And yes I have been to the US (even lived there) and seen the BBC website from abroad. Hopefully you'll get to visit the UK one day and see what it looks like without the ads.
Michael: does the BBC's statement make any sense to you? To me there is no logic to their argument. Those who can access it (foreigners) are not paying to see it. So why can't those those who similarly don't pay for it, but live in the UK, also access it? This they do not address. In the words of the bard- "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
maboule123: Is this a montage?A friend who visited this place says that the motifs are never seen like so.. The place is so huge to have all those elements reunited on one shot, no matter the angle.
A Byzantine church, then used as a mosque after the fall of Constantinople, it is now neither- its currently a museum.
wfektar: Welcome to see more reviews, and not just of cameras and lenses.
That said: here's a request. Can you go with measured weights and dimensions, rather than what the mfr claims?
For tripods, how about a stability measure. One possibility is to attach a laser pointer to the hot shoe, point it at a target, and find the spread as the tripod or nearby surface is struck with a known force.
Also for tripods, how about a carrying capacity measure? I have no idea how to do this, but as long as it is reasonable and consistent it should be fine. There are too many meaningless numbers bandied around as it is.
Mike- you can overcome variations in head for example by just settling on a single high end head to use. Follow the scientific method, use controls and vary one thing at a time. Repeat your tests and calculate the variation in your results (SE)- this will tell you how well you're doing. Drop into your nearest university and ask any PhD student to help you design the tests and what stats to use.
marike6: The specs claim independent leg spread, but the minimum height is only 19.5" (49.7 cm) not very low to the ground. I guess because it only has two leg positions. Doesn't seem ideal for macro shooters.
Also noticed that quoted price is low, as B&H has it for $319 for each of the ballhead or 3-way head kits. There is a $50 mail in through December (Maybe he meant $250 for just the legs, which is correct).
If I were buying, I probably just get the legset and add a decent ballhead with an Arca Swiss QR.
Nice looking tripod. Have always liked the speed of the their leg locks vs twists. But I think the load capacity may be a bit low vs the weight of the legs.
Its the centre column height plus the height of the head that will make up most of the minimum height.
swphotography wrote: > I sooooo wanted this to win number one! I believe that it fit the challenge perfectly. I love the light in her eyes and her eyelashes. Also great depth of field. The photographer did a wonderful job.
I always wonder about the 0.5 and 1.0 votes that drag a photo down- I'd love to know if the six of them had photos in the challenge.