I can see a galaxy(don't know the name) on the up right side.
zigi_S: Looks good. It's less noisy than nikon d810.
Yes, shadows on sony sensor is better. Less chroma noise. But luminance is same.
Thought it would be worse. But it actually isn't bad for a superzoom. With 2000mm focal length you can shoot birds from your couch.
Even in nominal resolution, to me it looks better. About same noise but more detail. Apart from low iso DR, canon in high iso is very competitive.
Looks good. It's less noisy than nikon d810.
Sigma did well.
The elephant in the room hasn't been noticed. Namely sensor DR. Why?
zigi_S: Downloaded the original jpg of night city scene and lifted the shadows. It doesn't look that different than mine 600d. Am I missing something?
Well I expected better shadow information from the oh so great sony sensors.
Downloaded the original jpg of night city scene and lifted the shadows. It doesn't look that different than mine 600d. Am I missing something?
Tiefenunschärfe: No reason to be concerned.
They are only splitting out "Video & Sound" and NOT "Imaging Products & Solutions" !
see here: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201502/15-017E/index.html
The rating agencies are a scam.
Stig Nygaard: In case someone wants something else but discussing if Mads Nissens winner photo is a political plot or stagged, you can find other examples of his work here:http://politiken.dk/fotografier/ECE2543405/eskapister-guldgravere-indianere-og-homoseksuelle-i-eksil/http://www.madsnissen.com/category/stories/The first link is photos from his book "Amazonas".
"@zigi_s, did you just say that people SHOULD be imprisoned for viewing or displaying this photograph all over the world? And people voted this up? That's dark."
Viewing and displaying are two different things. For displaying I agree with the russians.
And that's how it should be all over the world.
I guess the DP staff had enough of equivalence fights in its comment section :-)
bobbarber: It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.
What else do you truly get offended about? N.S.A. breaking into your computer? Bankers selling bad mortgages and taking people's homes? Anything like that, or only a college kid doing the dumb kind of thing that college kids do?
It'll be hard, but I'll try to get over this one.
DP geeks are outraged someone stole a photo of their dog.
wansai: this is a complete non issue. most ppl who have photoshop would know how to do this even without the tutorial. it is a simple process, something i would, at most categorise as intermmediate level ps skill, but likely one that any basic user should know.
i havent seen his blog post. unless he specifically states to do the shop then pass the image off as your own, i see no issues with it. also, if it is a picture of you and you have not signed a release, the photographer has no merits in trying to use it for commercial purposes. you have as much claim as the photographer.
"If a painter puts brush to canvas should it be stolen from him because he painted someone he saw on the street that day?"
Imagine a photo of you on every corner. Without being asked. Or your photo used in jokes. Like some unfortunate people on the internet, to gross "beautiful people" out.
Donnie G: Don't think for a minute that people who remove copyright info from an image don't know that they are stealing. Of course they know. They just don't think they will get caught at it, or, if caught, they don't think they should be punished for the theft. (They always fall back on the same old worn out excuse of, "well, eveybody else is doing it"). And even when they don't get caught, they get embarrassed when someone points to them and publicly labels them for what they are, THIEVES.
You stole the light in the first place.
zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.
"How could you possibly have televised news coverage or any kind of photojournalism in your fantasy world?"
In my "fantasy world" reporters ask the interviewed person. Reporting on public events doesn't breach privacy of an individual. There is a difference between a shot from an individual or a scene with people. I am sure that in most of the civilized world, law agrees with me.
alpha90290: If he want free photo of himself, he should put his own camera on tripod and shoot himself. Or ask a friend/family member to do it.
There is no need to break the law to get it.
There is also no need to ask others to break the laws.
All stupid excuses just make him looks dumber.
Photographers where I live don't use such clauses in contracts. I'm sure the court would deem them null and void.
Photographer has no right to publish his photo on the internet. I would sue if a photographer I hired and paid him would use my photo in the public.
I'm sorry, it looks like you understood me. I don't care what law says. I'm talking what is right. Everybody should have a right to privacy, no matter what a corporate sponsored law says.