Why do so many entrants to these competitions insist on winding up the colour saturation to the point where grass looks like engine coolant? It would be a great, and evocative, picture without resorting to this form of photographic hyperbole. Based on other photos of this location on google images the colours are not at all representative.
Interesting pice of legal drafting (wording) . . . Does "This applies to drones of all shapes and sizes" mean that drones are one of the airborne means that you cannot use to deliver or retrieve a person or object or; that a drone is one of the objects that you cannot deliver or retrieve by helicopter. If it is, as I suspect, the former then a camera which returns to the place from where it left will not be considered a delivery as defined in the Oxford, and all other dictionaries I have checked. Having said that I am strongly opposed to allowing these airborne equivalents of a jetski in National Parks
barb_s: 146 mm but the camera lens is 400mm. Why not use it all for the plane?
There is a bit of an inconsistency in the information provided about the focal length of the lens. In the "specifications" list of this report the lens is stated as 25 - 400 with no mention of the actual focal length. Frankly it would be much more user friendly if the focal length used for sample pictures is given in 35mm equivalent. I appreciate that this data is probably extracted from exif but a good article should not require the reader to get out their calculator to determine this parameter in a format that is familiar to them. After all . . why to we use the term 35mm equivalent?
I would have to say that shot 25 is pretty impressive for a 600mm photo. The contrast is good enough to become excellent with a simple bit of post processing. The apparent sharpness is perfectly good for this sort of photo which has picture wide detail. The slight water color effect does not detract from an image that most users, including me, would be delighted with. For shots where there is a central it is less impressive but for the size it is still pretty good.,
It is very frustrating that you record the "equivalent" focal length, 25-600, only in the specifications on the March 31 report and then use the actual focal length fro photos taken for the samples gallery. I am sure it is an oversight but could you please be consistent.
When I look at these pictures, especially the Canon 200-400 lens it makes me realize how hard it must be for companies producing photographic equipment to make a profit. The cost for design alone for a lens comprising close to 30 elements must be difficult to recover. We users of such sophisticated should be lyrically grateful that we are able to enjoy this technology at probably well below its true cost. As a yacht owner I look at the cost of a few crude, by comparison, stainless steel fittings and marvel at how cheap my camera and accessories are.Strangely the cost of having fun on the water seems to be accepted with considerably less grumbling than I read on forum pages here.
(unknown member): They've been stuck on 16mp for half a decade
There is nothing wrong or onerous about stitching digital images together to make a large print on the very few occasions that a 40mp source image is required. Why make compromises to performance determiners that we need on 95% of our photography to avoid the need for an easy workaround.
deriggs: Catalana, Two Hands, you all have bit taking hook, line and sinker.
Silence is the enemy of the vain and self-absorbed.
I cannot see what the problem here. Photoshopping to structurally and materially alter the content of a photo (eg creating a picture of yourself jamming with the Boss or standing on top of Mt Everest) should not be sanctioned . . . but altering the mood of a photo through skillful editing is surely a far more worthy form of artistry than winding up the knob marked "color saturation" . . which the protestors below seem to think is ok. I just don't get you guys!
I have met many accomplished, and financially successful, artists in my life none of whom felt the need to use the qualifier "pro" to describe what they did for a living. As an earning a photographer I have been frequently humbled, when surveying a genuine work of art, to reflect on the huge gulf of creative skill between that required to produce it . . and mine own. And yet I have never heard an artist attempting to elevate themselves by speaking, in sneering terms, at the tools chosen by their aspiring contemporaries. I am also sure they would not work themselves into a lather over the packaging used by Windsor and Newton. Buying esoteric equipment and giving up your day job does not make a photographer any more worthy than users of P&S cameras. Complaining about the appearance of the tools of the trade only confirms the fact that they are technocrats not artists.Were they alive today I doubt that Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier- Bresson would feel the need to enter this debate.