David Wrench: I presume that if the original winner has been disqualified, the 2nd place entry has won. It's a shame that the picture does not appear with other winners in 'Finished Challenges'.
The second place can't win the challenge simply because the second place got less votes than first.I have a better idea, why don't we place this fist place under a hammer on eBay! :)))
lem12: Hi, My name is Leon. I've got a 1st place in this challenge and wanted to thank all for giving their vote! My photo got disqualified for not having a general location description. I understand that rules are rules for everyone, but there's 17 images still on this challenge page without any sign or just simple location description.I'm not trying or asking to get my photo back on page. But I think it would be fair if the challenge rules would apply to all not just me.
Lave the winner alone already! Lets talk about other 17 images which never got disqualified.
Hi, My name is Leon. I've got a 1st place in this challenge and wanted to thank all for giving their vote! My photo got disqualified for not having a general location description. I understand that rules are rules for everyone, but there's 17 images still on this challenge page without any sign or just simple location description.I'm not trying or asking to get my photo back on page. But I think it would be fair if the challenge rules would apply to all not just me.
photoman555: Beautiful...congrats on your 1st place...
Here's short video of this craft, it begins from landing but farther its taking off and transport. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Ofss2TVuU
Thanks for sharing, nice work! Some of these shots are not from Russia. I couldn't get much info about the photographer, would be interesting to know where he's from. The space crafts on photos are very old program that only started flying in early 70s. The long metallic tubes are fuel tanks used to deliver those crafts to the space. Small green-black boxes on photo 14 are 35mm films by Svema, ISO64. Those use to come in cartridges or bulk which were cheaper.
lem12: Is this the one that doesn't need a photographer.. or not yet
sh10453, thanks for taking the time... I wasn't trying to tell you that you're wrong. I just don't see the reason of this.
alcaher: For security and surveillance purposes... Does it mean the the world is getting worst with humans but better with technology?
Soon we'll be terminated by the machines. 8)
Thanks for providing a link. Read it. They don't really tell the MP count, "Keyhole-type spacecraft that provide ultra-high resolution imagery for the U.S. intelligence community". That "ultra-high resolution"could work of many other factors. And it's used for surveillance and spying, not for space research.
I don't think anyone would want to take high MP camera to the space. What for?
dash2k8: I like it. If somehow this technology trickles down to us mere peasants, we will be looking at 100MP in DSLRs in a few years. This opens up a bunch of possibilities. Obviously this isn't "just" more MPs, the really cool stuff is the noise reduction/low light capabilities that this technology will bring along with it. Innovation and pushing the envelope is always good regardless of brand.
I'm already just looking at current 24mp
Is this the one that doesn't need a photographer.. or not yet
lem12: Image #5 is a very interesting capture looks 3D with that shallow DOF.
I also feel that color rendition in this picture is more natural looking and much closer to any film colors than other low-light indoor wedding shots - more of a red tinted reproduction.Nice shots, thanks!
Image #5 is a very interesting capture looks 3D with that shallow DOF.
lem12: Just curious.. how much photojournalist have to pay for just 35mm lens to capture a good story.
rfsIII, I didn't expect to get so much story to my question. Thanks for taking the time!
Just Ed: Five people had it already, must be Sony mirrorless fans.
Those must be a Hollywood users..
Just curious.. how much photojournalist have to pay for just 35mm lens to capture a good story.
loewena: 35 mm portraits are fine if you like bulby noses and small ears
Kodak 35 (camera and lens) - $150 mint, used about half of that price.
Bhima78: While it is nice that Canon seems to have successfully updated this lens to match the competition, I can't help but wonder who would pay $1,800 for this when the fantastic Sigma 35mm ART is about half that price at $900.
For 1,800$ must be a life time project.
justmeMN: For comparison: On the Nikon USA web site, their D5500 currently goes for $849.95. That sounds like more bang for the buck to me.
Nikon is entry level, this one has more features and handy ones too. I'll say if you into 4/3 system and already have lenses this one is more bang for the buck. Plus Nikon's RAW file conversion doesn't come free you have to buy a soft. I just don't thing this one will perform better than Nikon in image quality.