When viewing in Flat Mode, I wish the space between posts wasn't so great. That's the only big thing I'd like to see tweaked at this point.
From my experience on another forum, user rankings get abused. For example, if a person is reasonable and uses a Nikon but participates in a discussion on the Canon forum discussing the differences between the Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D600 then the Nikon user might contribute very factual information, yet this person will inevitably lose points by partisan participants who do not want to see negative information about their camera being mentioned.
Or, on my NEX forum, there are many discussions about the value of the touch screen on the 5N versus the lack of a touch screen on the NEX-7. People feel very strongly about it so I know, just as happens in political discussions on my other forum, that people rate down users who they disagree with even if the user is being very civil and contributing in a worthwhile manner. I would hate to see people who are valuable contributors being made to look like a troll just because they converse with people not wanting that information.
give me much more customization already!!!
Each shot makes me think about the event the person is competing in and shows some of the character of the participant. Nicely captured set.
Odd that pricing hasn't been announced when I was able to pre-order this lens on Amazon.com last week for my NEX at $399.
There must be something wrong with the voting system when the winning entry is only a 3.1 out of 5.
I used to be a purist about photography and post processing. But then I realized that the bokeh that a really nice Zeiss or Leica lens provides is actually artificial compared to what my eyes are really seeing. We see the dog and the background. Just because I buy a nice full frame camera and fast lens doesn't mean that I am now doing something authentic; rather, I am manipulating tools to give me a pleasant artificial look. Why not allow post processing if it can do the same trick? That being said, I prefer the nice equipment over the time spent post processing to get this effect.
SigmaDelta10: Sony boys and girls: the NEX 7 is nice. Yes, really.BUT... lenses should be black. They shouldn't look like perfume bottles.The NEX 7 is black. The cheap 18-55 is black. Black is beautiful. Give us black lenses.
I am just an amateur who understands exposure and I am learning composition and lighting to go with the technical stuff I've learned about photography. I also prefer silver lenses to go with my silver 5N. If silver is perfume bottles then I look goofy to you, but I like the look, so there's that. On the other hand, I don't care how I look and often put an ugly black Canon FDn 50/1.4 lens on my silver 5N. No big deal to me . . . it's the results I am after; not looking good taking the shots.
cptrios: Thanks! I've been waiting for this for ages now, and these results have me excited. Any idea when the 19mm might pop up?
The kit wide open corners doesn't look very good to me. Thanks for sharing these.
Jonathan Wilson: Hopefully it will be easier to access highest res images (at moment can be quite a few clicks). Ok I admit I like to pixel peep sometimes.
Not from the photostream. You have to first click the image to get the medium sized view and then you can right click to get the contextual menu that has original as an option. That's still a bit clunky.
For my top 10 finish I'd just like to thank the Academy.
maboleth: I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.
So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.
So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.
Lower quality is why I never understood the popularity of Instagram. Then again, the masses aren't serious about photography as much as they're serious about just having fun. Ah well.
javieralcivar: The post should be how many people will actually see your photos in Facebook vs Google+
Fb is fun to share my images with more people if that's my sole purpose, but Flickr and/or G+ are better for actually storing and backing up photos. Flickr and/or G+ are much better if you're even remotely serious about photography and viewing and critiquing photos or sharing images with people who shoot photos for quality. I am heavily invested into Flickr and I've love to switch to G+, but moving is really, really tough. Sigh.
limlh: Personally, I think Sony made the mistake of using aps-c size sensor in a small body, then having to compromise with out of proportion to body size, lower edge sharpness and slower lens.
Sigma has a very small 30/2.8 lens coming out in e-mount for the NEX (also a small 19). Small lenses can happen for the APS-C.
2 views and 9 total votes. That's sort of crummy. I actually didn't think my photo was going to be in the top tier, but I did hope to get a a bunch of votes to help get a clearer sense of the quality. But to have people giving it a .5 rating seems to just be a reflex vote hoping to lower an opponents photo rating instead of accurately reflecting the photo being viewed. Am I to conclude that I should go through every photo that is competition and give it a .5 rating to help my own photo compete better? Meh. I'll continue rating the best I can.
twenty200: This is not a very good camera replacement app. It's ok at best. Camera+ has been around longer and has improved far more than this app. I assume King Camera got a review here because they got in touch and sought a review? Otherwise, I can't imagine why anyone would pick this app over its competitors.
Camera+ is my preference as well and what I use to compare anything else that comes along.
likesfilm: My first time here.
As a long -time photographer (decades), it is frustrating to read so often that the weight of a full-size camera is such a frequent disadvantage. I have been fortunate to be able to use cameras of all sizes and weight over the years, both digital and film based. The bulk and weight of the larger cameras has always felt better and more stable in my hands.
Of course there is a valuable place and usage for all sizes of camera, but do the majority of experienced amateurs and pros who read this magazine really believe full-size camera weight is as bad as the reviewers would have you believe?
I don't get it. Is it an age thing?; because I still like viewfinders, too. Is it manufacturer driven, as I might believe? Do the majority of reviewers and writers have enough years behind a lens to really know the advantages of a heavier weight camera. Are we just getting lazy?
Do any of you agree with me? Thank you.
I had a Nikon D70 and the 18-200 VR lens during an outdoor hiking adventure in Canada 2 years ago. It was a nightmare. I didn't want my camera in a bag because I needed it to grab a shot on a moment's notice. I wore the neck strap and carried it but it was hot and my neck got extremely sweaty. I was able to get an awesome shot of a bear that wouldn't have happened if the camera wasn't ready immediately.
I now have a Sony NEX-5N and took it on a hike. HUGE difference. I can't even adequately explain how much better this experience is. The weight of the D70 was clearly a disadvantage for me over what I have now. And, the image quality is noticeably better with the 5N. Granted, the D70 is older technology, but it's also similar in weight to many DSLRs.
tkbslc: Seems like an odd choice considering there are only a handful of E-mount lenses and one of them is already 18-200. If I was calling the shots at Tamron, I would have ported over the 17-50 first. That's a lens that every NEX owner would jump on - not something they can already get.
Wait it's bad to bring an 18-200 when Sony has an 18-200 already, but you're suggesting that a better choice would be a lens that is very similar to the kit lens that most people likely have already? At least with the 18-200 there are a lot of people like me who appreciate seeing a potentially cheaper option -- even if just a bit.
I spent the better part of a month in South Africa earlier this year (see my avatar) and plan to do so every year. I will not be buying this book because I like to think of my photography there as pretty good. This book, no doubt, will make me look like the amateur that I am. ;~)
But I'll think about . . .
I tried Instagram and gave up right away because of the 612x612 resolution max. Looks like they've fixed it finally. However, I found an alternative that suits my needs. Sorry Instagram.