He's a bit central, but great light well captured.
Nicely taken :-)
Cool shooting !
Well captured !
Cool shot, well done.
Interesting shot. The postprocessing on the sky seems a bit heavy handed, but if it won it must have pleased many :-)
Excellent shot, great quality.
sugardaddy: Yay! I get to spend $3500 for an upgraded AF! Is there even a reason to get the 1Dx? They seem to be very similar.
If that is all you see in this camera, then keep shooting happily with what you've got. Happy shooting! :-)
I have a great photo of an Oysterman at work on remote oysterbeds, but it was taken before the announcement date :-(Some pics are just not that easy to go out and take again!
AndyML: A lot of you Apple haters need to step away from your ignorant perspectives and look at the facts.
Yes, other tablets have the same features, even more (SD, USB, etc). One thing that you cannot argue though: Apple is by far the most successful tablet maker. I know you're cringing, but this is strictly numbers.
Listen to their commercials. They are telling you why it doesn't have a USB port or SD slot. They are making a device for content consumption, not creation. This isn't brainwashing, it's simply them making a product for one purpose. That purpose isn't yours? Stick with your laptop or "niche" device.
They're adding features that improve upon their intent of the product. Everyone is using the screen, they improve that. Everyone is holding it, they make it light and thin.
Until you can argue that the majority of the consumer base would use the following features on a regular basis, then we'll talk: USB, SD slot, removable battery, apps not available in app store, etc.
Subjective twaddle.It hasn't got a feature because a majority wouldn't use it ???Add a usb port and the majority wouldn't use it ???An SD port to increase memory an the majority wouldn't use it ???Go stick your head back into the Apple bubble.
migus: It's still far from 'retina' (326dpi) but much improved display. I hoped for AMOLED w/ deeper black than the typical milky-gray IPS... Not convinced yet that i ever need an iPad, though one could use it for photos - as an expensive digital frame :-).
My main interest for such toys would be in maps/GPS and PDF papers/magazines... basically a hi-res reader. Again, i'd rather save my eyes w/ e-ink or a friendlier display (not backlit). Mitch
Don't forget : dpi = dots per inch.Find an inch. Measure the dots in it.
rallyfan: This is a winning situation for everyone involved and even those not involved...
The greatest winners are those who bought not Apple products necessarily, but Apple stock. The current price compared to the price before iPhone launch should bring a smile to anyone's face.
Those that don't buy Apple because the i-device lacks an ostensibly critical feature or suffers from a proprietary connector (when in fact these devices are the standards for significant markets in the developed world...) also win, because they won't have to worry about availability of their chosen non-Apple device: it should be ready and waiting for their $.
I doubt, meanwhile, that Apple will be able to produce enough of these to meet demand in the near future and perhaps beyond. In fact, it's almost fortunate that the iPad lacks the oh-so-crucial "standard" connector, SD card slot, bluetooth file sharing, fill-in-the-blank; if it were equipped with these must-have features supply would never meet demand... Heh.
True, as long as you pay and don't mind being kept within their 'system'...
PhotoTrevor: I was hoping for so much more... I have a MkII and this does not seem that revolutionary. This is an evolution at best. The MkII should have had a more advanced AF system to begin with and things like more programmable bracketing shots should be offered as a firmware update to MkII users. I am happy to see that the megapixel count was not raised as I prefer low noise over pixels. What I can't figure out is why Canon in it's infinite wisdom can't put a swivel LCD on there and for a camera that supposedly is being marketed for video. You can put it on a 60D but not on a MkIII. Boo....
Agreed, any pro or amateur that uses Liveview will appreciate a swivel screen, whether for video or stills.
IcyVeins: The Sony A99 is going to utterly destroy this camera and the D800
djbrom: Interesting but it doesnt really grab me.
More interestingly and kinda off topic..... What did you use to record the video? :)
and the reviewer should turn to the camera that is filming, i.e. no good using three cameras if he only speaks to one - but I'm sure next video will correct this :-).
This new 24-70 will be great on the new 36 MP sensor...what? ...darn, the D800 is a Nikon...:-(
Hmmmm, has Canon got a nice surprise up its sleeve...?;-)
photo nuts: Why are there more comments on the release of these lenses than the D800? Isn't the latter a far more interesting product? ;)
What's a D800?
GeezerBeatz: Sorry KAllen, I have to disagree. The 24-70mm, as with any standard/wide angle zoom lens doesn't really need to have IS. Its the same with the cheaper 18-55mm IS. At the wide end, you won't notice it, and it you need IS at the top end, then you would already have a 70-200mm IS to back you up.The f2.8 aperture means it is fast enough to take slightly longer exposed images without the use of a tripod or IS controls.What Canon have done is improved the glass, made it lighter (which they needed to) and made it a little more portable which will be ideal for any possible (sic!) new camera to come out such as the 5D Mk II replacement which is more likely to be a smaller body than its predecessor.I think this lens will take off if they can promise the quality and reliability of the first generation of this range.The other new lenses are not only going to be good protrait for APS-C bodies, but handy, cheap video lenses.
Not another one who doesn't shoot in low light without a flash?So I zoom out to 70mm, frame my shot, then think darn, no IS, so I whisk off the 24-70 and attach my 70-200 IS, take the shot, then zoom back out to 24mm, argh, no, darn, whisk off the 70-200mm and attach the 24-70 back on and take the shot...;-)What? Bump up the iso instead? I'm already shooting at 3200iso, higher and the noise does intrude a bit too much...
Mtsuoka: IS is not the only factor, at this price point I will be considering IQ more.Seriously if you use this lens to shoot people or anything that moves how slow do you wanna go? (@70mm 1/80 + 2 stops = 1/20 => subject motion blur!)
Those who prefer the Tamron because of the IS I wish you all the best (remember the Tamron 17-50 VC vs non VC?) and I think a wise man will not make any conclusions before the IQ test was done
or perhaps if you choose your main lens just because of the presence of IS then you should stick with your kit lens....
Of course IQ is important,but some of us shoot a lot in low light, so if we can worry more about how the subject moves and less about our hands shaking, so much the better.Why do we buy fast lenses? Erm, shallower depth of field AND low light advantages, so yes, conditions when IS helps.PS These are not made by Tamron.
"used properly" !!! No problem with that.
HDR can be great, and in my mind it should not even be noticeable unless one wants a non-natural look for example for illustrations or advertising.
Unfoirtunately HDR is too often misused.