Congratulations! Very good!
People who travel by air? I see nobody.
People who travel by air? I don't see people here.
AF-S Nikkor 70-200 f/4 VR works well in closeup. I claimed it and you show it now!
I like this shot, because it represents a 'real photography'. It is not just a simple '2D-copy of a 2D-window-plane'. A 'real photography' asks for consideration of the light fall, i.e. (small portion of the) creativity, photos of the windows in the transmitted light only don't.
Is your rainbow real or artificial (e.g. taken from the sandbox-plugin in IrfanView) ?
Would you increase? The challenge has been filled up as stated in the additional rule.
no 1:1 aspect ratio
Sorry, I didn't read the note before I wrote my previous comment.
Watch the rules, this is not a single shot.
sorry, but this challenge is for full colour shots
... not only in 2010, the pic displays more than ONE human, too. What a pity. :~(
abolit: No leica profile , neither fuji x pro 1... who needs this junk?
Who needs this junk?The majority of all photographers shoot neither Leica nor Fuji X-Pro1. So, the majority of all photographers may find out that this junk is not so bad as abolit tries to suggest us.The trial version helps.
grayowl: JKP already addressed it: We read the test reports in order to know more about the particular lens and to decide for or against it when we consider to buy it. However, what we get to read is the test result measured on a lens copy which we'll not buy. Lenses are industrial products and their quality varies from sample to sample. This is absolutely normal and unavoidable, no manufacturing runs without tolerances and lens production is no exception. The question is, how strong does the quality fluctuate in the lens type of our interest.We need the information, if - when we buy this lens - there is a rather high probability that our copy will be as good as the tested one, or if there is a high risk that we'll don't get what the tested sample promised.
It would be really great if dpReview & DxO would expand the test procedure in this direction. I guess that e.g. a fast assessment of the centering variation on at least 5 (better 10) lens samples would be appreciated by a lot of us.
50 isn't practicable. 5 is exactly five times more (i.e. better) than one, 10 would be still better and - I hope it - feasible.
Another important criterion is the AF accuracy and repeatability. The best results (resolution) measured in the lab using one lens sample after meticulous manual focusing is useless in the real life if the AF doesn't work perfect. A repeatability assessment is a question of a statistical analysis. I know a german magazine publishing its test results concerning AF repeatability. This is a nearly unique service among the lens testing labs but they only list the best and the worst result of ten measurements and measure the AF accuracy in percent. Nobody knowsa) what means 'percent' in the assessment of the AF accuracyb) if the worst result (e.g. 20%) is an outlier or the rule, whereas the best result (e.g. 100%) is the outlier
Please, dpr, give us meaningful test result presentation, statistically well-funded!