fedway: I think the zs100, as a 1 in. sensor and still pocketable tele zoom would be the perfect camera to bring into stadium events where they frown upon "real" cameras but allow people to bring in pocketable point-and-shoots. It also works as a #2 or #3 camera when one is shooting landscapes with their big sensor gear and only have wide angle primes or 24-70s but need to shoot an occasional tele.The dl 18-50 would be the camera to bring to places like cathedrals. museums, landscape photography places that charge extra to people with "professional looking" ILCs. It also works as a #2 or #3 body when you are shooting wildlife with long lenses on your big sensor gear but want to shoot an occasional wide angle landscape.Heck, having a zs100 and a dl 18-50, one in each shirt pocket, and you cover 18-250 with a decent enough sensor size and walk around without a camera or bag in hand.
I'm surprised the author didn't buy the Panasonic ZS50 for his mom. I did the research for a friend during Thanksgiving time. It small, has a viewfinder, a sharp very lonnnng lens, image stability and it's selling for dirt cheap compared to the others. I tried it out when he first got it, and he's been very happy with it since.
Ruth, I have a private question for you. How do I get in touch with you and ask it? Burton
tkbslc: Shame that they are all grey skies. Makes the picture quality look worse than it likely is.
From my experience, I was very happy with the convenience, viewfinder, quality lens and simple layout of the dials on top of my G12. I won a lot of competitions with photos up to 20X30", but mostly 12x16 and 16x20s. (Noise terrible above ISO 400, though). In February the lens froze while in a zoomed position. It was too expensive to repair or replace, so was unhappy with the G15 for not having a moveable LCD screen in back (though there was a lot of improvements I liked). I complained to Canon. I waited for the G16 and now even unhappier. I'm being patient. When any other new camera comes along that I like and has the moveable LCD screen, I plan to buy it. In the meantime, I have a few other cameras to use (that won't fit on my belt) but I will wait.
I came up with a better one. I know you've reached your limit. Is it possible for me to withdraw the one I entered and replace it with the new one?
I've been trying to load a photo, but keep getting, "You have reached your quota limit" yet there are only 47 entries. How come?
I was disappointed that my photo was disqualified this morning because "These are not real flowers"
I don't see anywhere in the rules that they had to be "Real" flowers. Shouldn't it have been up to the voters to decide with their votes?
PS I dd mention that they were Chihuly (glass) flowers when I entered.
Just tried to enter again and got the same message.??
Entered a photo that was rejected that was shot on May 14, 2011.Just got a red flag message : "Image must be shot after the announcement date of the challenge."You have, "there will be no DQ for any (wrong) date related issues."I'm confused. Why was my photo rejected?
Last night and today, my photos won't upload on this challenge and the Creative look at Flowers challenge. Any idea what's happening?
I've been trying to enter a photo since last night. When I click "enter" I receive this error message with an error code 404. When I googled it, it said it means "The requested page doesn't exist.
We encountered a connection problem when attempting to send your request dpreview.com galleries service. We apologise for the inconvenience. This issue could be caused by problems with internet connections. If you suspect that this is the case, please repeat you operation.
HTTP response: 404 (error)."
Would you know anything about this?
Hi fellas, I want to thank you for your suggestions.I brightened up the reds, and added to the right side.I wanted to crop off the top as you suggested, but the challenge filled before I could.Thank you all very much!Burton
Yes, I too, think a darker background would help.
The eggs need a little more contrast (ighlights) to make them look rounder.
I think you should crop out the dark background because it is distracting.
But don't do it until others agree with me.
I agree with the others. Much too flat. Looks like they are floating. Reshooting with a partially back-lit shadow will put them back on the ground.
Too flat. Needs more contrast.
Thanks guys. I made the changes you suggested. Now I'm going to withdraw it and put in the new, improved version soon.
Arnie C Rose guessed right!
It is the shade of a long ceiling florescent light fixture.
Not a tooth.