Lensmate: If that was Jackie, the orangutan at Bali zoo, he probably would have thrown the leaf at you, and with precision aim!I had watermelon shells thrown at me and my wife whilst taking shots of him. Others have had excrement thrown at them! One angry inmate!
Haha. Yeah he got me twice with a piece of fruit, the cheeky bugger. He was the highlight of the zoo.
These could easily be on National Geographic. However, #8 I dont think is good enough to be in this group. Too many assumptions being made here. For all we know it could be fabric thrown over a mannequin. #5 and #9 are interesting design so they offer something. #10 I'm not so sure.Especially love the monkey photo.
skiphunt13: So, let's say I had a friend who could spare $7million. I get him to buy one of my prints, generate a bunch of press releases about how "Now there's a new King of the Mountain! Skip Hunt has now beat Peter Lik for the most expensive image ever sold at $7Million!" Or something like that.
Now I bask in all the press glory, read all the articles about how my work isn't worth it, lots gf blogs recycle the story all over the net, different magazines print the story, news programming runs with it, interviews with me on morning programs, and then on to the nighttime talk shows, the value of the rest of my work skyrockets, a new photo-super-star is born, people who don't know better feel like paying $250k for a "Skip Hunt" is a bargain by comparison, etc.
You get the picture.
Meanwhile, somewhere down the trail I quietly "gift" my wealthy friend back his $7mil and a little extra for his trouble.
Nice work, Skip.Lets pretend to sell your work to an anonymous buyer. Say a photo of your cat for $1 billion? Not enough?$6.5 million.. pfft. amateur art.
And it's certain that the "phantom" image wasn't photoshopped just slightly?
rxb dc: I did a crude comparison of this lens against Canon 50, 10-18 and Tamron 150-600 at different focal lengthsHere is the link to the post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3763737Would be interesting to see what you all think.
Nice test. The 150-600 is a fine lens. I would return the 16-300.
A rather ordinary effort by Tamron.
I really wanted to like this lens, but the image quality is "ok" only if viewed at normal screen size (maximum pixel density) or reduced size.
Nothing compelling enough to make me want to upgrade from the Sigma 18-250 macro.
1. I like the colour, texture and tone.3. Beautiful landscape and colours4. Nice vantage point and composition.5. A nice point of view10 & 11. Beautiful landscapes, though I'm not a huge fan of B&W.
If you didnt purchase the Stylus 1 before, what would compel anyone to consider the 1s now?If you already have the Stylus 1, what would compel you to upgrade to the 1s?
I see no point in the 1s.
Dan Wagner: Plants and Fungi -- my fave!
Even better. Never seen such underwater plants. Beautiful. Thanks
I liked Plants and Fungi too. What I couldnt work out is whether they made the sky green, or whether it was a photo of the water reflection.
PhotoKhan: I am amazed on how, amidst all the bubbling-coffee-house-hipster sea of gadgetry that recurrently hits our tech shores, people seem to be failing to see how actually radically-innovative this particular proposal truly is.
PhotoKhan I agree. This is really impressive. It makes normal panoramic shots look one-dimensional.
The next step is holographic projection to immerse you in the environment.
Paul Guba: How can this lens not have image stabilization? 18-300 is so yesterday's news it really needs to be 18-400.
I like that idea.Or since it isnt a 16-300, an 18-330 would have at least given more reason to upgrade from the 18-250 macro.
Ozyxy: what is SX60's sensor size? where are the specifications?
Still a 1/2.3-inch backside-illuminated CMOS sensor. However, the EVF is finally improved with 922k dot res.
peevee1: Don't forget a tripod. F/6.5 lens this long is useless even in daylight.
Many of us arent old and decrepid and can do just fine with these cameras handheld.
What a shame it isnt a 16-300mm. I wasnt impressed with Tamron's offering (too many samples with soft lens) and hoping that Sigma would release a better version.I see no compelling reason to upgrade from my 18-250 macro - unless the 18-300 has superior lens quality.
Maybe Canon is announcing a medium-format camera.
MarioV: Nice selection of tripods. If you dont need as much capacity, then also look at the MeFOTO BackPacker.
The MeFOTO RoadTrip is certainly a competitor here. I'm trying to decide whether I really need the CF version......
Nice selection of tripods. If you dont need as much capacity, then also look at the MeFOTO BackPacker.
Very clever. Well done.
mosc: I'd so much rather have 16-150 than 16-300 if the image quality were even slightly improved. Where is all this demand for the long end coming from? APS-C DSLR's can't focus at f6 in anything but direct sunlight and anything you have to be that far away from is most likely moving. I never understood the market for slow tele.
It's APS-C, it should be cheaper than FF to get some decent aperture telephoto lenses. Why are all real telephoto lenses FF? Show me something past 150 that's faster than f5.6 for APS-C and not FF? Pentax, champion of APS-C makes 60-250 f4 which is incredibly expensive ($1400) and 250 f4 isn't that impressive. Minolta had a FF 210 f4 more than 20 years ago and it never cost that much nor does it weigh 2.2 lbs!
Funny. I've seen some beginners with modest equipment take better photos than some "seasoned" photographers with allegedly superior equipment. Rather than judge a person or equipment, lets judge the photo instead.