nimrod1212: I'd sacrifice 5 axis stabilization for a much better codec. The S-Log profiles are kind of wasted given the bandwidth limitations of crappy XAVC-S, a prosumer version of XAVC. If they had just added in-camera video recording at 10-bit / 4:2:2 to the A7S II, I'd buy the damn thing. Not sure why this is not the case considering 50% of the customer base is apparently professional videographers. You can't even use the argument of protecting so-called "higher end" models, since the Sony PXW-X70 does this already to SDXC cards using XAVC long GOP, and that camera is $1000 cheaper! That great sensor is effectively crippled by dumbed-down XAVC-S. To cap it all there is STILL only 8-bit output via HDMI. Guess I'll hang on to the GH4 system a while longer.
Sensor size is irrelevant? Only if you care about specifications and not image / video quality.
This is a rather average shot. Horrible oversaturation does not make a good photo.
Luisifer: Imho photography (and the most landscape photography) has three main points. Impressive place (and together impressive angle of view to scene), impressive light, technical quality (technical quality is about correct stitching too).
So there is interesting place (but it is only half truth because thanks to the technique it is not interesting angle of view to scene). Very important is that interesting light is not possible to capture with this kind of scene capturing. Technical quality is only in x and y numbers but with errors in stitching it is not real technical quality as it sounds from resolution parameter.
It's quite pity from point of view how much effortlessly it took.
I found only positive point that it is not with some disgustingly tone mapping (maybe thanks to the x and y parameters which are not supported in HDRsw).
I don't see that it would be good path for Photography at all.
My thoughts exactly.
That's stupid. It's just a technological demonstration. True photography is not about mega-giga-uber-pixels but recognizing a unique and/or beautiful subject or unusual perspective, and CREATING a striking image.
"which bares a striking resemblance" - bears, not bares.
This is great.
Lajos Hajdu: Come on, guys.
1. Does anyone believe that no. 8, for example, is not fake? 2. Google the definition of "kitsch".
Gskolenda, what on Earth do you mean? Many of the guy's photos are clearly Photoshopped. That small fluff can never carry the weight of a damselfly, let alone a small snail (in the guy's gallery). Many other images obviously arouse the suspicion of dead or tampered insects. Even the colors are totally unrealistic. In my book, THAT is feckless, not my judgement. No serious nature photography exhibition (e.g. National Geographic) would accept many of these images. And I say this as a person whose insect macro won second place and was exhibited in Central Europe's most prestigious nature photography competitions. Photo here: http://www.pbase.com/laja30/image/135881774
Come on, guys.
I did something similar several years ago and may try again...http://www.pbase.com/laja30/image/155013774
ogl: EU keeps killing Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Estonia.
"EU keeps killing Romania, Bulgaria, Greece..."
What a reckless, biased lie. I live in Hungary, so I have first-hand knowledge of the region. It's our own populist, corrupt politicians (and the stupid people who elect them) who kill our countries, not the EU. Without EU funds, there would be no economic or infrastructural development here in Hungary at all. Probably we would also quickly relapse into dictatorship.
Yes, these are nice for documentation and science purposes. But I'm a nature photographer who doesn't appreciate shooting dead animals in a studio.
Yes the clouds are nice, but I'm not a fan of the composition, and even less of the unrealistic colors and saturation.
Olgierd: These are spectacular! Love the water and amount of detail in the macro shot.
Would you care to share your technique for the last photo (one with starry sky)?
Once again fantastic work.
One more thing: the light on the horizon is light pollution, not - as many believe - the setting sun.
Thank you, Olgierd. The last photo (the ruined building under the Mily Way) was taken with a Tokina 11-16 mm lens. 30 sec exposure, f2.8, ISO 3200, manual focus, and of course careful RAW processing. I lit the foreground by swinging a LED light for a few seconds.
mini23: Come on DPR guys - I'm not a native English speaker but even I know approximately how to use apostrophes - what is sensor's supposed to mean?
...this software modifies the sensor's operation...means as much as...this software modifies the sensor is operation...
In this case,"sensor's" means "of the sensor". mini23, you should learn basic English before erroneously criticizing others. (Also, what you propose - "this software modifies the sensor is operation" - is totally gibberish.)
Than again, having looked at this image some more, I have to say that these phone photos are good for screen viewing only. The lack of detail makes this one look painting-like.
Beautiful! Indeed, good timing and location matter much-much more than the camera.
Thank you, Simon. Unfortunately no-one seems to read these user-created articles...
Small point: the title is wrong.
"Sigma to start shipping USB dock IN May"or"Sigma to ship USB dock FROM May"
marike6: When shooting "minutes from your home" means dramatic cliffs in Loop Head, Ireland, then yes, I suppose you don't need to travel to far and exotic lands for find interesting subjects. If you live near the Long Island Sound in NY, or some New England town, say New London, CT, I'd say the work of making compelling landscapes "in your own backyard" gets dramatically more difficult.
Where the author lives looks like paradise for a landscape photographer, you could literally shoot the same scene in different seasons, with different light, treatments, and focal lengths, and you'd never run out compelling things to shoot.
Beautiful images, and interesting article. Bravo, and thanks very much.
Again: are you sure that there are no great landscape photo opportunities within, say, 50 miles of a New England town? Places you can get to within an hour by car?