They're a year from shipping and the only thing they have is a render? Good luck with that.
Now that's proper wildlife photography. Kudos.
Answering the question: no. Next question.
photogeek: Heavier than the Nikon? But Nikon is already as heavy as a brick. I used to own that Nikon, and it never left the house. This one would double as exercise equipment.
You must also have the neck musculature of a Greek god. :-)
So basically it's like a Nikon D810 with no video features and worse high ISO? Good luck with that.
Heavier than the Nikon? But Nikon is already as heavy as a brick. I used to own that Nikon, and it never left the house. This one would double as exercise equipment.
I'd buy one, but the lens is not quite large enough. Can they make it twice as large (and heavy) as the body? I'll pay extra.
Lassoni: I've always found it fascinating when watching these kinds of videos. They kind of show how much mankind has progressed in different areas (mechanics, technology..). So much that we don't pay too much attention to these stuff anymore in our everyday lives.
Computers were actually invented _with_ the aid of computers. Computer used to be a profession: rows upon rows of mostly women sat in offices and computed numbers all day. Sometimes multiple times over, in parallel, for verification. Talk about a mind numbing job.
Stacey_K: I have to agree with other posters. These awards, like the news, promote the display of the worst side of humanity. What's next, an award of excellence given to someone who goes around photographing the gruesome details from car crash scenes? It borders on voyeurism. I have zero interest in viewing these type "projects" anymore than I would slow down driving by a crash site to get a better look.
Would you rather it was given to a photo of a kitten? These stories need to be told, or else people will keep slaughtering each other. If anything, I would say the photographers do not go far enough in their portrayal of war. It should be much like the D-Day scene of "Saving Private Ryan", because that's how it really is.
photogeek: Does it tilt back any?
No, I mean further back. If I, for instance, want to take a picture of something below but still bounce light off the ceiling.
Does it tilt back any?
photogeek: Manual focus? What is this, 1935?
Except what you're purposefully not noticing is that with AF you have AF _and_ MF, and with MF only you're SOL with moving subjects, even if you stop down. I can sort of see MF for video, but for photography, MF just plain sucks.
Manual focus? What is this, 1935?
Can I pay for a mockup lens lineup with Monopoly money?
Papi61: Yeah, I agree with CameraCarl that it's in very poor taste to glorify SS soldiers, as they were directly responsible for unspeakable atrocities, especially on the eastern front. I'm ethnically Jewish, and several of my ancestors were murdered by the SS in extermination camps. So you can understand how this particularly upsets me.
Incidentally, it's very disturbing to see how many of America's militia types and gun nuts in general have a deep admiration for Hitler's military and love to parade in Nazi regalia, as this photo shows.
Dude, I don't even know (nor care) who David Duke is, or what his argument is. I'm just saying that if you ask an average American about WW2, they will tell you that the U.S. won the war, and that Germans mostly killed Jews. Neither of which is true.
No. But it qualifies as atrocities nevertheless. Those civilians did not deserve to die.
As to the Jews, the commonly heard narrative seems to portray them as if they're the only injured party in that conflict, while in reality that's simply not true. Most people think that there only were Jews in the concentration camps, and that is also not true: plenty of Russians, Poles, and others died in those gas chambers as well. Most people think only Jews were systematically exterminated by the SS, but people burned alive in the barns in Belarus beg to differ. I mean, I could continue the list, but it won't change your mind. You want to be a victim, and that you will be, facts notwithstanding.
Also, regarding WW2 losses, Russia had far and away the highest number at 26 million. What happened to the Jews was tragic and unfair, but let us not forget who really won the war, and the price they paid for winning it.
Papi61: British medical journal, The Lancet, has put the estimate of civilian casualties in Iraq alone, by 2006 (so it is higher now) at 655000 people. If that's not "atrocities", then I don't know what is. Like I said, war is hell, it's not like our men and women in uniform can choose to just not shoot. The men and women who command them should bear responsibility, and ideally stand trial for war crimes, since we had no good reason whatsoever to be there.
You'd be unlikely to find such a healthy/buff looking soldier towards the end of the war, after the worst military defeats Germany has ever faced.
All soliders, from all sides, by definition, were responsible for unspeakable atrocities. If you think otherwise, I recommend you study history. War is hell. If you don't commit atrocities you get shot by your own.