It is not clear to me that it must be B&W. In the introduction you state: " Shot must be taken outdoor and presented in B&W", but in the additional rules it says: "When entering a B&W picture, be sure conversion didn't involve contrast enhancing, sharpening and so on..." which implies colour pictures are allowed as well.
Well deserved first place.
Andy C Knight: I'm having difficulty understanding this line...
"There are three factors that affect how much light is available for your sensor to capture: your shutter speed, the size of your aperture (not f-number) and the size of your sensor."
I keep thinking... Shutter, F number & sensor size or...Shutter, physical aperture size & focal length.
Can someone explain where I am going wrong?
The issue is that smaller sensors use lenses with shorter focal lengths to obtain a proper field of view, e.g. 50mm on full frame, 35 mm on APS-C and 12 mm on 2/3" sensors give the same field of view. The aperture has the focal length in the formula: A = focal length/f-stop number. So, using the same f-stop, the shorter the focal length, the smaller the aperture.
Velvet Man: A77II owner for 6 months.Pro:It is the only flip screen (invaluable feature to me) SLR styled camera that can fast focus.I tried Canon 70D before buying, under liveview mode, 70D focusing is amateur.I have not tried 7DMKII , but hey without flipscreen and capable live view, it simply can't take interesting angle photo easily comparing to A77II
Crons:- I was very reluctant to get A77II because of a lot of amazing , well priced lens from Sigma not avaialble in A-mount. - Sony prime telephoto offer is way more expensive to her competitors, even without in lens stabiliser.
-I felt rather "sad" when I had my hand on a Sony A-6000 with its amazing focus ability, and start to wonder if there are still value to the SLT system and worry about the future of A-mount. At my local Sony showroom, A6000 is the star and they put A77II at a quiet corner. I asked the Sales people at Sony if A77II has any advantage over A6000 in terms of focusing , and they can't give a clear answer to me.
I would not worry about the future of A-mount. There may come some point in time, when Sony will be able to produce an SLR shaped E-mount camera with an LEA adapter that can match the performance of a dedicated A-mount camera. From that point on, it makes no sense to produce any more A-mount camera's.
For A-mount users, when that time comes, it will have only advantages: all their A-mount stuff can still be used 100% (so no loss of investment), but they gain the advantages of the mirrorless E-mount (like the usage of all kinds of lenses via adapters).
I see already a few pictures popping up with bomber/trainer/cargo planes, not fighter aircraft.
NZ Scott: It's not a "jet".
This is a P-51 Mustang.
Well done! Very well indeed.
Just for fun:
Canon (and Nikon) will need to get their act together, otherwise they will have their own "Kodak moment".
MILCs will surpass DSLRs in the future because they are inherently superior. It is only a matter of time before the last real advantage of DSLRs, fast autofocus, will be achieved somehow in MILCs, either through on sensor PDAF or whatever. For the rest, a MILCs is much more flexible due to shorter flange distance, which allows all kinds of adapters. They are more compact and more tailored to the coming generations of photographers, which have no SLR legacy.
The magazine will just hire the same photographers, but as freelancers and not as staff.
zeyno44: 2 x AAA Batteries? How many shots can you actually get? It would've been perfect if it had built-in rechargeable battery - in my opinion.
LOL. But if you are travelling, just buy AAA duracells (or whatever) in a shop.
You could always use rechargeable AAA batteries.
Did the camera used in photo #1 survive?
This technology is promising, but not mature yet. Just a matter of time. Look it at this way: the first digital cameras were also a lot behind film cameras.
Le Frog: "Its depth-of-field and light capture costs (it's most directly comparable to a Full Frame 70-200mm F5.6)"
No, no, no, dear DPR, in a telephoto, deep DoF is never ever a cost, it is always a benefit! Who wants (and why would he want) shallow DoF@200mm? And whenever you can use the 35-100 wide open, while, with an APS or FF camera, you would have had to stop down the lens, to get sufficient DoF, there is no light capture cost either.
Please, please, please, do not encourage the trolling of the shallow DoF brigade. Pretty please with a cherry on top and plenty of whipped cream and chocolate fudge?
Well, one very good reason to buy the f/2.8 lens: you can use higher (faster) shutter speeds in less than optimal light conditions. Important for action/sports photography and birding.
EXX: Wow, $1800 body only. The Sony A77-MkII with the 18-50mm F2.8 lens is cheaper than that. Looks a lot more attractive to me.
If you have already heavily invested in Canon lenses, then it is of course nonsense to switch to anything else. For new buyers however, this is a completely different matter.
Finally some competition for Sony in this market segment. I suspect Sony will now drop their price on the RX100 models. Good for us consumers.
Wow, $1800 body only. The Sony A77-MkII with the 18-50mm F2.8 lens is cheaper than that. Looks a lot more attractive to me.
That filled up quickly! Maybe a #2 in a few weeks?
Basic PP, so colour photographs only? What about panorama, since more and more cameras have a nice and easy to use (also for mom) built-in panorama function.