photo_rb: I may be missing it, is there any place that tells us which lenses are used on the studio comparison cameras?
Ahah! Thank you so much!
I may be missing it, is there any place that tells us which lenses are used on the studio comparison cameras?
riskinhos: 100$ for 2 pieces of metal??!???????? wtf?????
Have you ever been to the Really Right Stuff site...or Kirk? :-)
This is a very useful article that brings up some good points. Well done!
And I have been donating to Wikipedia whenever they asked!
Let's see, if you put the camera on a tripod and the wind knocks the tripod against a tree which hits the shutter button, you do not own the copyright. Do I have that right?
zettlers: Any camera out there actually worth buying?
Every one of them! :-)
Very nice results but on looking at it and reading about the technology it doesn't seem much different than the kind of image mangling that Photoshop and other composting software is doing although not on video. I would be looking forward to seeing this on video software like Premiere Pro or FCPX.
photo_rb: The question I have is if the monkey took the photo, why should it be public domain?
Well based on that, if the photographer sets his/her camera down, and the wind blows a branch that changes the camera angle and fires the shutter, the resultant photo is public domain. I disagree with that.
The question I have is if the monkey took the photo, why should it be public domain?
Retzius: "a distinctly iPhone-esque design" - thats a PC way of saying it... they even copied the app icons on the touchscreen
They sure did!
waxwaine: I don´t know why but I can´t feel interest on drone shoots, at least knowing they are not made directly by human, but just selected from a bunch later.
This is similar to setting up a camera near a wildlife spot and monitoring and firing the shutter remotely at a safe distance.
RichRMA: Did a liberal ever live who didn't want to ban, regulate, prohibit, control, oversee, observe, meddle with EVERYTHING IN SIGHT?
Well I will give you a contrary example. Gay marriages.
Bernard Carns: Interesting points of view.
But the images are really flat.
Where's the dynamic range?
These are the poorest quality images I've ever seen National Geographic endorse.
Maybe National Graphic has become the drone....er zombie....
But, again, the points of view are somewhat interesting.
I wanna see the picture of the eagle chasing the guy on the ground controlling the drone...
Most of the drone photographers right now are RC hobbyists and are still learning photography.
I like to put myself in a position where it is all about the image, not how it is made.
I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting sick of this "liberal" painting BS that I'm seeing more and more on discussions that really have nothing to do with politics.
My gut reaction is to criticize the first photo for the same reasons others have here but the photographer gave a good defence of his actions on another site which I have forgotten the link to. Worth checking out his side of the story.
40daystogo: In life, the vast majority of people think short term, and recognize but ignore long term consequences. Even those who pride themselves as long-term thinkers actually don't act on what they know. Hence, far-sighted people are very rare in society. Thus Adobe's CC lulls people with short term benefits.
For myself, I'm not walking into the trap of LR's false assurances that it is won't become CC-only. I'm going with either Capture One or DXO.
I think all the applications give high quality these days and for me it has come down to efficiency.
bgbs: I'm waiting for the day to come when our Speed Lights could be like mini-drones (or like little humming birds) that could stand still in mid air without a stand. Via algorithms they could quickly reposition themselves to enable you to take different shots. And be able to follow the subject on their own...etc.
Best comment here!
I like it! I also love reading the armchair photographers out there.