Yeah when Q Bert first posted that picture in the thread I said to myself "there's no way in hell him, or anyone else on this forum for that matter, took that shot with their 6/6+"
Just looked too edited/professionally done. Guess I was right, thanks javaGuru for helping make sense of things
Really wish people wouldn't just post pics they find on the internet and act like they took the pictures themselves by not giving a source link or any info about it...
1. I NEVER said I took the picture so I didn't act like I took them myself.
2. I didn't bother to post the source since that amazing pic has been viewed many times already and most likely, they already know the source. My apologies that you were not in the know.
3. I love how you have a double standard since you didnt bother to post the source in these 2 posts of yours: (yeah I know they're videos and not a picture)
Image
Image
Well, the YouTube examples don't really count since A) they weren't posted in a type of "Videos taken with 6/6+" thread and B) You can easily see who the source is by simply clicking on the 'YouTube' icon while the video is playing.
Sorry though for my confusion earlier in the thread. Most people just post pictures without any comments and you assume they took it. The cynic in me saw the picture you posted and couldn't believe it. Again though I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. Thanks for taking the time to respond even though you didn't have to.
Cheers!
Nice! And the web looks great as well - was it moving a little? I ask because I've been impressed with the camera's improved ability to take clearer shots of moving, fine detail. Like this morning, this weed and its spindly bits were wildly blowing in the breeze, but the shot actually came out ok: