oops, double post

mffox, a little trick I have use back in the film days, is to orient a grey card to the primary light as you subject is oriented and meter off that. Actually, I found that the back of my hand was about the same and closer to skin tones if my subject was a person. That makes a pretty good starting point for a subject like this (dark and light feathers against a light sky).

My 2 cents to the mix. It is definitely cloned due to the area around the planes. If you didn't do it (and I believe you) then your camera had to. Why don't you ask Canon? May try uploading the latest software into your camera?

LOL, perfect!!

I like the two birds but would like it much better if the front bird exposure was opened up to be brighter that the background.

Totally different image from the first Edie. B&W is totally appropriate here as you overcast day hurts a color landscape image, imo. It appears that the trees and horizon are sloping to the right. That might be the way they actually are but I would suggest straightening them so the viewer isn't left wondering.

Nice, May I ask, what drew you to this scene, what are you trying to express?

Edie, welcome to the forum. You have been on for a while and have posted a lot. I keep coming across your posts. I hope you are getting everything you are after from the forum.

To answer your question, Yes texture and color can be the subject of a successful image. But it is much more difficult to stir and emotion (even "wow, how pretty" or "how interesting") than with an object subject, like a kitten or flower.

In my opinion, one has to make the image all about the subject (texture and color) and get all the other concepts of composition and art so well done before viewers to make the connection. In this photo the light was lousy, not your fault, nature just wasn't cooperating.

This is a difficult scene to communicate the way I think you are wanting but I think it could be done under the right conditions.

Graham, if you hadn't labeled it "Tension" I might have let it go as the "defining moment" that it is. But by composing it by placing the woman according to the Rule of Thirds (or Golden Ratio grid) you are creating harmony, ie. decreasing tension. By using the GR concept, placing the woman's head as close to dead center (by cropping) you will be enhancing the tension. The viewer would feel more uncomfortable. In my opinion it would make it much more powerful.

Sandra, Yes, I saw the video. Everything he said was true but he did not mention any of the negatives of mirrorless or Sony for that matter. Another question that may be more important is what features does one want or need in their camera. For example, I love the 10 fps (on my A65) for sports and wildlife photography. I wouldn't settle for less no matter what. But if you don't need it then don't cross the cameras that don't have it off your list. I love the electronic viewfinder - it does so much more than the optical at the cost of some resolution but it has the option of a focus indicator (everything that is in sharp focus has the edges highlighted in red (or color of my choice) which is great for manual focusing and seeing the dof. I would never go back to optical but, big but, if you love the clarity of optical or the ability to see through the viewfinder you might want the camera with the absolute best viewfinder clarity. I think in comparing cameras, aside from personal preferences (as mentioned) check out the side by side test photos of the cameras in consideration. Ultimately that is the only thing you care about and probably has more to do with the lens you have than the camera brand.

Seriously, Sandra, if I were you I would get the camera that is most compatible with your lenses, assuming it has all the features you need. You don't want the best camera out there, you just want the one that best meets your particular needs.

Why don't you just buy a Nikon or Canon mirrorless (assuming the mounts are compatible with your DSLR lens)?

Oh, ok. Pardon my rambling. What the guy said is totally true. My dentist, quite an accomplished Canon photographer, what thinking about a small mirrorless for his trip to Europe. Thinking the size would be an advantage but not sure about the mirrorless part. I loaned him my A65 to try out. He bought the A6000 I think and loved it for his trip. Gave me a free root canal -- I think that means he liked it, hmmm... maybe not.

Sandra, you sure opened the old can of worms: which is better, Nikon or Canon? with a twist: or Sony? I just have to weigh into this. Two preface: 1) 99% (my guess) of the photographers out there will not produce any better pictures with any of the major brands over any other major brand. The cameras are way too sophisticated to ever be fully utilized. 2) (and this has been said before) use the camera that fits in you hand, has the right feel for you. Or if you are a brand loyal type person then don't compromise your loyalty.

I have had top of the line Nikons and Canons over the last 50 years. When Konica/Minolta came out with the A2 bridge camera I bought one -- mirrorless. (Sony bought them out). It was 8 mp (max back then). I loved it. But I alway say you will either love it or hate it, mostly because of the electronic viewfinder. I was used to optical but quickly preferred electronic because of the "what you see is what you get". But there are tradeoffs: the camera has to be turned on to see through the viewfinder. Mirrorless also has a one or two stop disadvantage.

I bought an A340 (that I put my Canon macro lens on) and now use it exclusive for macros. I now shoot with the A-65. Interesting statements about the lenses. I noticed that Sandra has a Sigma in her kit. Sigma makes lenses that fit Sony. Sony's top of the line lenses are Carl Zeiss (can't get any better than that). Lens selection/quality shouldn't be much of a consideration I wouldn't think.

It seems that Sony develops the breakthrough technology, proves it up, then the other brands slowly join in. So eventually, all the brands will have the same features. If you are not in a hurry or not trusting new technology wait for your brand to bring it.

One last thing (about the size) the A65 is a full size body camera. I have tried the smaller "mirrorless" (like shown in the video) and they don't fit my hand well. I like the heaver, bigger cameras so I won't be getting one like that smaller one. If you do a lot of street photography it might be just the ticket.

My bottomline advice: Try it before you buy. If it fits your hand, if you don't feel a particular need to be loyal to a certain brand, AND you like the electronic viewfinder then give a mirrorless a try. You don't have to get a Sony, there are other brands out there that will exceed most peoples needs.

Did I "get it" with the uncropped version... what you were trying to portray with it?