aaawwwww, he looks really nice.

and it's a great 'little' camera. I still carry mine if I'm travelling light or want to force myself not to keep stopping to change lenses...and it's bloody handy being able to take video and super close (pseudo) macro (without bending down), 'bit (image) noisy, bit slow but who cares about the memory cards?

I just never see this stuff when I have my camera, that's a real talent, great shot!

both! there are two bridges over the Tamar but it has got it all wrong and broken it all up.
Actually some of the 100% synthy images are really lame and they could have just taken a wider shot. The software has a long way to go, but it's quite tempting to go for the best 'synth'.
I wonder how it'll cope with the fisheye?... that should make the viewers sick if nothing else.

this is a good one
link

I had a go with some pano images from this morning, but the software couldn't figure out this simple 2D sequence.
link
Maybe it was too grey or not textured enough.
I tried the same images straight from the camera but it hung while I was out. SO I reduced them.
I managed 31% synthy - which, if the end result is anything to go by, is really bad

Looks like hundreds of small shots is good. And they say 'use wide angle' which is not the normal method for stitching images. ( I didn't, I used 50mm).

by the way, well done ChrisA, good effort - looks like you prefer shootin' to mowing the lawn don't tell me...it was raining

great shot!
great perspective and depth of field - you really feel like you are down there with him.

I grew up overlooking Porthminster round the corner (it was a hard childhood )
I love this Lilly, It is my guess that simply splicing two images together at the horizon will look wrong and not half as impressive as this.

nothing wrong with these !
that fish is extraordinarily sharp for a small, distant, moving object.
And noise just isn't an issue.

I agree with all that.

Oh...BTW my monitor is an ACER AL 1717 - no idea if it is any good but I am so pleased with it I have 6 of them in the office and one Sony (which is pants)

If you look at the hair shadow in particular you can see the tones are uneven - they are posterised. This and the noise at 100 iso suggest that the image has been 'pushed' in development. could be your default settings are trying to be too helpful.

Personally, I would risk trading off some small blown highlights for a creamy bokeh and interesting shadows. Your raw processor will be able to find plenty of detail in apparently blown areas, without having to amplify the data.

BTW, the image on your monitor might be a lot better than the JPEG we are looking at.