oldfogey

How much ink gets used in a printhead cleaning cycle?? One of the problems of the small ink tanks on my i9900 and 9500Pro is that whenever one changes one the machine goes through a printhead cleaning cycle - which consumes quite a lot of the remaining inks in the other cartridges. This makes for rather high operating costs - if you use Canon cartridges.

Actually - looking at the RAW images the m4/3 OMD keeps up with the APSC 7100 all the way to ISO3200 - at ISO6400 and above the D7100 has a small edge - but in this high ISO range the real winner among the APSC DSLRs is the K5. The (IMO) more useful 4:3 aspect ratio of the m4/3 OMD as opposed to 2:3 of the APSCs allows a more efficient use of the image circle and therefore lowers the cost of lenses of comparable resolving quality. As others have noted the AA filter has become less and less relevant as pixel counts have increased.

Interestingly at its maximum of ISO6400 the Fuji XE1 images are the best - better even than those of the ff D600 although at lower ISO the XE1 images are a bit softer than the others. Different engineering choices among the brands make for a variety of options to be chosen by photographers with different agendas. I'll stick with m4/3 for the time being.

In RAW at ISO6400 the image of the threads shows a definite DR advantage of the D7100 over the D3200 - but not over the D5200. Neither camera quite matches the K5 IIs which seems to have about a 1 ev advantage over any of the Nikons - but at a cost of lower resolution at low ISO. The Sony A-77 is well behind the Nikons and cannot even match the OMD-E5.

--er-- provided they are different MEN?

A tool not a "toy". Toys serve to promote creativity through facilitation of independent experimentation. Any use of a(n air) firearm by a youngster that does not involve adult supervision is likely to result in injury to either the child or some unsuspecting bystander.

Nonsense - The X-E1 is right up there with the K5IIs at ISO 6400. - At this ISO the image from the X-E1 is comparable to the OMD-E5 (and EOS7D) set at ISO3200 and the NEX7 set at ISO 1600. Look at the images of the threads which are in a shaded portion of the sample image. These provide the best indication of shadow noise.

Sensors have improved in sensitivity and resolution to the point where the (sensitivity/resolution) advantages of a large sensor would be irrelevant for most users if they only knew it. Having a "BIG" camera makes sense if you want to impress your girlfriend - but it offers very little in the way of photographic advantage for anyone not involved at a professional level in sports or wildlife photography. For us others the smaller camera size - and the lower costs of "very good" optics at "normal" focal lengths outweigh the benefits of larger sensors.

Some people forget that the CDAF adapted 4/3 system lenses focus perfectly well on m4/3 cameras - and Panasonic sell a good adapter for a little over $100. OK, the lenses are bigger - but there are some superb optics out there. For Tele lenses the size is primarily determined by image circle and lens speed - so if you want an f2.8 optic at 300 mm it is going to be as big if made for m4/3 as it will be for 4/3. The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which only costs about 60% of the Nikon cost has a superb reputation. And dont forget that the Oly 70-300 f4-5.6 is much less expensive and is quite good optically - at least to about 250mm. You want image stabilization? The Oly cameras have it - although if you want it on a Panasonic you will need to buy their lenses.

Of course he must have composited it! 135mm at f5.6 - and both foreground and background in focus? And there are rims around the rod where the selection boundaries did not quite match the background. The man in silhouette and the rod lit from 60degrees on each side of the camera - 1/400 sec and with no flash highlights.

But it is an interesting composition nevertheless and with no apparent restrictions on PP in the competition rules I think it was a legitimate entry. A bit of work with a blur tool might have made the PP work less obvious.

Ditto comment on his second place offering - check his other high placements!

Look at the voting pattern on some of his other high placements!

I still think the Panasonic LX7 is the winner. Comparing RAW at ISO 3200, the Fuji X10 is a smear, the RX100 and P7700 are somewhat sharper but suffer low frequency chroma noise while the Panasonic has lots of high frequency luminance noise but is extremely sharp and shows almost no chroma noise. All of the test photos are with the lenses stopped down and set to a single focal length. DPreview please let us see what they can do when wide open and set at different focal lengths.

I am pleased to see the new emphasis on lens speed with a 1 stop improvement of this camera over its predecessor P7100 at the wide end. However this camera falls 1 stop in lens speed of the Panasonic LX7 at its wide end. At ISO 3200 RAW the Panasonic also has the advantage in resolution and chroma noise.

Clearly the main selling point of the P7700 has to be its very good zoom range. It is time for DPreview to do some serious testing of the lenses on these cameras. Longer zooms lose their attractiveness if there is a corresponding loss in resolution since "digital zoom" with the modern high pixel count sensors has become quite practical for ordinary print sizes.

The review does not sufficiently emphasize the main selling point of this camera. The extraordinary fast f1.4-f3.3 3.8x zoom lens. At the short end it is a full 2 stops faster than the lenses on the competitors Canon G12 or Nikon p7100 for a relatively insignificant reduction in zoom range (add a tele-converter and that disappears). High burst rate and better high ISO RAW performance than either of these cameras add icing to the cake.

What this review lacks are resolution tests of this "incredible" lens when set at different focal lengths and wide open. Providing the resolution holds up Panasonic need to offer an upscaled version of this lens for their m4/3 customers.

If I was not already invested in m4/3 and some fast primes, I would be getting in line for one of these.

Last place finish - but it had accumulated ~50 "Views" by the end of voting. As only one of ~2 entries which showed people interacting with their "toys" I wonder where the imagination of the other entrants/voters lay. Surely "toys" are only real toys if people interact with them - otherwise they are just objects.

One man's freedom is an others' tyranny. A neighbor shot his wife with a handgun - sole purpose firearm for killing people. No charges were laid - she had her gun out too. One can only imagine the kind of marriage they had. The framers of the US constitution could not have imagined the development of firearm technology 2 centuries into the future. If single shot muzzle loading firearms were the only kinds allowed, the US would be a much safer place for all its citizens.

Sorry, gerry328 :
"A firearm is a weapon that launches one or more projectile(s) at high velocity through confined burning of a propellant." - Wikipedia.

"Firearms" include all kinds of gun - some of which are tools - such as the Lyle gun for firing a line from shore to ship. The term also includes rockets!

I commiserate with your 106'th placement. - I think her pretty and ranked the image highly. She certainly deserves all the protection you can muster for her in the face of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

The question of defining the meaning of "pretty" seems to have caused some confusion. It does not mean "beautiful".

Here are some dictionary definitions: 1 a : artful, clever b : pat, apt
2a : pleasing by delicacy or grace b : having conventionally accepted elements of beauty c : appearing or sounding pleasant or nice but lacking strength, force, manliness, purpose, or intensity <pretty words that make no sense — Elizabeth B. Browning>

To my way of thinking "pretty" suggests attractiveness combined with fragility and a need of protection.

I hope those horses are well trained not to eat buttercups - which are toxic - and can cause severe intestinal disturbances! See http://www.vet.purdue.edu/toxic/plant30.htm