The optional high-definition VF-4 viewfinder adds $250 to the price.
Just kill me. :/
Nu, vos iss noias here?
Pat Cullinan Jr: Well, it LOOKS like a camera. That's the main thing. Right?
DNA is destiny.
Ha ha! I needed to have my spirits picked up. Thanks.
I've been looking at 8x10's I had made from images I shot 10 years ago with my then new Sony P150. They look great, crammed with detail, nice color. Back in 2004, the P150 was the first consumer digicam that was capable of making 8x10's at 300dpi because of the 7MP resolution of the sensor. Nine cameras later, I'm pixel-peeping like a demon with every new camera that comes down the pike, but why? I don't know. Duh.
Well, it LOOKS like a camera. That's the main thing. Right?
This is a really nice composition. It's wall-worthy. The dogs are happy, I am happy.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The signal-to-noise ratio could stand improvement. Do you agree?
>Have you considered at the excellent range of Canon compacts?
No, but I got a lot of good use from my T2i, especially with RAW.
fastlass: I'm probably speaking for most of us when I say that Nikon seems to have poisoned 200 years of photography with this move.
HowaboutRAW, I have a notion that you are smart. Perhaps too smart for this windowless saloon of a forum. ;) ;) ;)
I think Guy Swarbrick deserves a round of applause from everyone for the generosity with which he gave his time and bestowed his expertise in answering so many of our posts. His professionalism at all levels is plain to see.
Thank you very much, Guy.
--Pat Cullinan, Jr.
>If you want a good high ISO body get a Df, D4s, or the Canon 6D.
Now that is news I can use. I'll be thinking about the 6D.
The signal-to-noise ratio could stand improvement. Do you agree?
DenWil: I guess I'm lucky to be the only photographer in the world who does not have any use for time exposures in, lol, crop mode.
I only shoot elephant stampedes, so none of this concerns me.
A huge crack has opened in front of my house a mile wide and getting bigger every second.
ThatCamFan: Please stop EFFING up already Nikon, Canon is does PROPER quality control tests apparently, not Nikon. I am saving up for a Nikon but you are REALLY making me question my choice.
>they weren't trouble-free
For sure. I remember when a man came storming into the Zeiss office on Fifth Avenue with a Contarex that wasn't working right.
sdh: None of those photos made me think, "Wow you can't get that with an APS-C, pardon me, DX, sensor DSLR.
That said I enjoyed the photos themselves.
What's 14k4? 14.4k?
What's PJ? Photojournalism?
--Dumb in Brooklyn
Not to take selfies.
That is the Law.
Are we not men?
A propos of nothing, that is the ugliest animal I ever saw in my whole life since I was born.
drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
Right you are.
Make it two bananas?
Proceeds belong to the producer, viz. Slater.
This opinion was inspired by Nigel Wilkins.
Nigel Wilkins wrote:IMO it's the guy who owns the camera since he initiated the photography.
[Whew. So far no one has said anything about "the Monkey's RAW."]