Fazal Majid: The 92 CRI rating suggests these use Nichia 219 LEDs, which have more accurate color rendition than the more common and powerful CREE LEDs.
I hope they don't use PWM regulation circuits to do the dimming, otherwise the resulting flicker would render them useless for high-speed applications at anything but full output.
Aur:Re-checked my H502c just in case - nothing offensive found. Keep us informed :\.
Next revolution in the Reflector vs Refractor war since Astronomy exists ?
We don't know if there are or will be any size limitations, like there are for precision molded aspheric lens, for example.
16-300 has a surprising amount of metal inside for such a lowly zoom lens.
Poweruser: A solution to a problem that doesnt exist. JPG in best quality is already "good enough" for almost anything. If you want something losless, use PNG, TIFF, whatever.
> PC displays now have much more dynamic range.Really? 8-bit JPEG with 2.2 gamma has about 11 stops of DR, is there a PC display that has more than 2000:1 ANSI contrast? I highly doubt that.
Jogger: That is far, far too expensive for what is essentially an LED in an enclosure. Without a battery pack (or connectors), its utility is compromised, esp. since it is touting its portability.
The price is for a combination of features and overall convenience, not just for a LED.
jpfaria: Dudes!There are some awesome led torches that can do thetrick for lessthen a quarter of that pricehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Led-Lenser-A5-High-Torch/dp/B00ATYJ49U/
RobertMartinu> You can get even ones with good color rendition and the 12V ones can be powered by batteries.Indeed you can. But I am afraid it will be less convenient. Among bulbs I know OSRAM Parathom Pro with 90Ra outputs roughly the same 200 lumens and consumes 5 W while Relio consumes 3.75 W. For mobile setups this may make some difference. USB "power banks" today are small, cheap and easy to use, not the case with 12V mobile sources. Most importantly - you need a light fixture because you cannot mount the bulb on a tripod or into a hotshoe by itself. So I am afraid you can cut the cost this way but the whole setup will be more bulky.
Biowizard: Check out Zebralight, whose AA-powered and CR123A-powered lights come in two shades of white ("warm" and "daylight"). The latter are brighter, and many models can be warn as a head torch (they come complete with strap and soft silicone rubber mount) and are self-contained. They can also stand on their tails and light sideways. VERY useful as close-up illuminators - AND sitting around your head when setting up a tripod and camera at night. Plus NO need for a nearby USB socket!
The difference with Zebralight here is CRI. Almost all current Zebralight headlamps have Cree XM-L (or XM-L2) inside so their CRI is lower. The two exceptions with higher CRI give unfocused light so are not really appropriate.There are more high CRI flashlights by Zebralight though and it makes sense to use those with 18650 cells IMHO - they are brighter.
gendem: I've had the 2713H for a few weeks now. Anti-glare is much, much better than the 2711 that I had before this. The best thing about this monitor, however, is that it comes with a factory uniformity calibration, making it very, very even across the entire screen. Highly recommended.
> Preset mode is Custom ColourExactly! Monitor LUTs calibration is available only in "Color Space" preset so you were using video card LUTs calibration and not monitor LUTs calibration. That's why you could use uniformity compensation.
> mine is the best I've usedNobody would argue that there are worse monitors than these Dells :).
> mine calibrated up just fineUsing what LUTs? Were you using CAL1/CAL2 or your videocard LUTs? See also: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713h.htm
Oh yeah but there is one MINOR problem: uniformity correction cannot be used with monitor LUT calibration. This is no NEC.
Does it have internal focusing like Panasonic 14mm?
Ulfric M Douglas: I think this is a great step! The existing 14-42 doesn't have a great reputation, the power-zoom 14-42X has a wildly variable reputation, the original 14-45 has an excellent reputation but you can't buy a new Lumix camera with that lens on anymore.IF this new one goes back to the great optical and QC standards of the 1st 14-45 then everyone will be happier and there will be less "why my photos shakey?" threads.
> you can't buy a new Lumix camera with that lens on anymoreYou can buy them separately as I did. For example, right now G5 body only and 14-45 are in stock of at least one reputable online retailer in the states.
J2Gphoto: I have never had any dust on any of my Olympus sensors, and I was never careful changing lenses inside or outside. Never a speck. This is not good.
4/3 and micro 4/3 are indeed highly immune to dust. It is there but it is almost invisible. I tried to find dust spots on G2 sensor and they show up only after setting an extreme aperture f/22 and bumping up contrast in postprocessing to a really _enormous_ degree. My D7000 is much worse in that respect.
Maybe this is because of a thick sensor cover or because of a different approach to lens design, I don't know.
jon404: So will it run my cellphone bill into orbit with mammoth 41 MP snapshot uploads? Or does it downsample, thereby actually not being a 41 MP camera at all?
EDIT, from the Amazon website -- "For example, when you want a 5MP photo, PureView packs the goodness of 7 pixels into 1 for sharp, clear, and ready to share photos."
But wait. Isn't a pixel just... a pixel? What am I missing here? And my God, 41 MP on a point 'n shoot sized sensor?
> Isn't a pixel just... a pixel? What am I missing here?You are mistaking sensels for pixels. This is a common marketing trick: when they are saying a camera has 12 Mpixels it actually has 12 Msensels and those 12 Msensels can only be approximated into 12 Mpixels so that the resulting picture resolution is less than 12 Mpixels in most cases. It is OK if all cameras are based on the same Bayer filter technology but if there is downscaling/binning like in 808 the difference becomes very important because picture obtained after significant downscaling has resolution closer to its actual number of pixels - so those pixels are "better" :).
shinan: Year 2012 and still 12 bit raw file. Lol.
Buy D7000 if unsure.
PaulRacecar: I think this would be a great travel camera. Light weight, compact, cheap but sharp lenses available. I even like the red colour b/c if it get's stolen (which is quite possible in some countries) you have no problem identifying it. This might be all the camera you need for world travel.
> great travel camera that will eat up more memory than most people would wantHaha, what a bullsh$t. Get out of your cave, 1300 "large fine" JPEGs take up a single 16 Gb card which is a very common size nowadays.
RakinMuhtadi: Now why would anyone buy this with $699 when you can get the D5100 kit for the same price (after recent cuts)? Seems like a good camera, this. Although what everyone is ranting on abt the higher megapixel bothers me. What's so bad abt more pixels??
> more megapixels means more image noise.Disproven by dxo.
fayez89: Does nikon d3200 has built in focus motor?
Of course not.
StORM48: I can't believe that they threw out Drive Mode lever, seen on D3100!
They have added a button for that. And infrared remote control can now be used - that was a sad omission on D3100.
keepreal: SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200
No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?
Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.
> Consumerism is out of controlIt is not consumerism, it is technical progress. And it is relatively out of control - relatively to you. You cannot even buy appropriate memory cards and whine about that calling buyers of new equipment "consumerists".