The door on my LX3 is long snapped off v annoying
I like this
many thanks for the nice comments
mosc: Am I just completely uninformed? I thought the D800 sensor was completely superior to the D4. The main reason the D4 had so few MP is the sensor is older, sold in too small a volume to bother upgrading frequently, and showing some crazy burst numbers with that massive shutter apparatus requires processing a lot of data very quickly so keeping MP down helps.
My word. The D4 doesn't do better than the D800 when viewed at the same (smaller) sizeView at same output and there's n difference
The advantage comes with the smaller size allowing more processing more quickly and so increasing frame rate
You want to shoot low light then buy a d800 and output at equivalent to 16mp and compare
You want to shoot high fps or use less battery then buy less MP
You want to kid yourself that D800 isn't good in same low light situations then please feel free to continue expounding your ignorance
Bogdan Spineanu: Wow .. if you make sensor pixels larger you can capture more light ! Why didn't I think of that ? Revolutionary !
You didn't think of that because you dont understand itSee Silvarum's response
Marksphoto: just confirms that all we need is a 2-3mp sensor on the full frame Canon 5d MK 4 for the general purpose photography in low light and still be able to get great enlargements under daylight conditions.
Finally the consumers need to understand that there is no need for 21mp at an expense of noise.
2-3mp will give you fine pictures but not for enlargingSensor size determines low light gatjhering ability whether you divide that area by many or few MP, after that it depends on how large you want to view it
I dont think you understand the relationship, high MP for low light is fine, low MP for low light is fine, it depends how large you want to view your image
The trade off at larger viewing sizes is noise versus softness
T3: I remember there was a big discussion a while back where people were claiming that the key to lower noise was having more pixels, and of smaller size. Wonder where those people are now?
Those people are still here, laughing at you for failing to understand the science
My second ever competition entered so very surprisedNo problem for the low votes; quite surprised to have so many high ones!Thanks all
Marksphoto: as a wedding photographer I need terabytes of storage.
Nikon storage offering is only for family photos storage, nothing new. I have been using photobucket for that for a long long time now.
Well if you need terabytes of space then I wouldn't give your that for free eitherQuit your moaning
tvstaff: I'm downloading from my camera using CanonPhotoPro and LR for editing.
CPP Puts everything in order by dates. Once I import the files I want to edit, I then save the edited files in a sub fold of each date so my raw files are never touched. I'm always scared I'll overwrite a good image with the same file name.
What I would like is that LR would ALSO take the please of CPP so LR could do everything as far as importing from my camera into logical folders.
If LR does this. I'd like to know as I'm new to the program. Thank you
P.S. I really like LR. I think it's a great program, easy to use and will be an even better tool as I leran more and Adobe continues to update the product. :)
Lightroom does all tnat you askBetter to import from a card though. Then set-up import details and how and where you want the originals imported.Let them all import and then select a file you want to edit and use the develop module. this will edit the original file but will not alter the original file - to make a permanent jpg then you can export to anoth folder or same place or to external sources
alfaflash: Great photo, but why is the shadow as sharp as a tack when the rest of the image is blurred?
Perhaps because the shadow moves at the same speed as the car whilst everything else is fixed
skymartin: Agreed. If I was thinking of buying "Time", this selection would make me run a mile. Depressing rubbish.
What is depressing is your attitude
CameraLabTester: These top ten images show why Time Magazine is in drastic decline of readers and viewers.
There's already so much suffering, anguish and bloodshed in tabloids, blogs, and social media... why replicate it again and again?
The only saving grace is the tornado.
Dreadful things happening, poignant photography and you have the temerity to criticise because you want Happy Snaps
bunyarra: That design looks almost identical to the 3 Legged Thing's Brian travel tripod ....
not much smaller 40cm v 42cm
I have the Brian too, very happy with it
photosen: Anyone know of an ugly, unfashionable, stable, light and cheap or the cheapest possible (less than a manfrotto 055CX) tripod for a 1.80 meter guy? For a max 3 Kg ultra wide angle setup.
That's a 5.9 feet guy and 6.6 Lbs setup for you imperials, I guess.
Look at 3 legged Thing tripods - I am not associated with the company but bought one this summer and is just about perfect for me, the ball head is very well engineered and carbon fibre too.
However remember the maxim, you can have cheap and light, you can have light and stable, you can have cheap and stable, but you can't have cheap, light and stable
RP McMurphy: Looks like a copy of the 3 Legged Thing range of Tripods from UK to me, exactly the same it looks like
Happy with my 3 LT - especially as the release plate is compatible with the BlackRapid strap
Very similar to the Vitruvian and there is also a Feisol similar but loving my 3LT, the only tripod that routinely comes with me on each excursion
Cane: Cool looking but I hate those screw turn legs.
On my 3Legged Thing Tripod (same design) it's actually pretty easy as the 5 can be all loosened with one twistYes the more sections the less stable but when I bought the 3LT trripod my concern was a tripod I would actually carry with me as my other tripod remained at home all the time
These things are some 40-42cm - you can't do that with 3 leg sections if you want decent hieght - you want 3 leg sections then dont be looking at tripods designed to be very compact, it's obvious really
But the stability isn't a problem. Of course the more stable the better but if you want perfection dont buy a tripod designed to be carried about
These things fit in back packs and can handle 8kg+ as good a compromise as you can get - some people have wholly unrealistic expectations
Looks like a copy of the 3 Legged Thing range of Tripods from UK to me, exactly the same it looks like
Adler1970: Best Sellers in Digital SLR Cameras by Amazon, today, April 28, 2012:
No. 1(first place): Nikon D800 (only body)
2 nd place: Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Lens
3 rd place: Canon EOS Rebel T3 with 18-55mm IS II Lens(which cost only $469.00)
The Nikon D800 is the most selling DSLR on Amazon. The Canon 5Dmk3 is just in the 14 th place( THE FOURTEENTH PLACE).
Better than the Canon 5Dmk3, are are selling also other Nikon cameras:5 th place: Nikon D3100to 6 th place: Nikon D7000(only body)to 8 th place Nikon D3200to 10 th place: Nikon D7000 (with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor Lens)
EVEN THE OLD NIKON D700( 12 th place) IS STILL SOLD MORE THAN THE Canon 5DMK3( 14 th place)!
So what?Unless you have shares in Canon why does this matter to you?Swings and roundabouts, wasn't very long since it was the other way around and probably the next iteration will see Canon have the 'better' specs and suddenly the warm glow you currently have from having a camera brand that is outselling a different camera brand will change to feeling bad about the camera you ave because a different camera maker suddenly sells more of their model
Did the excellent pictures we see from D90 D700 5Dii etc etc suddenly become worse because a new camera performs 'better' in some way or other?The fact that many users will actually find it more difficult to get sharper shots at pixel level should mitigate those claiming triumph of having greater MPIt's a tool to take pictures - if your pictures were rubbish before, they wont be any better now