Guidenet

Guidenet

Lives in United States Orlando, US, FL, United States
Works as a Retired Corporate Photographer
Has a website at http://faithartsvillage.com/
Joined on Sep 27, 2007
About me:

I'm a 63 year old retired corporate photographer who has also been a software engineer. My academia is largely based on Vision and my dissertation was on Fluids. I have a small studio and gallery which I enjoy on occasion. My specialty is bird photography, and I've been lucky to have had a few attempts published over the years. For the past twenty years, I worked for a large Fortune 500 company as their in-house photographer for the communications, publicity and care departments. I’ve also done their corporate meetings and events. As the company owns several television stations, making the opportunities endless.
I had to retire because I suffered a massive right side stroke in the spring of 2013. My small portrait studio and gallery are doing better than ever.
I have a daughter who is a successful Wedding Photographer. As I’ve embraced retirement, I've taken more and more shooting contracts, but only those I enjoy like the local little league baseball teams. I occasionally act as a cruise photographer for some of the cruise lines here in Florida when requested by organizations.
I also spend more and more time teaching basic photography for several resources locally as well as out of my studio located at FAVO (Faith-based Art Village of Orlando). As well as Photography, I am also a Water Color and Acrylic painter and enjoy recreating some of my favorite work in those mediums. Learning how to create art is a lifelong passion.
I'm seriously passionate about people learning exposure and the Zone System of Photography before considering themselves sufficiently astute in this craft. I’ve held several Zone System Workshops over the years as well as one Cruise based workshop. I’m also passionate about Ansel Adams’ ideas about pre-visualization. Pressing the shutter button and the camera are just one small part of the image creation process.
I started at eight years old in 1959 when my dad and I built a darkroom, him more than me. My father taught me the Zone System at a very young age. I continued as a youthful photographer, buying glass with lawn mowing money through my high school and then into college with odd jobs. I paid most of my tuition as an undergraduate shooting weddings and baby pictures as well as for the university newspaper. Many of those years I shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 field cameras and sheet film. In small format, I shot Pentax until 1968 when I switched to Nikon, needing a better more professional system tool. I still shoot Nikon today as well as Nikkor lenses for some of my large format gear. I also mostly shoot digital but still maintain a darkroom for up to 5x7 format. 8x10 is stored in the attic and is only black and white. I even have a Nikkor enlarging lens. Over the years, I believe Nikon has been instrumental in the creation of truly great glass.

Comments

Total: 284, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Sony, if you're listening out there... fix the RAW compression issue via a firmware update and I'll place my order the next day.

I think the review is on target with its complaint. They say you're a "stone's throw" from being fully equal to a FF DSLR. You'll be a hair's breadth away with lossless RAW, or perhaps an option to save as an (uncompressed) DNG.

I agree, but just look at it differently. They abandoned the SR bayonet eventually and left many stranded just like Canon and Olympus also did. Sony did inherit the A mount, but also added the E mount. Some bodies have IBIS and some require OIS. Some can use both, but regardless, that's too much bouncing around for many of us, regardless of their reasoning. It makes for a much smaller selection on any one type and I think contributes to the higher price some products tend to have. It can make it a little harder for a novice to know which to buy to match their camera. But, to each their preference. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:24 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Sony, if you're listening out there... fix the RAW compression issue via a firmware update and I'll place my order the next day.

I think the review is on target with its complaint. They say you're a "stone's throw" from being fully equal to a FF DSLR. You'll be a hair's breadth away with lossless RAW, or perhaps an option to save as an (uncompressed) DNG.

@Photomino We're talking mounts, not electronic connections. Don't be defensive. Also, yes, all my Nikon lenses made prior to 1977 required a one time notch which cost $25. They work in automatic mode with Matrix metering, if I desire to use them that way. Nikon allows you to add the lens data from older non-electronic lenses into the camera so no need for any other connection. The camera remembers that lens, as well. No need for adapters or changing connections. I use some of these older lenses every day for making a living. They just plain work the way they were intended.

Sony has A and E mount lenses. Some bodies have IBIS and some require OIS. Not to mention adapters. Even A mount only extends compatibility to Minolta Maxxim, not all the other Minoltas prior to that, and there were plenty when Minolta abandoned their mount.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

Canon 70D OR 760D Rebel T6: What is better 760D or 70D for someone who aspires to become a pro?
Still have no answer! :/

I think if you are really aspiring to be a jobbing professional, you'd not be looking at entry level tools designed for the most basic users like the 760D et al. None of the Rebel line.

To be brutally honest, once you've grasped the basics and done your time, a real pro camera body would be in order. In the Canon line, that would start with the 5D models. In the Nikon line, it starts with the D8xx models. So a 5D MkIII maybe or a Nikon D810 for new bodies. For more sports and action, you'd be looking at the Canon 1DX or Nikon D4S. So, camera bodies costing between $3000 and $6000 with good glass and other accessories will make a start. Good professional tools do not make a photographer, but they tend to hold up better. Think about it. A good professional auto mechanic might spend between $30,000 and $90,000 on their tools.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I really don’t understand why they put the little screen on top of the camera. That is the last place I would want information to be displayed. I have to bring the camera down to be able to check that information. What is the need for it anyway? Can’t all of that information just be displayed on the LCD screen on the back of the camera?

@RedFox88 Yes, I was thinking about what was displayed on my Nikon cameras, but even what is displayed here is way better than no LCD. Thanks. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

paul simon king: why nothing from RRS?

@dougstroud photography I read nothing in Paul's remarks that showed any bias whatsoever. It was a question and he was ok if it were answered either way. Don't read too much into someone's remarks. To claim to be a supporter of free speech, then in the same breath to call for censorship of his post is most amazing and a bit humorous.

Moreover, as Mark says, please read his 2014 review and you'll see other brands included. I don't think he's considering political positions of the companies involved. It's a ballhead review. It's a person's opinion. Read it and enjoy it, if you want.

Doug, Mark is probably just as gay as you and I am. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I've always considered the big four of Arca Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins to be the largest part of the Arca dovetail market with Aratech in there at a slightly lower price point. Quite honestly, I've never heard of the rest of them in both tests.

Personally, I'd not consider Gitzo because it's not Arca compatible. Gitzo is part of the Manfrotto group which is also not represented in either the 2014 or this review.

If we consider ballheads which are not Arca compatible, then we're certainly missing Manfrotto which probably has a market share larger than all these put together. Their top models are superb. I'm a little surprised at their omission. The Hydrostatic and magnesium models seem technologically interesting enough as well as being as unique as many that are represented but unheard of. ;-)

Maybe this is a list of ballheads owned by staff members and therefore readily available for review. Nothing wrong with that.

@Neroon I know one can find cheap off-brand Arca plates, but I personally find they often just don't fit well. I like the larger Markins Q20 head as well as the RSS BH55, but find that RSS fits the best on any head I've tried. Therefore, that's what I get and they are $50 plus per plate. I need one for each camera and for each lens with a tripod collar. I also have two for my macro focusing rails and one for my bellows, so that's a lot of plates and some are even more expensive than others. I haven't completely migrated over yet but we're talking between $750 and $1000 just in Arca plates by Really Right Stuff when I'm done, probably. That's something to consider.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 15:49 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuantumPhysics: Can I post twice? I neglected to mention that all the lenses identified in my comment are without image stabilization. But for digital work with the A7 II they are now stabilized on three axes--you just dial in the focal length. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is a zoom, but using the metabones adapter, focal length is communicated to the body.

The point I am making here is quite important. Low light performance is improved by three or four stops by image stabilization, compared to Canon and Nikon, so you can work at lower ISO levels in the first place. I think the images are just sumptuous using lenses I never thought suitable for digital cameras.
(Have you checked the price on a sub-645 Hasselblad digital back lately?)

@Ed Ingold No doubt, you're correct, but faster shutter speeds, tripods, and sometimes good hand holding techniques can trump electronic stabilization which is not a panacea. Faster speeds not only can freeze subject motion, but as a byproduct, also freezes photographer motion. Obviously, there are times where a photographer is using "Available Dark" where a fast shutter speed may not be appropriate, but a good support system might indeed be. IS/VR is just another tool in the toolkit, not the only one nor often the best.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 15:10 UTC
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (509 comments in total)
In reply to:

We PhotoBooth You: I still think Pentax are falling behind too much.

I much prefer CF to SD and also prefer to plug whatever card into a high speed USB-3.0 reader over anything much else, but I'm transferring a lot of 40+ meg RAW files sometimes daily. Facebook and Twitter don't like 40 meg RAW files much. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I've always considered the big four of Arca Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins to be the largest part of the Arca dovetail market with Aratech in there at a slightly lower price point. Quite honestly, I've never heard of the rest of them in both tests.

Personally, I'd not consider Gitzo because it's not Arca compatible. Gitzo is part of the Manfrotto group which is also not represented in either the 2014 or this review.

If we consider ballheads which are not Arca compatible, then we're certainly missing Manfrotto which probably has a market share larger than all these put together. Their top models are superb. I'm a little surprised at their omission. The Hydrostatic and magnesium models seem technologically interesting enough as well as being as unique as many that are represented but unheard of. ;-)

Maybe this is a list of ballheads owned by staff members and therefore readily available for review. Nothing wrong with that.

@Neroon While I like cross compatibility, Manfrotto's RC2 is fairly much a standard in its own right, considering a less expensive approach. You can buy plates nearly anywhere and they lock up nice and tight. Many third party head makers also use RC2, not just Manfrotto.

Consider a good Arca plate costs somewhere around $50 while a Manfrotto RC2 plate can be had closer to $10-$15, there can be a significant savings when you need ten to fifteen plates. Admittedly, the Arca plate may be of better quality, the Manfrotto plates and system does a darn good job and I think they are slightly more secure. They absolutely cannot slide out and with the safety lock engaged, they can't pop out either even if you inadvertently brush the lever.

The point is that on a budget, the RC2 standard isn't a bad system for many. It was quite expensive for me to upgrade just in plates alone, not to mention 3 ballheads and 1 monopod head. LOL

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 01:14 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I've always considered the big four of Arca Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins to be the largest part of the Arca dovetail market with Aratech in there at a slightly lower price point. Quite honestly, I've never heard of the rest of them in both tests.

Personally, I'd not consider Gitzo because it's not Arca compatible. Gitzo is part of the Manfrotto group which is also not represented in either the 2014 or this review.

If we consider ballheads which are not Arca compatible, then we're certainly missing Manfrotto which probably has a market share larger than all these put together. Their top models are superb. I'm a little surprised at their omission. The Hydrostatic and magnesium models seem technologically interesting enough as well as being as unique as many that are represented but unheard of. ;-)

Maybe this is a list of ballheads owned by staff members and therefore readily available for review. Nothing wrong with that.

Mark, I understand your point and I'm sure it's fun to review obscure models by brands many haven't heard of. For me, I try to stick to mainstream gear so I have a better chance for repair and parts later on. Moreover, I know I'll find specific plates and my L grips will more likely fit better. I can mix and match safely from any of my three tripods and monopod without concern something won't fit right on a job. If they've been around twenty plus years and been successful, chances are they'll be around for the next twenty. It doesn't mean they're the best, just the best choice for my work.

I'm sure others have different wants and needs, of course. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 15:21 UTC

I've always considered the big four of Arca Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins to be the largest part of the Arca dovetail market with Aratech in there at a slightly lower price point. Quite honestly, I've never heard of the rest of them in both tests.

Personally, I'd not consider Gitzo because it's not Arca compatible. Gitzo is part of the Manfrotto group which is also not represented in either the 2014 or this review.

If we consider ballheads which are not Arca compatible, then we're certainly missing Manfrotto which probably has a market share larger than all these put together. Their top models are superb. I'm a little surprised at their omission. The Hydrostatic and magnesium models seem technologically interesting enough as well as being as unique as many that are represented but unheard of. ;-)

Maybe this is a list of ballheads owned by staff members and therefore readily available for review. Nothing wrong with that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 06:51 UTC as 15th comment | 12 replies
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.

What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.

And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.

And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.

Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)

And that's the times I sometimes use LV, on a tripod for macro and landscape, but I don't think it matters a bit about the DSLR verses Mirrorless experience in those two situations. You're on a tripod and generally have time to get it the way you want it. With landscapes, I've generally taken an incident reading with a light meter and with macro, I'm often using a strobe or two.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 00:58 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Sony, if you're listening out there... fix the RAW compression issue via a firmware update and I'll place my order the next day.

I think the review is on target with its complaint. They say you're a "stone's throw" from being fully equal to a FF DSLR. You'll be a hair's breadth away with lossless RAW, or perhaps an option to save as an (uncompressed) DNG.

I'm with you. My Canon friends were quite angry as my 4/3rd friends were when Olympus dumped that mount for m4/3rds. Many of my m4/3rd friends aren't happy with Olympus still using an old 16 mp sensor either, but that's another story. Sony has jumped around with mounts and OIS verses IBIS for a while too. I'm not trusting these companies to be consistent with their systems. Nikon and Pentax are the only ones who've stayed rather true to their owner base, as far as I'm concerned and thus would be the only two I'd invest in long term.

I own Nikon glass I bought used in the 1960s with the money I made from mowing lawns. I still use some of these lenses today in a professional portrait and product studio. It's not just a hobby where I think six or seven years is a commitment to a lens mount or system.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.

What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.

And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.

And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.

Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)

@nandbytes I've used Liveview on Sony cameras, Olympus cameras, as well as various compacts and bridge cameras. I've composed on the ground glass of various medium format cameras as well, which is a somewhat better experience, though not preferable, most of the time. I don't think Liveview is a particularly stable way to hold a camera. I also think the sun tends to wash out the view.

Moreover, I think the 6 or 8 bit tiny VGA LCD monitors of both the back panel and EVF tend not to show the image the sensor is capable of when the sensor is in capture mode. Along with added gain, the camera includes a rendition which includes sharpening and contrast based on JPeg settings meant for a full image, not that I shoot Jpeg. I think it lulls novice photographers into thinking what they see is what they can expect in the final image. It doesn't help that the marketing departments have promoted this idea.

It has nothing to do with my DSLR experience with Liveview.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 14:28 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Sony, if you're listening out there... fix the RAW compression issue via a firmware update and I'll place my order the next day.

I think the review is on target with its complaint. They say you're a "stone's throw" from being fully equal to a FF DSLR. You'll be a hair's breadth away with lossless RAW, or perhaps an option to save as an (uncompressed) DNG.

@bluevellet I seem to remember not many years ago the 4/3rd consortium with their flagship E3 camera body and various lenses. Now a forgotten tombstone to remark its passing. Remember "telecentric" lenses? These 4/3rd consortium manufacturers were going to "own" the market. They were going to be the demise of compact and other DSLR cameras. Remember? You don't have to go back very far.

Step back a couple of generations to the OM line of fine Olympus cameras. What happened to that mount? Another stranded bunch of photographers, that's what. They were touted as tiny cameras which were going to own the market and be the demise of full sized DSLRs. Where have all the OMs gone, long time passing... (singing).

Step again back to that lovely line of Olympus Pen half frame cameras which were going to end the need for bulky SLRs. History now.

We have a long line of Olympus abandoning lens formats and mounts, stranding their fans. Adapters anyone?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 09:52 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.

What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.

And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.

And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.

Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)

I agree. There's a lot of people who take the camera brand they've chosen as a religion rather than a tool. Moreover, liveview performance in anything much over a point and shoot is pretty much of a non-issue, and I'm not fond of it on a point and shoot, for that matter.

I know it sounds elitist, but watching these tourists at Disney holding their DSLRs out at arm's length is a bit humorous at best. They take forever attempting to see something on their sun-washed screens only to capture Facebook images to bore their friends.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 09:36 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuantumPhysics: Can I post twice? I neglected to mention that all the lenses identified in my comment are without image stabilization. But for digital work with the A7 II they are now stabilized on three axes--you just dial in the focal length. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is a zoom, but using the metabones adapter, focal length is communicated to the body.

The point I am making here is quite important. Low light performance is improved by three or four stops by image stabilization, compared to Canon and Nikon, so you can work at lower ISO levels in the first place. I think the images are just sumptuous using lenses I never thought suitable for digital cameras.
(Have you checked the price on a sub-645 Hasselblad digital back lately?)

All well and good, but the review pointed at more of a 2-3 stop improvement. Moreover, a tripod or good hand holding technique often trumps any form of electronic stabilization which can often degrade the images in many ways. The less jiggling around the optics or sensor the better.

Think about this. At shutter speeds over flash sync the shutter is never fully open. It's a slit running over the sensor. One curtain is closing while the other has started moving. At what point to you jiggle the sensor or optics? Does the level and type of stabilization stay constant while that slit is moving, exposing the sensor? This might be part of the reason tripod taken images just seem so darn sharp in comparison. It might also be why many professional sports and others like me leave stabilization defaulted to Off unless absolutely needed for a particular shot.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 09:11 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Palmer: I think the weight of any review must be put into the context of who is doing the review. Do the reviewers have an award-winning international reputation? Are they respected within the field of photography? I think the fact that both reviewers work for DPReview answers both questions. What we have here is simply an opinion that is as flawed as they reckon the A7II is. I found it, at times, patronizing, irrational and not quite as objective as they seem to think it is.

For the record, I do not own any Sony cameras. I do have a tenuous link in that I shot with a Minolta XD-7 for more than 25 years. I was probably taking photographs before the parents of the reviewers had even met.

However, I may become the owner of a Sony A7 II tomorrow. I am in the position to choose any FF camera but I simply do not want to have to carry the weight of a Canon or Nikon DSLR. And what attracts me most of all to the A7 II is the chance to shoot with the Otus Lite -- the Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 lens.

@ttrans I also could care less about liveview the vast percentage of the time. Most novice photographers I've met graduate from holding the camera out in front to eye-level finders in short order. Even back in the film days, Hasselblad owners often couldn't wait to mount their eye-level prism finder over the ground glass. Using a back LCD or ground glass for framing has been around a long time, and most of us find it an inferior way to hold a camera most of the time. Live View is nothing particularly new.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 08:58 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (779 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Sony, if you're listening out there... fix the RAW compression issue via a firmware update and I'll place my order the next day.

I think the review is on target with its complaint. They say you're a "stone's throw" from being fully equal to a FF DSLR. You'll be a hair's breadth away with lossless RAW, or perhaps an option to save as an (uncompressed) DNG.

@Roman Korcek Why would you expect unusable photographs to be displayed in the internet? I don't believe anyone wants compressed lossy RAW files. That's the point of a RAW capture, to have the camera do as little as possible to the data. Sony's RAW implementation is poor on this model, and they need to fix it, obviously.

@Naveed Akhtar We're discussing a full frame camera, not m43 which I think is becoming less and less relevant anyway. Even my Canon G1x point and shoot has a larger sensor. It might be time for Olympus to obsolete another mount and move on up in sensor size. Over the years, Olympus fans have gotten used to the company abandoning a mount often enough.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 08:36 UTC
On Nikon D5500 Review preview (320 comments in total)
In reply to:

koolbreez: From looking at the comparisons with the D5300, the only useful thing upgraded is the battery life. They both use the same sensor, and processing engine, so no difference in image quality. They both have the same resolutions, although the high end is listed now as regular instead of extended, which actually means no difference. Buffers are the same, shutter speads are the same. The GPS has been removed, and can't be considered an upgrade, even if people didn't use it. So how can this review state that the D5500 is an upgrade in every respect, when only one useful item has been upgraded? A better grip? There never was a problem with the old grip contributing to shaky images...lolol. This simply looks like a review to sell cameras, not print the real truth. As more time passes DPReview gets less and less reliable.

I totally understand the disagreement with DPR's wording is what seems to be driving this conversation, but that's just semantics and marketing speak. No big deal. My point is if you upgrade features above what defines the D5xxx line, you get a D7xxx camera, and we have that available.

Within the specs of a D5xxx camera, things have been upgraded nicely, in my opinion. To me, those are the important features which appeal to photographers over camera owners. Moving to a tough but 14.9 oz body is a big deal, in my eyes. An extra stop in ISO and a touch screen might be big in other's views. An overhaul in the processing engine might be considered a pretty big thing as well, yet all this keeping the feature set aligned with the D5xxx specification. So, within that specification, one might consider the D5500 a pretty solid upgrade. It's just an opinion and viewpoint, not something to get riled up about. That's all.

Happy Easter to those who celebrate it. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 00:29 UTC
Total: 284, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »