How good is 24meg realy ?

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
afterswish1
afterswish1 Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

Rod McD wrote:

Hi Don,

I would have thought that a 50% increase in resolution was worth having if you need to upgrade. My K5 is 60% up on my old K10D. 24mpx is +50% on the 16mpx of my K5. (And 36mpx is +50% more on 24mpx.) While any increase has an edge, I think 50% is probably what I would see as the significant step up that might make an upgrade worthwhile.

Is it needed, is it worth having? I think that depends on several things. One needs to recognise that having a sensor doesn't produce images. An image pipeline does - and that means lens, senor, and processor of matching capability. And it depends on usage. If you view only on 4X6" prints and an 11" laptop, then 24mpx is overkill. OTOH, if you do print big, even occasionally, it may be very much worthwhile.

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool - if you like you could compare the K5 and K10, or K3 and K5, or other cameras with a 50% increase in sensor resolution (eg the Nikon D3X & D800).

Cheers,

Rod

Hi Rod,

You're quite a bit off in your calculations for increased resolution there. It's not an insignificant increase by any means, but not quite as good as you think. A lot of people seem to be making that error, perhaps someone should make a separate thread about it...

[Edit: I see someone else in this thread beat me to it!]

-- hide signature --

Gravity will make you crazy until you get the hang of it.

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 37,056
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
1

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Winder Senior Member • Posts: 1,462
Re: Megapixels shmegapixels

DRabbit wrote:

To double the resolution of a 15mp camera, you need to multiply 15 x 4. You would need a 60mp camera to double the resolution.

The difference between the K3s 24mp and the K7s 15mp is about 1300 pixels on the widest side. It's not a significant difference.

What is of more importance is the overall image quality of a more current camera. In theory, processing gets better, improvements are made to noise performance, the camera may be faster or focus more accurately, etc. etc. MP shouldn't be your gauge on whether to upgrade or not. At least not at this point in 2013. I've printed VERY large from 8mp cameras with excellent results, and recently with 16mp camera with outstanding results… The 10mp files from a much older Leica M8 can produce beautiful large prints. There are more important reasons to upgrade (sometimes) other than Megapixel counts.

24mp in green, 16mp in white.

Amy

It's not simply a matter of increasing resolution.

DxO 24MP vs 16MP Lens Test

 Winder's gear list:Winder's gear list
Pentax K-3 Sony Alpha a7 II Pentax K-1 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited +4 more
JNR
JNR Senior Member • Posts: 2,809
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

-- hide signature --

JNR
www.jamesrobins.com

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +9 more
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,336
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100

JNR wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

Yeah. It is not easy to make consistent test shots.

I know that DPReview have produced some comparison test images that has to be avoided if you want to know what he camera can do. It is maybe a good idea to look at some other of the K5 sibblings, in particular the one without AA filter. And also look at some other ISO values.

Note though - that, for this comparison, I am not interested in high ISO performance. I am trying to evaluate the maximal performance, which you do not get at high ISO.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Conjure
Conjure Regular Member • Posts: 466
1600 px versus 2500 px:
1

cheers

Anton

fotografos
fotografos Contributing Member • Posts: 732
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100

7100,k7 ir the same smearing details I was seeing. Don

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JNR wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

Yeah. It is not easy to make consistent test shots.

I know that DPReview have produced some comparison test images that has to be avoided if you want to know what he camera can do. It is maybe a good idea to look at some other of the K5 sibblings, in particular the one without AA filter. And also look at some other ISO values.

Note though - that, for this comparison, I am not interested in high ISO performance. I am trying to evaluate the maximal performance, which you do not get at high ISO.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 37,056
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?

Donald B wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,336
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Jim in Hudson Senior Member • Posts: 2,116
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my!  On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database.  So what cameras are these?

 Jim in Hudson's gear list:Jim in Hudson's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Pentax K-3 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +4 more
fotografos
fotografos Contributing Member • Posts: 732
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

Does he have a website or online gallery? I would love to browse the portfolio of someone that shoots for Vogue, Woolworths, McDonalds etc...

.bill

kyc888 Regular Member • Posts: 151
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
1

Jim in Hudson wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my! On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database. So what cameras are these?

These crops are misleading. IR has a K-7 review, indeed, but it doesn't show up in the comparator. You can look up the K-7 review for the images. I did, and here are links to the "no flash, auto WB" images.

D7100 vs K-7

My opinion is that the D7100 shows more detail especially in the hair and the texture of the doll's skin is a close call. The D7100 looks like it's focused more on the lips than the face (thus clearer hair) while the K-7 is focused a bit back of that (thus a bit more detail on the skin but lips and hair more blurred). Perhaps this isn't the best comparison because of the slight difference in focal planes.

 kyc888's gear list:kyc888's gear list
Ricoh WG-4 GPS
Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?

Jim in Hudson wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my! On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database. So what cameras are these?

hi Jim, you have to click on "ALL" cameras and these are at iso 400

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

Does he have a website or online gallery? I would love to browse the portfolio of someone that shoots for Vogue, Woolworths, McDonalds etc...

.bill

will pm you bill.he's pretty good.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Donald B
OP Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,260
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

Does he have a website or online gallery? I would love to browse the portfolio of someone that shoots for Vogue, Woolworths, McDonalds etc...

.bill

let me know what you think, and how's your work going, I always see your work come up on a friends links, you must be doing well.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 5,586
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

Hi afterswish,

Thanks.  Yes, you're quite correct.  I used mpx increase as a substitute for resolution, which was wrong.  It takes 4X to double the linear resolution.

So what step up is worthwhile?  My argument was that 16mpx APSC to 36mpx FF (for me) was a significant improvement.  I think the maths is that that increase would give a 1.5X increase in resolution.  A 50% increase.  Worth having?  A personal decision.  Consider an alternative......  If a Pentax bought out a new lens in a popular FL, with a measurable 50% increase in resolution right across its image circle, would people buy it?  No doubt in my mind - they'd sell like hot cakes.

While resolution increases aren't linear, I think we need to be careful of falling into the trap of saying that an increase in mpx is only X% so it isn't worthwhile.......  If we went from the istD at 6mpx to the K3 at 24mpx, there's a quadrupling of the mpx, and therefore a doubling of resolution.  But I don't think any-one would argue that the K10, K7, and K5 didn't feature worthwhile increases in between.  (I know that there are many other considerations like sensor improvements, camera features, performance and so on, but I think people still appreciate the extra resolution).

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
lorenzo de medici Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?

I'll take a good 12MP sensor over a crappy 24MP sensor any day including Sunday.

I didn't have the patience to read all the replies, maybe I'm repeating what everyone else said.  If so, I apologize.

Compare the images from a Nikon D4, D610, and D800.  The D4 with the fewest MP (16) produces the best image.  The D800 with the most MP (36) produces the worst image.  The D610 is in the middle.  It's also the cheapest one, which is why I use it.

So the answer to your question is, yes.  The main advantage to higher MP is the ability to crop images.  But it comes at a price.

I was out shooting fall colors today with the D600 and D7100.  It's easier for me to carry two cameras than one body and two lenses.  But back home looking at the images, I was cursing the noise in the D7100 shots.  But I don't shoot landscapes on tripods.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that)  Handheld and 450mm.  That's when a really good sensor pays off, regardless of how many MP are on it.

Say you can go to a fine French restaurant, where they will give you just barely enough to eat, but everything will be exquisite.  Or you can go to one of these places where they give you a huge plate of food, but you could have made it better at home.  Which do you prefer?

 lorenzo de medici's gear list:lorenzo de medici's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads