Iron_Dreamer

Yep, leankernel + Cyanogen nightlies is the way to go! It's been my daily driver since I first rooted my Thunderbolt last year. It never lets me down, unlike some of th other ROMs I've tried on that phone and my current G-Nex.

Merry Birthday Wayne Claus! Gotta see you again one of these days, it's been too long!

I've been too out of the loop, what's happening?

Make it a great one, Jim!

Wow, Ian, that looks like fun!

It's generally considered the best current option for a fast normal zoom on a Nikon DX camera. The Nikon 17-55 is big, heavy, and doesn't have VR. The Tamron 17-50 VC has worse corner quality, slower AF, and lower build quality. The Tamron 17-50 non-VC is a good option if you can find an older one without a built-in-motor. If I were using a DX camera the kit I'd want is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (or the Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 if you don't need filters or fast aperture), the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, and either a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 II. Add a macro lens, f/1.4 prime, or long telephoto as needed.

BTW the numbers I quoted are on the 2100mAh "extended" battery, as compared to the stock 1850mAh one. No, just as long as I don't have the screen on for long, long stretches. As far as I can tell, I drop about 18%/hr of screen use. My typical day has about 3-4 hours of screen use.

I've been getting 20-26hrs/charge on my Verizon G-Nex running CyanogenMod-10 nightlies and Leankernel. The main problem I have with battery life is one that can't really be helped, the electrical hungriness of the AMOLED screen. As long as I keep my screen use in check, I'm generally fine (primarily using a combo of LTE and Wifi).

Well, regardless of a few of the issues with the 6D (lame AF specs and non 100% viewfinder stand out), there are a few things worth applauding. Built-in GPS (if it works well when on, and can be turned off to save power when not needed) is a nice feature to have. But the ability to control the camera through wifi from an Android or iOS device is the big one. I'd love to have live-view and a programmable settings control/shutter release interface directly on the screen of my Galaxy Nexus. That would be superb for tripod-based shooting! Also, I have to applaud Canon for getting the weight down even lower than the D600. Odds are, the sacrificed a bit more ruggedness than the D600, in order to do so, but it's great to have a ligher full-frame possibilty for those who can use it. I'd rather carry the heavier camera out in the wilderness, and know it will always work, than a lighter camera more likely to be effected by shock, water, or dust. But many outdoor photog's don't agree, and always want to go as light as possible.

Yes, you will! A full-frame DSLR is damn joy.

Yep, and time to go get hands-on with them. My big mitts have always preferred the feel of the bigger bodies, so it's entirely possible the D600 might just feel smaller than I'd prefer (as a DSLR I'd shoot with all day, anyway). I'll be excited to see what the new 24mp chip is capable of producing. If the past is any indication, Nikon will clobber Sony in the A/D and signal processing departments, so the D600 will end up with the best raw image quality of all three cameras that this new chip is going into (of course the A99 has the light loss from the pellicle mirror). If they are really on their game, there's a good chance the D600 downsampled to 12MP might produce cleaner files than the D3s. That said, as demanding as the D800 can be, I'm still blown away by it, every time I use the camera. The sensor performance in every regard is just amazing, and the AF improvements from the D700 are quite tangible. I'm a very happy camper with the D800.

Fair enough, I suppose. I agree that Nikon should release a videoless "throwback" style camera, in the vein of the Fuji X100, the digital FM2n/FM3A that many people seem to want. I think that would be pretty darn cool indeed, though I have no need for one myself. I'm astonished at how much more "real" the high-ISO shots from the D800 feel to me, compared to those from the D700. I think it is as muc to do with the better dynamic range and color depth at those ISO's as it does the nature of the noise. D700 ISO6400+ shots look a bit harsh and gritty, relative to the D800's smoother presentation. Granted, I am not a JPEG shooter, so these impressions come only from my use of both camera's RAW files through ACR. I have certainly seen some high-ISO D800 samples around the web that I didn't care for, but my impression of using the camera is completely different.

It's actually quite likely that the D600 will have beeter high ISO performance than the D700, despite the higher pixel count. The D800 is certainly better in low light than the D700, as the much smaller pixels make for a more pleasing tight grain structure, and the per-pixel signal-to-noise ratio is at least as good, if not better. The newer Sony sensors have really upped the game, giving higher resolution AND equal if not better low-light performance, and I'd be very surprised if the D600's sensor doesn't follow that lead. The D700 is a bit of a brick, and the lighter weight of the D600 would certainly be appreciated, but it does come at a cost of less ruggedness. However, other than ruggedness, higher FPS, and a few more external controls/ports, the D600 has most of the practical advantages. If I had to choose between the two, I'd get the D600. The only circumstance I can think of where I'd potentially prefer the D700, would be a scenario where I'd use it with the grip for maximum FPS, but at today's prices I'd rather just get a used D3 for that particular purpose (and that would only be in the case of shooting fast action, and not spending what a D3s or D4 would cost). Were you hoping for $1500, as rumored a while back? This pricing makes it seem as if they still want to be able to have a $1500-1700ish DX Camera with pro AF, the theoretical D400 a lot of people are waiting for. It's definitely nice to have, if you end up in situations that might otherwise kill a camera. I've shot in a downpour with a D700 (and pro-grade Nikkor) with no covers, and never had an issue. I've taken them out to some extremely rugged places, and had a few slip-ups along with way, but never got more than a scratch in the paint. Their top-grade cameras are definitely built to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. It doesn't look liek the D600 is quite that robust, but it should do pretty well (unlike edwood's D80, which has a large gaffer-taped hole in the bottom after taking a fall, though it still shoots fine).

Whatever man. I'm not all about being anti-Apple. Apple has had some great ideas in the past, and if this had been one, I'd give them their credit. I'm just surprised that this is the best they could muster, and I'm wondering when they'll decide to catch up to the market in terms of screen size, resolution, processor power, camera technology, and so on. It's not a commentary on Apple, it's a commentary on this particular product, albeit their most high-profile one.

I'm saying it's been quite a while since Apple really innovated in the smarphone market, and a lot of people expected the 5 to be a product which really shot the iPhone back to the head of the class, where it hasn't been in quite some time. Instead, all the 5 turned out to be was an update to last year's technology (LTE, dual-core, etc). It's not even a 720p screen, I would have expected at least that resolution, if not higher, and that's been available on other phones since last year (i.e. where is Apple's supposed dedication to screen-quality dominance?) The only "feature" differentiating the 5 in the current market is iOS. You won't buy a 5 becuase you want the best screen, the sleekest phone, the best camera in a phone, the most powerful phone, or the most versatile phone. You buy it for iOS. Perhaps that business model will continue working for a while, but Apple needs to catch up to the crowd at some point in terms of technology and innovation, or face a bleak post-Jobs future when consumers start to realize that Apple isn't what it used to be, in terms of leading the market.

From the 4, yeah, it should be attractive enough, as the 5 is essentially what the 4s should have been. I just find it surprising that Apple toook no big steps forward in any regard. Where is the market-disrupting technology? Where's the innovation? Or are they now just content to milk their customer base with incremental upgrades, at best, until sales start to drop? If you're happy in the Apple ecosystem, it doesn't matter to me. I just think you should demand more from them on the hardware side of the iPhone, because it is starting to look like a dinosaur, and the comparison will only get worse as more andmore of next year's slate of phones get revealed.

What an epic fail for the first Jobs-less iPhone. No innovations, heck nothing market-leading, even, in the new model. Just the LTE radio that should have been in last year's model, but wasn't. Screen size, resolution, processor power, even body thinness are not at the head of the class. Even the camera is just the same old one from the 4s. Where's the innovation? I realize I'm not exactly an Apple fan, but I'm wondering how even the most fanatical Apple fans will justify this. It comes across to me as a slap in the face to 4s owners.

I see what you're saying. It seems to me that you're coming at it from more of a photo bucket list sort of approach, wanting to get your own take on many classic shots. In that regard, some parks certainly have more of such shots than others. I'm more about just going to a really nice place, and finding what appeals to me, whether that's an icon, or something very small and simple, yet still beautiful. Most of the pics on my site are shot with a Nikon D700 and a variety of lenses, a few others from the D200, Sony R1, and a couple from the new D800.

In my experience (which is quite broad) just about every place labelled "National Park" has some seriously impressive scenery in one area or another. Including Mesa Verde, for sure. I was unfortunate to be there last year during a massive storm, so I didn't get to see as much as I had hoped, but there are definitely some nice areas there. I wouldn't go by the pics you see online as far as what the potential would be, but only to give you an idea of what the area is like. There is almost always way more to explore once you actually get there, and you've just got to get out there and explore. Don't stick to what you've seen/heard/read about before.

Well, I'd say you need to think outside the booklet There are a ton of great web resources for finding great hikes and other park info, from sources other than the park officials, whose job it is to funnel you into the privately-outsourced trinket stores, restaurants, and lodging. The best thing about summer in Yosemite is access to the high country, over 9,0000ft elevation, thanks to the annual opening of highway 120. It's an area of Yosemite that sees far less traffic/people, and is at least as beautiful as the valley, if not moreso. If you didn't get up to places like Tenaya lake, Tuolumne Meadows, and Lee Vining Canyon, you missed out big time. Let alone everything up there that is only accessible by hiking.

Let me guess, you went there in the summer, and never left Yosemite Valley? Having grown up about 40 miles from there, I feel the need to repudiate your view of Yosemite. There are plenty of very remote places in Yosemite that are not reachable within one day's hike. The scenery is varied, and there is a lot more to it than just Half Dome. All four seasons are distinct and worthwhile. There is so much to appreciate there that one could spend a year or more in the park. I can certainly see how it is possible to have the standard "tourist" experience there, and come out thinking it's a crowded, hot, somewhat limited place. But that is just so far from the truth. And even if you only get to see the valley in that manner, there is still quite a number of great experiences to be had, you just have to really be out there looking on your own.

Here's the pics from tonight's cookout, boy that was some awesome chicken!

Wowza!

Make it a great one, Jack!

Happy birthday, Matt the younger, may we never forget.