Iron_Dreamer

Stay away from non-SLR Nikons, they are pretty much all crap. I don't know any Nikon SLR shooters who use one. We've all got Panasonic, Canon, Olympus, etc. for small cameras, because we know just how rubbish Nikon Coolpix cameras are. Ironic, since Nikon used to make some of the best non-SLR digitals (back in the early 00's).

Yeah, and I though I was having a shitty week...but slow business, illness, and being burgled has nothing on death...my condolences to Nate and Driftwood, and best of luck to Mike's family.

Wow, looks great, have fun tomorrow!

Glad it finally worked out for you, Ric. My only thoughts are that I ended up going through 3 sets before they got them right, but the sound never changed much, if at all, that I could detect between them, FWIW. They were more comfort and design problems. Maybe I just have easy ears...?

Photos, whether in RAW format or not, really don't take up that much space, given the current price of hard drive space. It'll take me YEARS to fill a single 2TB drive with photo files. Compared to the space that videos can eat up, photos are nothing.

Just give me more cheap car challenges, trans-national (if not continental) adventures, and DIY vehicles. Big goofs like the Reliant rocket/car darts/caravan conkers/etc. are amusing enough, but aren't, for me at least, the core of what makes Top Gear so appealing. I don't really care how much money they do or don't make, unless it does get to the point where the show goes to poo. Which it hasn't yet, at least IMO.

Well, I would, but I guess you already suspected that I actually learned RAW processing before I had a DSLR, using the raw files from a Fuji E900 P&S cam. In retrospect, I'm glad I shot RAW, even with that P&S camera, because as software processing evolves, I can go back and extract better quality from those shots. Camera Raw 6.x (in Adobe CS5/LR3) was worth a least a stop, if not more, of noise performance from my previous processing. And that applied to almost every shot I've ever taken, on every camera I've owned. Since a lot of how a shot will look is in the processing, I just prefer to keep as much control of that as possible. If anything it's even MORE important on a P&S/small-sensor type camera, as they are so dependent on noise reduction, even at lower ISO's. Why get stuck with today/yesterday's NR algorithms, when if you keep the RAW data, you can always go back and re-process those shots with the NR of the future?

The reality is that ANY P&S camera is not going to be incredible at picture quality nor speed. in this regard, you will simply be choosing the one that is the lesser of many evils, relative to the speed and quality of even an entry-level DSLR. Among the models that I was discussing before, image quality is largely splitting hairs, and it mostly comes down to the mediocre signal-to-noise ratio, even at base ISO, and the associated noise reduction robbing detail (relative to larger sensored cameras). A P&S extremely sacrifices both AF speed and image quality for size. While the models that we discussed will be better than most, they are still P&S, so I don't want you to have unrealistic expectations. If you can go by a good camera store, and try out some of the models in person, that would be best, as you would know what you're getting, and experience the ergonomics, which can be very important as well.

I don't see anything about that scene that really required HDR. The shadows are still fairly crushed, and the spots of direct sun on the mountain still look blown out. A perfectly exposed (i.e. exposed as much as possible without clipping), single RAW file should be able to be PP'ed to capture detail across the spectrum of that scene, depending on the dynamic range of the sensor on the camera used. There really aren't that many options to choose from for a GOOD P&S. Canon G12 & S95, Olympus XZ1, Panasonic LX5, Samsung EX500...they are the current models with fast(er) lenses and RAW support. The Nikon P7000 still isn't up to compete with that crowd (IMO). I'd take the XZ1, and team it up with the superb Olympus digital viewfinder, if I really needed a P&S camera. Of course, the S95 still wins for size and convenience, but its' lens pales in comparison to the Oly's. Very nice new view you've got there. Of course, who needs a view, when you can just go drive up into those mountains in a matter of minutes, for a REAL view

Happy birthday and many more to come!

For all you Stone fans, Edwood, jasper994 and I are heading down to their brewery outside San Diego tomorrow.

consecration!!!

It might be for the best. I know that when I put my JH13's on, I am pretty much lost in the music for an hour, minimum. I'm not sure how well that would mesh with most "work" situations. And the LCD2 is no slouch, it's a damn fine sounding headphone, one of the best ever.

Wow, good stuff. It'll be interesting to see how the comparison goes for current JH13 owners who are adding a 16/3A. I didn't want to last year, if only because it was so far from a finished product at that time.

Happy birthday, Dr.Diet.Dew!

Have a great birthday Steve!

I'll keep 'em in the back of my brain. I have no idea what I might be up to by then.

I'll have to work on this for next weekend

It will depend on the TC and the lens. Usually 1.4x's are fairly benign. The 2x I got for a song on a whim, and oddly it works better on my Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 than my Tokina 300 f/2.8.

I was using a 2x teleconverter that doesn't reflect in the exif, and a CPL, so though these were the last rays of the day, the exposure is longer than you'd have thought.

Here is Horsetail Falls in Yosemite, Sunday night:

facebook schmacebook

Happy belated B'Day Jeff!

Have a great one, Michael!

Exactly. The lack of proper understanding of lossless compression, in the audio field and elsewhere, is downright appalling.