Iron_Dreamer

See ya there, boys. BTW Ric, the laptop is running vastly better now after a clean install and Yosemite upgrade.

I've always disliked the LR user interface, so have been using Bridge and ACR with Photoshop instead for years. Every time I try LR again, I still hate the interface, and it just feels more productive to go back to what works for me.

I will probably be installing sooner than later.

I'll see you guys there, you should know where to find me by now

So I had some time to compare the beta and production HE1000's on the GS-X MkII today. Both headphones have at least 150 hours of playback on them at this point. I did not hear any major sonic differences that struck me as being repeatable within a margin of error. The only major difference is that the production headphone is a tick more efficient than the beta headphone, enough to need about one click less volume from the GS-X's stepped attenuator, on high gain. Once the volume difference was controlled for, the two headphones sounded largely indistinguishable. I also compared balanced versus single-ended drive, and found the difference to be relatively minor, but discernable, mostly as it pertained to soundstage depth and layering, as well as a better sense of resolution on very low-volume sections of music. The balanced drive certainly has a bit of extra finesse, and sounds more refined as a result, but it's certainly a last-few-percentage-points worth of sonic improvement, when compared to single-ended drive from an amp already so competent. This is consistent with my experience of the HE1000 being a fairly well-behaved load that sounds good even from some lesser amplifiers, so long as the output impedance is low (coughPonocough). The HE1000 certainly doesn't seem quite as demanding of amplification as the HE6, K1000, or 300-ohm Sennheisers, but it is still no LCD-X, and will take a decently high voltage at a low output impedance to reach full-volume happiness.

I haven't specifically noticed any, but I could possibly do a head to head in the next week or two to find out for sure.

Thanks! Gene, the RX100 has a very similar sensor technology to the primary camera, the D800. As such the same post-processing techniques produce similar results when both cameras are exposed to the right maximally without clipping the highlights. The RX100 just ends up with more noise and less resolution at a given ISO. Of course the MkI has soft corners at wide, was decentered at telephoto, and generally needed to be stopped to f/5.6 for as close to optimal sharpness as was possible. I had borrowed the RX100 for this trip, but am now seriously considering getting a Mk3 for the better lens, better IS, tilt screen, EVF and wifi. I just wish it had a filter thread and no auto lens cap. I used a magfilter solution for this trip, and the magnetic strip which attached to the lens with adhesive, was already coming off after a couple of days.

Been off on the John Muir Trail for a week with Thrice, here's the first photo from the trip I posted to my site, taken handheld with an RX100mkI at that!

Happy birthday! See ya soon!

I saw the 2nd half of game 2 and was glued to it! This is some intense energy that Cleveland is playing with. I will be amazed if they can sustain it though.

I have now listened to them quite a good amount from the GS-XmkII, (two more different pairs compared to the one that he and I originally reported on), and I am still coming to a few different conclusions than others have voiced here. The comparison to HE90 voicing is really baffling to me, as I never cared for that headphone much due to its' overly warm signature. To me the HE1000 leans a smidge on the warm side in the mids, making it more enjoyable than an HD800, but not to the point that it feels colored or inaccurate. I'm on the road, will chime in with more in a few days.

Yep, was there all day today, 2 more to go!

Happy birthday, now go finish your biscuits!

Doesn't look like light that needed ISO 1000, was it just a mistake? Anyway, the photo looks great, and yes that sensor is capable of amazing things.

Happy birthday! Hugs!

That's quite a new lens, so no experience here. It tests out very well, though not quite as well as the 35 and 50 Art lenses.

See ya there!

Screw deserve, what does that even mean? Need is another point. Like I outlined earlier, you'd know if you need FX because you've run up against specific limitations in specific uses with a top DX camera. I severely doubt you're going to run out of camera with the D7200 unless you really start pushing the limits of low-light performance AND are extremely demanding of the results. Nate's point about the 18-300 has a bit of merit. My initial repsonse would be,"at that point just get a superzoom," but then you lose DSLR AF advantages. To JonL's point about the SIgma 17-70, if you go the newer "C" version, it shouldn't be weak at the long end, and I don't much see the point of a 17-50 f/2.8 by comparison, as i'd rather take a portrait at 70/4 than 50/2.8. The only other midrange zoom I'd really entertain is the SIgma 18-35 "A", which is essentially prime quality and aperture in a 2x zoom.

Honestly, that is exactly what I would go for if needing a general purpose DX lens. The Nikon 17-55 is large, heavy, expensive, has no VR, and isn't sharp in the corners on 24MP bodies. The 24-70 is larger, heavier, more expensive, and an awkward focalfocal range on DX.

I would say no, naaman. At this point, I would only deal with the size and cost of FX to accommodate specific needs, like printing extremely large, shooting fast action in very low light, extremely low light or thin DOF video, astrophotography, etc. For general purpose photography, even a D7100 will serve you extremely well, with the 7200 having a few nice features, but extremely similar performance. Used 7100's are really cheap right now.

Yeah, Oly menus are kinda nuts, but for the most part, one a good camera is set up, there shouldn't be that much menu diving going on. I agree that a number of mirrorless have good single AF, but continuous is where the problems lie.

I used the NX-1 a bit at CES. I liked a lot about it, and Samsung does have some compelling lens options, including pancakes. The main drawbacks I see at this point are poor resale on Samsung gear (at this point), H.265 video compression (apparently a bitch to edit at the moment, but should be a boon in the future). The AF was as good as the best mirrorless I've tried, which is to say that it's still not good enough for fast moving subjects (IMO). If you're looking for high-qualiy video and stills in one body, the only other option to consider would be the Panasonic GH4. If you just want a high-performance crop body for stills, and aren't as concerned with video, I would get a D7100 or D7200, as they have a great sensor and AF performance, and more lens choices. If you're going mirrorless to keep it small, I'd look at either Fuji (X-E2 or X-T1) or Olympus (EM5-II).

DigitalRev TV was already Top Gear for cameras, but now they've more overtly embraced their heritage:

Amp price is not known yet, even by Fang