I'm not going to let the statement real photographers by Michael Reichmann pass without some comment. I've been on the edge of the industry since the 80's when I did quality control for Colorcraft or since I was born when you consider my Uncle Noel started in WW2 and owned the Hardin County Independent. But I'm not going to accuse all of you for being snobs because you own cameras that he couldn't afford. That's not what this is about. What this is about is what real photographers focus on that is opposed to scientific photographers. Even back then I knew there were two common red rhodopsin variants. Now I think there are hundreds, tetrachromats aside. What is correct color is a mater of taste and the scientific instruments do not adequately mimic the most common eye. Try putting a fluorescent color under your densitometer and see what happens. When the Lytro first came out I wondered if it was able to bring everything in focus. I now know this can be done in software and I'm amazed they didn't think of this. Real photographers worry about bokeh which means a factor of 10 increase in the cost of lenses for an increase of 1 f stop at the high end. Scientific photographers want everything in focus. 24 frame per second video drives me nuts and I can see the doubled frames when these are adapted for television. 16 9 aspect ratio or worse? How about a square sensor like the machine vision cameras use if you must have more pixels. The only thing I agree with with real photographers is camera makers are putting too many pixels at a cost of low light ability. Scientist were able to extract license plate numbers in blurred photographs in the 60's why isn't this software available in all cameras today? It seams lithium batteries were not expensive enough now we have computerized batteries that charge each cell and shut down in high humidity and cost $60 to replace. I'm not a real photographer and never will be.