Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Ray on July 27, 2012, 11:32:06 pm
-
At 24mp the D3200 has Nikon's highest resolution DX sensor. Yet the camera is a low-cost entry level model without certain features that most experienced photographers expect, such as auto-exposure bracketing.
Now some people might think that such a high resolution sensor would be wasted on the complete novice. After all, resolution improvements resulting from a mere 50% increase in pixel count are subtle. They're usually only apparent either in a huge print or in an average-size print from a very small crop of the image.
So what's going on, I ask myself, trying to put myself in the position of someone who uses only a P&S or iPhone camera but is getting more interested in photography and would like to 'move up' to a DSLR?
Supposing my existing camera were a 5mp iPhone camera or a 12mp P&S, and I started to become interested in the better image quality that results from a larger sensor. Would I not be more interested in a 24mp sensor than a 16mp sensor?
Supposing my existing P&S were one of the latest 16mp models, would I not prefer to upgrade to a 24mp DSLR than get a 16mp DSLR with no more pixels than my current P&S?
Supposing my current P&S had the advanced feature of Auto Exposure Bracketing, would I be put off by the fact that the D3200 does not have this feature? Maybe not. It's the P&S camera with its limited DR and poor SNR that really needs auto-exposure bracketing. Although the DR and SNR of the D3200 is not quite state-of-art, although pretty close, it's a very significant improvement over any P&S camera.
In summarry, those extra pixels of the D3200 may not be needed much of the time, but they are worth something. If I were much younger and getting seriously interested in photography, I can imagine that in 20 years time, when the best TV screens are 8k (8,000 x 4,000 pixels) I would be pleased I had chosen at least a 24mp DSLR to take my first serious photos. I'd be able to display those old, archival and historical images without too much interpolation.
-
It is probably reasonnable to assume that compact upgraders are overall less knowledgeable and therefore more attracted by high specs?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Supposing my existing P&S were one of the latest 16mp models, would I not prefer to upgrade to a 24mp DSLR than get a 16mp DSLR with no more pixels than my current P&S?
Only if the new pixels are as sharp as the old ones.
Which might require a purchase of a lens that is more expensive than the camera itself. Which might be a deterrent for most novice users.
Supposing my current P&S had the advanced feature of Auto Exposure Bracketing, would I be put off by the fact that the D3200 does not have this feature?
Even bigger problem is a lack of mirror lockup on this high pixel density camera if you want to extract most of its capabilities.
-
It is probably reasonnable to assume that compact upgraders are overall less knowledgeable and therefore more attracted by high specs?
Cheers,
Bernard
100% agree.
A newbie looks for the higher counts. A nikon D3200 is better (for them) than any Canon as the resolution is higher.
Let's not forget that the most of high-end R&D is financed through low-end DSLR. Long live to the entry levels! :)
-
Only if the new pixels are as sharp as the old ones.
Which might require a purchase of a lens that is more expensive than the camera itself. Which might be a deterrent for most novice users.
Even bigger problem is a lack of mirror lockup on this high pixel density camera if you want to extract most of its capabilities.
Is a novice even going to be aware of these issues though?
-
No, they're not.
And as a bird/sport photographer who uses a camera (Canon 7D) with a similar pixel density to the D3200, handheld at 600mm very successfully as a matter of routine, I can also say that for many kinds of photography, MLU is an irrelevance too.
-
It is probably reasonnable to assume that compact upgraders are overall less knowledgeable and therefore more attracted by high specs?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
Are you implying that the higher pixel density of the D800 had no bearing on your decision to dump the D3X? Did you buy the D800 only because it had video capability and was lighter? ;D
-
Only if the new pixels are as sharp as the old ones.
Which might require a purchase of a lens that is more expensive than the camera itself. Which might be a deterrent for most novice users.
Les,
I can't quite get my mind around the idea of a sharp pixel. A pixel is a pixel and always has a specific value. What might give the impression that the pixels from one camera are sharper than the pixels from another camera are differences in the processing of the images, that might result in less differentiation between adjacent pixel values in one image as opposed to another image processed differently.
Such differences in image sharpness could result from different in-camera processing of jpegs; different characteristics of RAW converters used; different qualities of lenses used; and different strengths of AA filter in front of the different sensors, apart from the obvious causes of inadequate shutter speed in relation to camera and subject movement.
The studio shots at Dpreview show the D3200 delivering finer detail in certain parts of the image than the D7000 does, if you look for them, so that would tend to indicate that the D3200 does not have a stronger AA filter than the D7000, and there's no reason why it should. Because of the higher pixel density, the AA filter in the D3200 could and should be weaker.
As regards lens quality, a higher quality lenses will always produce sharper results whatever the pixel count of the camera. I don't recall any authority claiming that good lenses were a waste of time with the early 3mp and 6mp DSLRs, and that cheap zooms would be perfectly okay because the sensors were such low resolution.
The D3200 can be had for a good price with the Nikkor 18-55 DX VR zoom. There have been a lot of misguided comments on the Dpreview forum that this lens is not of sufficient quality to reveal the higher resolving capability of the D3200.
If one cares to check out the resolution charts at Photozone, you will see that the 18-55 DX VR zoom, tested on the D7000, is sharpest at F5.6 over most of the focal length range. At the long end, resolution falls slightly and is best at F8. If Photozone were to test this lens on the D3200, I have no doubt that the resolution (LW/PH at 50% MTF) would be higher at all apertures, at least up to F16. And the lens would still be sharpest at F5.6 at most focal lengths.
Even bigger problem is a lack of mirror lockup on this high pixel density camera if you want to extract most of its capabilities.
Now that's an interesting problem. As far as I understand, with Nikon cameras which use normal Phase Detection Auto Focus (PDAF) in LiveView mode, the mirror has to momentarily drop for the phase detection to work, then spring back up.
The D3200 appears to have Contrast Detection Auto Focus in LiveView mode, which is slower but doesn't require the mirror to deflect part of the incoming signal to a separate focussing sensor, so there should be no reason for the mirror to drop in LiveView mode before the exposure takes place. If this is the case, that the mirror stays up, then that's as good as MLU.
-
Hi Bernard,
Are you implying that the higher pixel density of the D800 had no bearing on your decision to dump the D3X? Did you buy the D800 only because it had video capability and was lighter? ;D
At least Canon thought that experts would not care about the 5DIII not having more pixels. ???
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pixels sell. The entry level digital camera market has larger sales. This camera is going to compete very well there.
Unless, of cource, Nikon is going to start selling hard drives...
The pixel resolution is really not important, even if monitors and displays get better. Images don't look worse because your display resolution goes up.
Pixels should only be sharp in the corners because they are square.
-
Ray,
that sharpness comparison between D3200 and "lesser" models is a mysterious thing. I agree that on the one segment which you supplied in another thread in 200% crop, D3200 is slightly sharper than D7000. In my own tests, D3200 seemed a little bit softer, but after downsampling to 16MP the images from D700 and D3200 would look very similar. In addition, as Torger, another Lula member states "The takeaway message for the landscape photographer is that sensor size does not matter, only resolution does. The more megapixels you got the tougher it will be to get them all sharp."
Full article:
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/focus-landscape.html (http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/focus-landscape.html)
Both entry-level Nikon dSLRs are fine cameras and excellent value. I'm sure if I had bought D3200 instead of D5100, I would have been happy, too.
By the way, I also did some comparisons with Nikon 18-55mm kit lens and Sigma 50mm1.4 prime. At F8, the kit lens performed very well.
-
Now some people might think that such a high resolution sensor would be wasted on the complete novice. After all, resolution improvements resulting from a mere 50% increase in pixel count are subtle. They're usually only apparent either in a huge print or in an average-size print from a very small crop of the image [emphasis supplied].
So what's going on, I ask myself, trying to put myself in the position of someone who uses only a P&S or iPhone camera but is getting more interested in photography and would like to 'move up' to a DSLR?
I think you may have answered your own question. People new to serious photography probably tend to shoot wide because it's difficult when you're starting out to decide what you really want to include in the final image. Having a whole lotta pixels gives you the option of cropping during post-processing instead of in the viewfinder. It's actually a useful learning tool.
Or, as we used to say in the '60s: “Power to the Pixels.”
-
As regards lens quality, a higher quality lenses will always produce sharper results whatever the pixel count of the camera. I don't recall any authority claiming that good lenses were a waste of time with the early 3mp and 6mp DSLRs, and that cheap zooms would be perfectly okay because the sensors were such low resolution.
The D3200 can be had for a good price with the Nikkor 18-55 DX VR zoom. There have been a lot of misguided comments on the Dpreview forum that this lens is not of sufficient quality to reveal the higher resolving capability of the D3200.
If one cares to check out the resolution charts at Photozone, you will see that the 18-55 DX VR zoom, tested on the D7000, is sharpest at F5.6 over most of the focal length range. At the long end, resolution falls slightly and is best at F8. If Photozone were to test this lens on the D3200, I have no doubt that the resolution (LW/PH at 50% MTF) would be higher at all apertures, at least up to F16. And the lens would still be sharpest at F5.6 at most focal lengths.
Theres a difference between "a bit more resolution" and "getting the best out of the sensor" though.
Looking at the NEX 7 lens reviews on photozone the problem seems to be less that you'd need to spend alot on lenses to fully exploit the resolution but that you might not find any that do so at certain focal lenghts, the new Sony 16-50mm for example has a significant dropoff in sharpness at the boarders.
For landscape use it just seems like the D3200 has pushed further into the realms of diminished returns than the D800 has with pixel density.
-
Theres a difference between "a bit more resolution" and "getting the best out of the sensor" though.
Looking at the NEX 7 lens reviews on photozone the problem seems to be less that you'd need to spend alot on lenses to fully exploit the resolution but that you might not find any that do so at certain focal lenghts, the new Sony 16-50mm for example has a significant dropoff in sharpness at the boarders.
For landscape use it just seems like the D3200 has pushed further into the realms of diminished returns than the D800 has with pixel density.
In order to get the best out of any sensor, one would need the perfect lens, which doesn't exist. In order to get the best out of any lens, one would need the perfect sensor, which doesn't exist.
Any resulting image, in terms of amount of detail recorded, can never be more than the product of the sensor performance and the lens performance. The law of diminishing returns applies in both cases, whether one is increasing the performance of the lens, but keeping the same sensor, or increasing the performance of the sensor, but keeping the same lens.
Nowadays, I tend to use zooms more than I use primes; not because I think that zooms are as sharp as primes (although the Nikkor 14-24 at certain focal lengths may be) but because the extra detail one gets from an expensive prime seems very marginal to me, and consequently the greater flexibility of the zoom is much preferred, especially now that ACR includes lens modules that automatically remove obvious distortions, color fringing and chromatic aberration,
A point that needs to be stressed here is the difference between acutance and detail. An increase in the pixel density or pixel-count of a sensor will not produce more accutance, that is, knife-edge sharpness. It will just allow finer detail to be recorded. If the finer detail doesn't exist in the scene, it can't be recorded.
The sharpness or contrasty 'pop' that may be very eye-catching in a photo can usually be created with skilled post-processing, but such processing cannot be applied to detail that was never captured in the first instance. A sensor cannot capture detail beyond its Nyquist limit. If it appears to do so, it's called aliasing or false detail.
Below is an example, taken from the D3200 studio shots from Dpreview. I posted this in another thread, but in view of Les Palenik's comment that the D3200 shot is merely slightly sharper ;D , I've further cropped the relevant section where the D7000 reaches its limits as regards recording of fine detail, but the D3200 handles the detail with aplomb. The D3200 image is on the left, of course. The difference is not subtle. It's like chalk and cheese.
Years ago, when the only detailed information on lens performance readily available was from the Photodo site, I used to test a lens after buying it, using my own made-up target consisting of line charts, fabric, sandpaper, clumps of fine twine, fine text and wood grain. If the lens didn't perform according to my expectations, I would return it, and either get a refund or another copy of the same lens, and test it again. (I admit I was a bit obsessed in those days ;D ).
If I were to test two lenses for comparison purposes, and see the differences as shown in the cropped image below, at 200% on my monitor, I would be flabbergasted.
In all my testing and comparisons of lenses, I've never witnessed such significant differences, using the same sensor.
-
People new to serious photography probably tend to shoot wide because it's difficult when you're starting out to decide what you really want to include in the final image. Having a whole lotta pixels gives you the option of cropping during post-processing instead of in the viewfinder.
+1
-
I think you may have answered your own question. People new to serious photography probably tend to shoot wide because it's difficult when you're starting out to decide what you really want to include in the final image. Having a whole lotta pixels gives you the option of cropping during post-processing instead of in the viewfinder. It's actually a useful learning tool.
Or, as we used to say in the '60s: “Power to the Pixels.”
Even experienced photographers have images, perhaps taken on the spur of the moment, which need extensive cropping. I recall that some great photographer of the past made the wise remark that he had never seen a photo that could not be improved with a bit of judicious cropping. Can't remember his name. Who was that? ;D
-
Pixels should only be sharp in the corners because they are square.
+4
-
Below is an example, taken from the D3200 studio shots from Dpreview. I posted this in another thread, but in view of Les Palenik's comment that the D3200 shot is merely slightly sharper , I've further cropped the relevant section where the D7000 reaches its limits as regards recording of fine detail, but the D3200 handles the detail with aplomb. The D3200 image is on the left, of course. The difference is not subtle. It's like chalk and cheese.
Ray,
Your examples are very convincing. That D3200 crop is indeed resolving the detail / hair substantially better.
When I did my own quick and simple comparison tests between D3200 and D5100, I was shooting handheld, at dusk, and with a 18-105mm lens which might account for a very similar output from both cameras. I was also shooting an advertisement billboard with mainly large font text rather than some fur or fabric with fine detail.
If I had to do it again, I would definitely mount a 50mm prime, and find me some cute beaver to play with.
-
Les,
I still use Canon for long telephoto shots, the 50D with 100-400 IS zoom. Nikon doesn't seem to have any good quality, moderately priced equivalent lens. The Nikkor 80-400 does not seem to be on a par with the Canon 100-400, and the Nikkor 200-400/F4 is far too heavy and expensive for me.
But I'm curious as to how the D3200 would perform with a Sigma 150-500/F5.6-6.3. The weight of this lens with D3200 body attached would be about 2.4kg, marginally lighter than my Canon 100-400/F4.5-5.6 with 50D attached, which is 2.5kg.
I get the impression that recent copies of the Sigma 150-500 are much improved over some of the earlier copies that perhaps had QC issues. That extra 100mm in focal length, in conjunction with an extra 9mp on the sensor, should produce a very noticeable improvement in detail for wildlife shots.
-
Even experienced photographers have images, perhaps taken on the spur of the moment, which need extensive cropping. I recall that some great photographer of the past made the wise remark that he had never seen a photo that could not be improved with a bit of judicious cropping. Can't remember his name. Who was that? ;D
I never crop, even with images taken at the "spur of the moment"--isn't that what journalist and documentary photographers do all the time? A bad image that is cropped simply does not turn into a good image in my experience. Nothing beats getting it right. Quoting personal opinion is still a personal statement regardless who said it. I can certainly find famous photographers that have the opposite opinion.
As far as photographers starting out, cropping is a good tool to help them learn the basic problems with composition. But here cropping takes a bad image and makes it less bad. I have found, unless the crop is planned during the shoot, that cropping as an afterthought does not really lead to great results, just like any quick fix is not conducive to good photography.
YMMV, IMVHO.
-
Ray,
I used Sigma 150-500 on D300, and was happy with the results. The stabilizator is not as good as on Canon, and at the 500mm the lens gets softer, but at 400 and 1/1000s or faster it's pretty good.
Theoretically, if you mount this lens on D3200 and a supersteady tripod, at 400mm and F6.3, you might see some fine details better resolved than with D7000.
However, in practical terms (shooting handheld and at 500mm), I wouldn't expect big differences between those two bodies attached to Sigma 150-500.
-
Ray,
I used Sigma 150-500 on D300, and was happy with the results. The stabilizator is not as good as on Canon, and at the 500mm the lens gets softer, but at 400 and 1/1000s or faster it's pretty good.
Theoretically, if you mount this lens on D3200 and a supersteady tripod, at 400mm and F6.3, you might see some fine details better resolved than with D7000.
However, in practical terms (shooting handheld and at 500mm), I wouldn't expect big differences between those two bodies attached to Sigma 150-500.
Les,
I don't think I've ever seen so much confusion on the internet, regarding a comparison between two lenses. You say the stabiliser is not as good as on the Canon 100-400, yet others say it is marginally better because the Sigma is a more recent model of lens with perhaps as much as an extra stop of IS.
Others complain about the extra weight. The lens alone is certainly heavier than the Canon 100-400, but here again there is confusion because the weight of the Canom 100-400 seems to have been reduced in more recent production copies. My copy of this lens definitely weighs about 1.6 to 1.65Kgs. Yet the current specs for this lens, on the USA website, and others, mention a weight of 1.38Kgs.
The D3200 body is lighter than the Canon 50D body (or D7000 body), so total weight of the 150-500/D3200 combination would be about the same for me, or even marginally lighter.
The main point, and most disturbing point, is that the 150-500 is softer at 500mm than the 100-400 is at 400mm, at full aperture. But here I believe there's also confusion.
My copy of the Canon 100-400 was bought in 2002. At 400mm it's definitely softer at F5.6 than at F8 ot F11, as indeed the Photozone tests show with the 20D. In fact I used to think my lens was sharpest at F11, until I did some controlled tests and found it was very marginally sharper at F8. The impression I'd initially got that it was sharpest at F11 was probably due to the lesser need for critical focussing due to the greater DoF at F11.
However, the sharpness difference between F8 and F11 is so slight, the main reason I use F8 with the 100-400 at 400mm is because it allows a faster shutter speed at the same ISO.
I've read reports that recent copies of the Canon 100-400 have improved optics and are now at least as sharp at F5.6 as at F8, at the long end. If this is the case, I can understand why the Canon zoom is considered to be sharper at 400mm, comparing both lenses at full aperture.
However, it seems to me if one is serious about resolution, one should always try to find out at what aperture one's lenses are sharpest. The Sigma 150-500 at full extension seems to be sharpest at F11, so that's the F stop one should always try to use if one wants the sharpest result at 500mm.
When a lens is described as being sharpest at a particular aperture, one needs to know 'how much sharper'. Whilst a Canon 100-400 might be noticeably sharper at F5.6 than the Sigma at F6.3, it might not be noticeably sharper than the Sigma at F11. Just as a lens can be very marginally sharper at F8 than it is at F11, it can also be only 'very marginally sharper' at F5.6 than at F8, or even equally sharp at F5.6 as it is at F8 and F11.
It's a pity that Photozone hasn't tested the Sigma 150-500 yet. However here's a test using the D800 with the lens, showing various test charts indicating that the lens is sharpest at F11 at 500mm. One might be able to get equally sharp results F9 or F10, but F6.3 is clearly much softer. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-500mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM/
-
Ray,
thank you for the link with review of Sigma 150-500 on D800, and for pointing out that that lens is sharpest at F11.
I used to open up the lens so I could shoot at higher shutter speed, since I found out that at the slower shutter speeds I wasn't getting the required sharpness, even with the stabilization on. Indeed, at F6.3 the pictures were soft.
Now I see that it might be better to raise ISO slightly. Shooting with that lens at ISO400 and F11 should yield a better image than at ISO200 and F8.
Here is a recent unsharpened image (reduced to 800 pixels, along with a 100% crop), shot handheld across the bay with D300 and Sigma 150-500 at ISO200, F8, and 1/800s, at 500mm.
-
Not too bad, Les. Thanks for showing the crops. The lower crop with the plant pots slightly in the foreground would be the sort of shot which would benefit from the use of F11. Not only would F11 be slightly sharper than F8, but the additional DoF should also make the plants noticeably sharper.
It seems a bit strange to me with all this activity bringing out new models of cameras almost every week, that no manufacturer has brought out a high quality, reasonably light, F5.6 (or F6.3) telephoto zoom beyond 400mm, even for DX. What's the problem? The Sigma 150-500 is clearly excellent value, but one can't help wondering what sort of quality would have been possible at just twice the price.
I don''t mind spending $2,000 on a high-quality product, but 6 or $7,000 is too much. There seems to be a gap in the market.
-
It is probably reasonnable to assume that compact upgraders are overall less knowledgeable and therefore more attracted by high specs?
Of course they are.
But all "compact upgraders" are not totally ignorant ;D, and
1) this D3200 is relatively cheap (USD 700 with a useless kit lens)
2) it's new
3) it's lightweight (500 g with battery)
Personally, I'm not very interested in the MP count. I have an old 8 MP DSLR and it's more than enough. But it's dying. I don't need to fill my computer with 24 MP pictures. "Photography" is just a hobby for me, I don't want and don't need to pay too much for a fancy camera body that I will never master, and the D3200 can also be used at 6 and 12 MP.
So, considering that a camera phone released recently has a 38MP sensor, I think that this 24 MP "entry level" D3200 body is kind of fun... It's a risk-free way to get a camera body with a decent sensor and have fun with a good lens. Why a "compact upgraders" should pay more for an older, heavier body with less pixels ? When I purchased my 8MP DSLR many years ago, I was terrified by those big files with so many useless pixels... Now, my camera phone captures 8 MP "pictures". So I just want to ignore the megapixels. 8, 16 or 24, it does not matter.
Something else about what theguywitha645d wrote earlier about cropping. I am probably a naive "compact upgraders", but I believe that any picture is cropped reality. When we capture an image, we crop what we have in front of our eyes. So what is bad with cropping again our digital images ? When I play with my pictures, I just try to show what I want to show. Reality was cropped by the lens, it was cropped again by the ratio of the sensor (what is natural in a 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1 image?), and I think that cropping it a last time with Lightroom is not a big deal.
-
The D3200 is no paradox. It is a very good light weight 24 megapixel DX tool. The Nikon D3200 buyer might be an advanced user who was tired of the heavy D7000, and wanted a lighter camera in DX to use those times when a tele-converter would be useful on my D800E without down side of loss of resolution associated with the extra glass plus the loss of 1.7 stops of light. DxOMark rates the D3200 above the D7000 in resolution by a wide margin. That is what I care about. I do not care about the other feathers that the computer in the camera has or does not have. If I take a shot and look at the upgraded back screen on the D3200, I'm smart enough to know which direction to turn the Exposure adjustment control, before I make another exposure.
I sold my D7000, after using it over a year, for near what I paid for it, bought the D3200 and used the money I had left over to help pay for a AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 G.
It just could be that the D3200 makes sense for more than just for novice users.
Have a nice day.
-
DxOMark rates the D3200 above the D7000 in resolution by a wide margin.
I wasn't aware that DXOMark rate the resolution of cameras. Can you show me their rating? In my experience, a 50% increase in pixel count does not represent a big increase in resolution. I'd estimate it to be in the order of 10-20%, depending on lens quality and F stop used.
If I take a shot and look at the upgraded back screen on the D3200, I'm smart enough to know which direction to turn the Exposure adjustment control, before I make another exposure.
But are you smart enough to do that in a fraction of a second in order to make another exposure before the bird has flown and the scene has perhaps changed for the worse and the moment is lost? Even the best P&S cameras have auto-exposure bracketing.
MLU is another mystery. Despite an extensive search on the net, I can find no definitive answer to this; merely suggestions that the mirror might stay up in LiveView mode when the shutter is released. If the mirror does stay up in LiveView mode, then that would be sufficient for me.
Since you claim to own a D3200, are you able to shed light on this mystery? Does the mirror stay up in Live View mode until the exposure is complete?
Regards,
Ray
-
DxOMark Sensor Scores D3200
Overall Score[?] 81
Portrait
(Color Depth)[?] 24.1 bits
Landscape
(Dynamic Range)[?] 13.2 Evs
Sports
(Low-Light ISO)[?] 1131 ISO
DxOMark Sensor Scores D7000
Overall Score[?] 80
Portrait
(Color Depth)[?] 23.5 bits
Landscape
(Dynamic Range)[?] 13.9 Evs
Sports
(Low-Light ISO)[?] 1167 ISO
The D3200 out scores the D7000 overall by one point. The two are very close. For the weight and price. I sold my D7000 when I upgraded to the D800E. For a DX body, the D3200 is a better fit for me.
-
Since you choose to include, "Since you claim to own a D3200", I will not reply to your post. Take your sarcasm somewhere else.
-
Since you choose to include, "Since you claim to own a D3200", I will not reply to your post. Take your sarcasm somewhere else.
Ah! I see you are a fan boy. Never mind! You're information would likely not be reliable anyway.
-
None of this nonsense please. I have ZERO patience for it these days.
Everyone stay civil or be gone.
Michael
-
None of this nonsense please. I have ZERO patience for it these days.
Everyone stay civil or be gone.
Michael
I was briefly tempted to say something regarding the tone of a couple of the recent posts myself, given that I've contributed to this thread, but decided it wasn't my place. However, I'm glad you stepped in, Michael—and, like so many of us who spend time on this site, delighted you're feeling well enough again to intervene.
One of the many good things I've always felt distinguished Lu-La from other photograph forums was its civility. I attribute that partly to the Canadian influence (lest anyone think Canadians tend to toot their own horns, I hasten to add that I live well south of the border) as well as to the generally cooperative attitude of the forum contributors. I've learned a lot from the mostly polite and helpful responses to my inquiries, even when my question betrayed my own ignorance. Be a pity to see that deteriorate.
Chris
-
Sorry! Michael. My fault. I should have known better.
Hope you are recuperating well.
Best wishes, Ray
-
Hi Michael,
Nice to have you back and take care!
Best regards
Erik
None of this nonsense please. I have ZERO patience for it these days.
Everyone stay civil or be gone.
Michael