Very good images.

Interesting for sure. But I wonder if they aligned the right 2 devices.
If a top 5 phone would compare to a top 5 compact. I wounder if a Samsung Galaxy S6 -v- a Sony RX100 IV, or any other similar comparison. To say they are both popular and have the same Mpix is not a good place to start. Then there is the ease of use, speed of use, do they shoot raw....I think the review just scratched the surface. The one thing that it showed that we are getting better camera phoned at a fast pace.

Thats awesome.
Thanks for sharing.

Thanks, That was in the afternoon. Waited for the sunset but it was a bust that day.

When I took this photo there was at least 100 people milling around. Enough people that I felt uncomfortable leaving my bag on the ground behind me.

http://gigapan.com/gigapans/173696

Goosenecks and Dead Horse are very cool.

This whole area is so amazing! In fact it can be a little overwhelming. It sounds like you've got a good handle on most of the big places. I would deftly recommend checking in with the BLM before you head off the pavement. As for house rock, versus horseshoe bend, I would go for the house rock. horseshoe bend can be very crowded, if you're not there at sunrise/sunset it can make for a bland shot. however if there are some patchy clouds in the sky, it can be amazing.

Toadstools and Paria are great.

There are several fantastic Sigma lenses. For instance the 35mm & 50mm Art lenses are better than their Nikon counterpart. However in this instance the Nikon lens is simply better. The Tamron version is pretty good, and has stabilization.

Not knowing what type of photography you do, makes it difficult to advise. I would suggest going to your local camera store with your camera body and take a few shots with the lenses you're considering.

Thank you.

You are right of course. However the challenge becomes finding a new perspective on an over covered location. Personally I don't worry about having another cliché photo in my portfolio. In fact I like the challenge of making something look fresh even though there are millions of photos floating around.

:thumbup: :thumbup:
They should be fine. But I would dry them thoroughly. Trash them IF in the future if they start acting up.

:thumbup:
The DF is pricey for what you get, but if you like it, And it makes you go out and shoot more it's worth it. Personally I felt it was more "form over function". Not having a split prism for manual focus, low frames per second, single card slot, and autofocus system that was three generations old, all convinced me that it wasn't worth it.

There are a lot of other options out there for less money than have better performance.

So I would recommend renting it, compare it to other bodies, then make a decision. If it helps you enjoy the photographic process than none of the shortcomings really matter.

:thumbup:
I have owned 7 different (5 dx, 2 fx) Nikon "D" bodies, and used the Canon 5DII & III, and 5DSr. But I would not recommend any of these for manual focus.

There may have been a time when it would have recommended them, but today you have to go with a full frame Sony body. They are simply light-years ahead of Canon and Nikon when it comes to manual focus. Conversely (INHO) Canon and Nikon are better than Sony, Fuji, and others, when it comes to autofocus, battery life…

Blending images together this way is often referred to as stitching. You can also do this in multiple rows to create a more traditional format IE 2x3, 4x5....even 1x1.
Pano, or panorama can be the result of this "process".

I agree with you, I too remember a time when great photos were achieved long before Photoshop.

However (caution old man rant coming)
Many of these images were post processed in the darkroom. I'm not sure why Photoshop evokes such a visceral reaction, considering photographic masters have been manipulating photos for a long time 100+ years. You could certainly say "now it is easy and anybody can do it" and that would be a misinformed argument. it's true that in this age of the Internet we get to see all of the "bad Photoshop" images along with the good ones. But let's not discount the good ones. The real difference is we now get to see all the poorly done images, and before digital, these images would never make it out of the photographer's basement.

So here is what makes the sad about this topic.
In 1981, 16 years old, I worked two jobs every day after school and on weekends. All so I could afford the darkroom set up I wanted. I could hardly wait for my special order Beseler XL large format enlarger. I spent hours in the darkroom, practicing until the chemicals made my fingers dry and cracked. I would use specific film, paper, and chemicals to get a desired look. Using colored filters on black and white paper to increase or decrease contrast. Dodging and burning, stacking negatives, shooting through transparencies, and indexing the print so it could be exposed multiple times. By the time I got into college, this skill set was considered good. In fact it was considered a big deal if you are really good in the darkroom. You could get a good paying job just doing retouching/printing (This is still true today). Now, some will look down on a person who is really good at post (Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture 1, DXO, whatever). It doesn't matter if they have spent hundreds of hours studying and honing their skills. And that is just sad.

To be clear, pressing a button to apply a filter, is not a skill. I believe these skills became bad when the internet allowed us to see the sh*t that should have never made it out of the basement. These skills only became bad when the internet (TV and some print publications) allowed people to distort reality so they could sell us something. HOPEFULLY fewer people will us it to "sell us something". Then those retouchers with skill will get there due.

http://fstoppers.com/business/photoshop-bad-business-nsfw-45163

When you are in aperture priority the camera adjust the shutter to match the change in ISO. Lighting especially fluorescent pulses and can confuse metering by a little.
Switch to manual.