tamerlin

<p>I went through the same debate a couple of years ago, and ended up going with the Nex family. I picked that over the micro 4/3 series mainly because of the combination of smaller bodies and larger sensors, and two years later I think I made the right choice. I just got some 16x24 prints from Aspen Creek and put them up on display in a coffee shop, and they do look gorgeous. I don't think that I'd print larger than that from a Nex-7, but up to there I'd be pretty confident... and I still shoot 4x5 :)</p>

<p>I'm not REALLY new here... but I haven't been active in a long time. My web site is, however, new:<br>

<a href="http://www.WhiteCranePhotography.com">www.WhiteCranePhotography.com</a><br>

<br />It's still a mix of film and digital work, with the addition of video and a newly integrated PhotoShelter back end :)</p>

Was it used? I got mine new, and it came with a spirit level (one of the

shoe-mount dealies).

Huy,

It depends on which part of the math you're talking about. The 1.4 factor specifically applies to the diameter of the lens opening, so it would not hold for a non-circular lens opening.

The fact that each f-stop is a result of doubling (or halving, depending on which direction you choose to count in) the area of the lens opening is, as you pointed out, not dependent on the shape of the opening.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned www.blender.org yet -- since

it's remarkably powerful and FREE.

For the crumple use a noise texture in the displacement channel if your

software has one (most of them do now), and with a bit of tweaking you

should be able to get a pretty nice effect. LightWave has a crumple

procedural that might serve nicely, but LightWave isn't free. :)

There's that new Dell 24" LCD for around $1200 (unless you catch on

sale for less).

A fair number of the recent graphics cards will happily drive it at its

native resolution, but you do need to check the card before you buy in

order to be certain.

In an astronomy guide to telescope buying, there was a rather extensive

description of tradeoffs between 'scopes... some were extremely portable

and others had all sorts of automation to make finding stars easier.

But the conclusion was that the best 'scope is the one that you use.

I think that works here, no? :)

I'm not actually a rangefinder user yet, but I'm probably going to be getting either a Leica M7 or XPanII in the (moderately) near future...

and it seems to me that the rangefinders would be great for landscape

shots, and it's hard to argue with the XPanII!

But my primary reason for possibly making the jump (I currently use a

Digital Rebel) is basically ergonomics; I like my Rebel, but it is

pretty big, and that's with just F4 lenses (70-200 F4 L and

17-40 F4L). Well, there's also the 50 mm F1.8, but that's the

exception, size-wise.

I've been interested in getting faster lenses, but given how large

the ones I have now are, the larger ones' size is a tad off-putting.

So a compact camera with high image quality, manual control (I'm

hooked on that), AND interchangable lenses? Ok that was enough...

but when you compare lens prices, the rangefinder ones look to be

less expensive for a given focal length + aperture (or comparably

price with a wider aperture) than comparable Canon L lenses.

So why wouldn't they make great landscape cams?

Besides, what do you think I'm more likely to take on a 100 mile

bike ride, a dSLR with a 2-pound lens, or a compact rangefinder with

a spare lens? :)

Sigh... yet another round of expensive toys to buy... and a rather

odd place for my first post, but hey you have to start somewhere, eh?