Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mort, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. Wally <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:27:14 -0500, nospam <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <k9alni$287$>, Tim Conway
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
    >>> files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

    >>
    >>file size doesn't mean much.
    >>
    >>what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
    >>is lossy and it throws out information.
    >>
    >>anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
    >>smaller.

    >
    >Try compressing a JPG.



    I am astonished at the level of expertise on show in this thread.
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 30, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>> have
    >>>>> an
    >>>>> example?
    >>>>
    >>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>
    >>> I agree.
    >>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    >> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>
    >>

    >I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    >list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    >saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
    >sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    >format.
    >


    Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
    destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 30, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
    >>>>>>> stops
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> an
    >>>>>> example?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree.
    >>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
    >>> ones,
    >>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    >> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    >> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
    >> editing
    >> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    >> format.

    >
    > Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
    > intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.
    >

    I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
    usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
    Tim
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 30, 2012
    #23
  4. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 4:07 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>> have
    >>>>> an
    >>>>> example?
    >>>>
    >>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>
    >>> I agree.
    >>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    >> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>
    >>

    > I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    > list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    > saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
    > sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    > format.
    >
    >


    Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I
    also make extensive use of layers.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #24
  5. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
    >>>>>>> stops
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> an
    >>>>>> example?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree.
    >>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
    >>> ones,
    >>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    >> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    >> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
    >> editing
    >> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    >> format.

    >
    > Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
    > intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.
    >

    PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #25
  6. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    >>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> an
    >>>>>> example?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>>>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree.
    >>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    >>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    >> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    >> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
    >> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    >> format.
    >>

    >
    > Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
    > destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.
    >
    >


    The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #26
  7. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:CzAts.676216$A%4...
    >
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:k94gvl$ih9$...
    >
    >> Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much
    >> lattitude as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so
    >> to take advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude
    >> favours overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and
    >> slide film)

    >
    > I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it.


    Your choice, those of us that did film developing find it FAR easier :)


    > Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement
    > over simpler JPEG.


    Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
    throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives, I
    don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is is
    up to you of course.


    > I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
    > higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
    > the pixels, right?


    Nope, increasing ISO increases noise.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #27
  8. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    news:-September.org...
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real

    > intuitive and
    >> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

    >
    >
    > No real improvement?
    >
    > Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    > dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?


    You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far more
    than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control over
    the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #28
  9. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:j6fus.520024$4...
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    >> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

    >
    > You can edit anything non-destructively.


    Right, but you can't save it back to Jpeg non destructively, so why start
    with a lossy Jpeg in the first place?
    I can't see the point myself since you can easily set up PS or LR to
    automaticly apply your camera settings when you open a RAW file if that's
    all you want to do. If I really needed to print direct from the camera I can
    save RAW+Jpeg, never do though.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #29
  10. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <25fus.520017$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > >> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    > >> an example?

    > >
    > > then you're doing something wrong.
    > >
    > > a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    > > recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

    >
    > I do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not
    > wives tale.


    nobody said you can't do it in jpeg. of course you can.

    the point is the results from jpeg will be worse than if you were
    working with raw, and since the workflow is same, there is no point in
    *not* using raw.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #30
  11. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <j6fus.520024$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > > One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    > > is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

    >
    > You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.


    except that jpeg is already destructive.

    you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
    what was done to make the jpeg.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #31
  12. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <Iefus.385511$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    > Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    > discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    > going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    > wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
    > through all that RAW rigamarole.


    what rigamarole?

    you say you have lightroom, so import the raws and adjust as desired.
    the workflow is identical to jpegs and the results are a lot better.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #32
  13. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >>an
    >>example?
    >>

    >
    > Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!
    >
    > It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
    > camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
    > every
    > single pic I took...
    >
    > My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
    > advantage to
    > using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
    > with the
    > extra light range that RAW gives you.
    >
    > The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
    > the
    > camera is barely adequate,


    Right, Nikon want to sell you better software for more money. But any
    serious photographer is probably already using PS or LR, so RAW is no
    problem.


    >you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or something
    > to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
    > can
    > be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).


    Exactly, maybe even 16 bits when sensor technology gets there. I doubt too
    many people are buying D800's now to *only* shoot RAW, let alone anything
    better though.


    > Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
    > over-expose
    > digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
    > don't
    > shoot raw, you can't do either.


    Actually you don't want to "over-expose" digital or you get white clipping.
    You DO need to shoot RAW so you get as much shadow detail as possible
    without clipping the whites.
    Of course if you image is low DNR and image quality is totally irrelevent,
    shooting Jpeg is not an issue.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #33
  14. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:25fus.520017$4...
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:301120121053428284%...
    >> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> >> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>> >> intuitive and
    >>> >> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>> >
    >>> > No real improvement?
    >>> >
    >>> > Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>> > of
    >>> > dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>
    >>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>> have an
    >>> example?

    >>
    >> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>
    >> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

    >
    > I do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not
    > wives tale.



    Right, you can do anything with Jpeg that you can do with RAW, as long as
    image quality is irrelevant to you.
    Do you even own a DSLR?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #34
  15. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:Iefus.385511$4...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>>I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >>>an
    >>>example?

    >> Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!
    >>
    >> It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
    >> camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
    >> every
    >> single pic I took...
    >>
    >> My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
    >> advantage to
    >> using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
    >> with the
    >> extra light range that RAW gives you.
    >>
    >> The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
    >> the
    >> camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
    >> something
    >> to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations)
    >> Raw can
    >> be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).
    >>
    >> Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
    >> over-expose
    >> digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
    >> don't
    >> shoot raw, you can't do either.

    >
    > I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    > Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    > discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    > going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    > wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
    > through all that RAW rigamarole.


    Sad to think of someone shooting a wedding and throwing out half the image
    quality, but there you go.
    PS or Lightroom can automaticly apply your camera adjustments to RAW files
    when you do that "processing" just as the camera does to the jpegs. You sure
    don't know much if you "shudder at the thought of all that processing" you
    computer does for you!
    Frankly you seem to be proud of your ignorance, why?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 1, 2012
    #35
  16. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <BLgus.885771$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > >> You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.

    > >
    > > except that jpeg is already destructive.
    > >
    > > you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
    > > what was done to make the jpeg.

    >
    > Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
    > sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
    > as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?


    if you mean opening a jpeg in camera raw, that is *not* converting it
    to raw, it just lets you use the camera raw controls, but on jpeg.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #36
  17. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <9Ugus.800360$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
    > of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
    > superiority of image.


    test it yourself, and you won't be able to accuse anyone of a biased
    test.

    shoot an image in both jpeg and raw with the camera set to the wrong
    white balance, then fix the white balance in post.

    raw does not have white balance until it's processed. jpeg does, so if
    you try to fix the white balance of a jpeg, you are going to have a far
    more difficult time and the results are not going to be anywhere near
    as good.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #37
  18. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <XZgus.801551$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
    > some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
    > own RAW codec. So that means that every single picture I take has to be
    > processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
    > showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.


    lightroom does it automatically. in fact, it is so easy that it's no
    different than jpeg.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2012
    #38
  19. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 01/12/2012 04:14, Trevor wrote:
    []
    > Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
    > throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives, I
    > don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is is
    > up to you of course.

    []
    > Trevor.


    The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater
    than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 1, 2012
    #39
  20. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 01/12/2012 04:19, Trevor wrote:
    []
    > You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far more
    > than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control over
    > the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!!
    >
    > Trevor.


    False, because the RAW has a linear encoding, and the JPEG a
    gamma-corrected coding, meaning that is can represent light levels far
    lower than 1/256 of the white value. It's /not/ a simple 8-bit versus
    14-bit comparison.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 1, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pat McGroyn

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Pat McGroyn, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    338
    PeterN
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    266
    Trevor
    Nov 26, 2012
  3. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    296
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    221
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
  5. Tim Conway

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Tim Conway, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page