Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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

  1. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:N8Cvs.388315$4...
    > Probably very few here have your sensitivity, intelligence, and taste.
    > Just give us our Instamatics and gruel and a flask and we're happy.


    Which is fine, as long as you don't keep arguing that is all that should be
    necessary for the rest of us too.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>news:...
    >>>>>If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
    >>>>>work.
    >>>>>In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
    >>>>>white
    >>>>>light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
    >>>>>what
    >>>>>the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
    >>>>>light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
    >>>>>confuse any AWB system.)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
    >>>>thousands
    >>>>of
    >>>>photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
    >>>>quite
    >>>>well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
    >>>>colour's
    >>>>of
    >>>>surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
    >>>>humans are
    >>>>about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
    >>>>values.
    >>>>(Except for certain African's of course!)
    >>>
    >>> My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
    >>> describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
    >>> those days.

    >>
    >>How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had to
    >>to
    >>choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those days.
    >>My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg myself,
    >>but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.
    >>

    > I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
    > to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
    > camera had no ability to control colour balance.



    Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
    > to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide
    > which most definitely provides the information he says that he
    > requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
    > acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
    > I think he is a troll.


    Well he already admits he is ignorant at least, and doesn't appear to want
    to change that.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
  4. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 05/12/2012 05:36, Trevor wrote:
    > "David Taylor" <> wrote in message
    > news:k9ci5o$e10$...
    >>> 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!!!

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > Of course it is, any clipping and gamma curve that is applied by the camera
    > (over which you have very little or no control) can also be applied to the
    > RAW file with complete control in post. All captured data remains available
    > in RAW for post processing in any way necessary for each individual image,
    > but NOT in Jpeg.
    >
    > Trevor.


    "All captured data remains available in RAW" - agreed with that, but not
    agreed with the "full 6 stops [loss using JPEG]".
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 5, 2012
  5. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 05/12/2012 05:30, Trevor wrote:
    > "David Taylor" <> wrote in message

    []
    >> The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater
    >> than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less.

    >
    > What a load of crap. Yes a default curve is applied in camera to save a
    > little more than 8 stops, and thus reducing precision. However the dynamic
    > range is also reduced or all photo's would look terribly flat and dull. With
    > RAW you have the benefit of applying the exact curve and clipping points
    > required for each particular image after the fact. Something you simply
    > cannot do before OR after with in camera Jpeg.
    >
    > Trevor.


    You only need to do the maths to see that what I said is true. It is
    the loss of precision, not dynamic range, which is the problem for
    JPEGs, although when you have cameras offering a greater resolution than
    the viewer is observing the effects of precision loss are averaged and
    may be rather less visible. E.g. smaller prints or photos for Web or TV
    viewing - typically 10 Mpix cameras but a 2 Mpix display.

    If you are viewing down to the pixel level (e.g. large prints) or need a
    fair amount of exposure correction in post-processing, RAW will be the
    best choice.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 5, 2012
  6. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
    >to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide
    >which most definitely provides the information he says that he
    >requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
    >acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
    >I think he is a troll.



    No, he is not a troll, just stubbornly ignorant
    and stubbornly proud of it.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 5, 2012
  7. Mort

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:22:39 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 12/1/2012 12:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:301120122336432516%...
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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?
    >>

    >Any missing information from the JPEG, that is attempted to be
    >reconstructed is, of necessity, through some interpolation algorithm. By
    >definition interpolation is a guess. That's like saying after converting
    >to an sRGB color space, you can convert back to RGB, or ProPhotoRGB.


    For color space conversions it depends on how you do the conversion.

    Also, it's when you convert from a wider gamut (like ProPhoto or
    Adobe) to a narrower gamut (like sRGB) that you're doing
    interpolation. For a given number of bits per pixel or color channel,
    a narrower gamut color space will be able to resolve more colors in a
    given color range than a wide gamut. It's analogous to taking pics
    with the same lens on a full-frame and an APC-C with the same # of
    megapixels on each sensor. The smaller one will cover a smaller field
    of vision, but with finer detail within that region.
     
    John A., Dec 5, 2012
  8. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Elliott Roper" <> wrote in message
    news:051220121605486991%...
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >> I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
    >> to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide
    >> which most definitely provides the information he says that he
    >> requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
    >> acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.

    >
    > Thanks for that link. It was an interesting piece. I don't see the same
    > 'flatness' in original RAWs that it shows. I'm using the same camera,
    > but I'm using Apple's Aperture. I think what happens is that even for
    > the 'original image' that Aperture displays, it is showing it with
    > default "RAW fine tuning" adjustments already made.
    > If I turn boost down to 0 in the RAW fine tuning, the adjusted version
    > goes flat like the slrlounge article displays, but the "original image"
    > stays very similar to the in-camera jpg.
    >
    > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".


    As does ACR on Windows for me and many others.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 6, 2012
  9. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:26:08 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
    >>>>>>>work.
    >>>>>>>In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
    >>>>>>>white
    >>>>>>>light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
    >>>>>>>what
    >>>>>>>the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what
    >>>>>>>the
    >>>>>>>light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both
    >>>>>>>will
    >>>>>>>confuse any AWB system.)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
    >>>>>>thousands
    >>>>>>of
    >>>>>>photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
    >>>>>>quite
    >>>>>>well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
    >>>>>>colour's
    >>>>>>of
    >>>>>>surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
    >>>>>>humans are
    >>>>>>about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
    >>>>>>values.
    >>>>>>(Except for certain African's of course!)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
    >>>>> describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
    >>>>> those days.
    >>>>
    >>>>How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had
    >>>>to
    >>>>to
    >>>>choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those
    >>>>days.
    >>>>My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg
    >>>>myself,
    >>>>but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.
    >>>>
    >>> I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
    >>> to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
    >>> camera had no ability to control colour balance.

    >>
    >>
    >>Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.
    >>

    > Correction: I was replying to a PARAGRAPH about "exposure and color".



    Yep, what you replied to was about AWB, and what you wrote was irrelevant.

    > I presumed that most persons knew that a film camera has no ability to
    > control colour balance and that the F801s could only control exposure.


    Right, so why bother to write it in response to "AWB can't possibly
    work...."

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 6, 2012
  10. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:48:42 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>> The purpose of the 24/96 system is to aid in mixing multi-channel sound.
    >>> If you
    >>> want to mix down 2 tracks, for example, in 16/44 you would have to drop
    >>> the
    >>> levels by 3db. If you want more tracks, you have to cut even more, and
    >>> since
    >>> each bit represents 3db,


    6dB actually. But don't forget each track you add also gives you 6dB more
    level, so you lose no S/N by adding tracks *unless* they contain no signal.
    The idea is to mute or "duck" the tracks where there is no signal.


    >you eventually are left with 8 bit noisy crap!
    >>
    >>I don't get this Bob - what does the number of channels have to do with
    >>bitrate for each channel?
    >>

    >
    > I'm not referring to the bit RATE here, but the bit DEPTH... the 24
    > compared to
    > the 16...
    >
    > You can afford to drop 8 bits and still get a S/N of 96db.


    Nope, since no 24 bit recorder actually does 24 bits (since you'd need
    everything close to absolete zero temp to physically do so!)
    A good 24 bit recorder does a maximum 18-20 bits real dynamic range (and
    they are very close to what is physically possible without supercooling
    now), giving you about 3 more bits to play with, which is still better than
    not having it of course.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 6, 2012
  11. Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    > control colour balance and that the F801s could only control exposure.
    > It did this on the basis of a data base of thousands of images. It
    > must have had color sensitivity of some kind as, for example, it could
    > tell the difference between a large white-walled building and a snow
    > scene.


    So you're basically saying that there's no way to detect the
    difference between a large white-walled building and a snow
    scene without colour sensitivity, not even by seeing that the
    snow scene was much brighter than the building?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 6, 2012
  12. On 12/5/2012 10:05 AM, Elliott Roper wrote:
    >
    > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
    >


    Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

    I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
    is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
    so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
    complaints about how it shuffles.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 6, 2012
  13. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9qr0o$vjb$>, Doug McDonald
    <> wrote:

    > > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    > > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    > > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

    >
    > Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    > "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    > will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    > corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.


    bullshit.
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
  14. On 12/6/2012 3:32 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k9qr0o$vjb$>, Doug McDonald
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

    >>
    >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

    >
    > bullshit.
    >

    Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
    shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
    playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 6, 2012
  15. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9r6ru$em9$>, Doug McDonald
    <> wrote:

    > >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    > >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    > >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
    > >>
    > >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    > >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    > >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    > >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

    > >
    > > bullshit.

    >
    > Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
    > shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
    > playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.


    controls > shuffle > by album
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
  16. On 12/6/2012 4:51 PM, nospam wrote:> In article
    <k9r6ru$em9$>, Doug McDonald
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only

    why others
    >>>> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of

    processing
    >>>> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
    >>>>
    >>>> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    >>>> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    >>>> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    >>>> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
    >>>
    >>> bullshit.

    >>
    >> Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
    >> shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
    >> playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.

    >
    > controls > shuffle > by album
    >

    That works on previous iPods, not this model.
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 7, 2012
  17. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/12/2012 22:13, Elliott Roper wrote:
    > In article <k9qr0o$vjb$>, Doug McDonald
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 12/5/2012 10:05 AM, Elliott Roper wrote:

    >
    > (about Aperture and its preliminary RAW processing)
    >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
    >> >

    >>
    >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
    >>
    >> I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
    >> is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
    >> so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
    >> complaints about how it shuffles.

    >
    > That's what I like /so/ much about this group. Clear incisive argument
    > with deep insight into the subject at hand.


    Doug /is/ right about Apple, though.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 7, 2012
  18. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9s6cs$65a$>, David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > (about Aperture and its preliminary RAW processing)
    > >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
    > >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
    > >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
    > >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
    > >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
    > >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
    > >>
    > >> I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
    > >> is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
    > >> so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
    > >> complaints about how it shuffles.

    > >
    > > That's what I like /so/ much about this group. Clear incisive argument
    > > with deep insight into the subject at hand.

    >
    > Doug /is/ right about Apple, though.


    no he is not.
     
    nospam, Dec 7, 2012
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:32:44 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:20:52 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:9Ugus.800360$4...
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>If you are unable to demonstrate it for yourself, then it probably doesn't
    >>>>matter to *you* what the difference is. The rest of us already know and
    >>>>choose our work flow accordingly.
    >>>>
    >>> I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
    >>> to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide
    >>> which most definitely provides the information he says that he
    >>> requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
    >>> acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
    >>> I think he is a troll.
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> Eric Stevens

    >>
    >>**** you and the horse you rode in on. I have looked at it several times.

    >
    >Naughty naughty. You musn't lose your temper. The fact is that you
    >have never previously acknowledged that I have given you a URL leading
    >to a site which gives you the information you have kept bleating for.
    >You have missed so many times that you have put me in mind of Robert
    >A. Heinlein's "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three
    >times is enemy action".
    >
    >>No, it does not show any big difference in the images.

    >
    >Then you are blind.



    I think the term is 'wilfully blind'.

    There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see something
    because it would question their long- and firmly-held ignorant views.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 7, 2012
  20. Mort

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, December 6, 2012 10:40:12 PM UTC, Doug McDonald wrote:
    > On 12/6/2012 3:32 PM, nospam wrote:
    >
    > > In article <k9qr0o$vjb$>, Doug McDonald

    >
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others

    >
    > >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing

    >
    > >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is

    >
    > >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we

    >
    > >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of

    >
    > >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > bullshit.

    >
    > >

    >
    > Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
    >
    > shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
    >
    > playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.


    If yo're putting thimngs in order then it's not random.

    A friend had a problems saying his shuffle wasn't random but on checking itappears that the tracks he didn;t like as much as the ones he did came up the same number of times, his 'memory' was of taking it out his pocket to forward through the ones he liked least which resulded in him having a clearer memeory of the tracks he least like because he had to action when they came on.
    So it was mostly a purely a memory issue or how he percived randomness.

    I'ts similar to those that don't believe lottery numbers can come out in sequence like, 1234567 because they haven't witnessed it it can't happen and another striing of numbers that isn't recognised will come up more often, which isn't the case.


    >
    >
    >
    > Doug McDonald
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 7, 2012
    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:
    350
    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:
    273
    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:
    310
    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:
    226
    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:
    254
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page