therwol Loc: USA

Which lenses? Where did you go to find out what they're worth?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not know about many of the comments. A large Mpx camera is not for everyone and not a tool 'to compose after the fact' by example*. Like everything else it is about potential. This potential is only used through the skills of the user as a photographer and his knowledge of the camera.

The rest is basically BS.

IF there is an upgrade, IF being the keyword, one has to first see if it is a true upgrade and not an incremental revamping of a good camera just to attract those who indeed purchase the 'latest'. If it is a true redefining upgrade like the D4~D5 or D300~D500 there should be a rush to get the new stuff with good reasons.

This 'new camera' being a rumor, I am not holding my breath. When it becomes reality and the camera is a true upgrade then i will open my wallet. In the mean time I keep adding to the pot every month.

-----
* Same moronic argument used to dismiss the use of 'raw': 'Oh it is a format/camera made to correct the nincompoop amateurish camera holders (with a big wallet)'. This dismissal is rather idiotic as with all tools the more sophisticated they become the more skills are needed to use them. Something that rubs too many the wrong way because adapting to new technology really means retraining.

globtrotr

What! Check out the D500. A really nice APSc sensor in a truly amazing camera body. Worth the wait!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I checked two lenses on sale used graded 9 on B&H. My 24-70, paid $1870 is now going for $1374. My 28-300, paid $1100+, now going for $734 (that's a deal for somebody).

therwol Loc: USA

I don't think that's so bad. Those prices will probably hold up for a long time.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I believe you're spot on about the capabilities of the D500 and the D5 as those are my prime bodies for action sports. I've owned the D5 since release and can't say enough good things. I purchased a D500 in December, with the free battery pack deal, and I am equally impressed. It has many of the wonderful features only also found in the D5 without the weight or the cost. I consider my D810 a great camera for everything I've asked it to do EXCEPT for action sports. IMHO, it's neither built nor designed for that work. For almost everything else, it just can't be beat. When its replacement arrives, I will purchase one only if it gives me something that I need, or would be very useful, and don't have now. An additional bunch of Megapixels will not be the main reason, if I purchase one. For me, the D810 is built for quality, not quantity. Best of luck.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

I think the advances in print imaging technology are impressive, and to an extent mitigate some of the need for ever more megapixels. As an example, Mike Chaney (creator of Qimage) has a new interpolation method that allows you to double the native resolution of your printer. For a Canon printer that means you can now print at 1200 dpi instead of 600 dpi. The output is pretty amazing. I tried it out on a 16x24 print, and was blown away.

If this is of interest, here is a link to the article on the ddisoftware website: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-prt.htm

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I did not print anything but....

If a printer has physical limitations of 600DPI you cannot change that to 1200.
LR default (240) limitations and warning are correctable w/o trouble so trying to say this program does it better because it directly addresses the printer default is iffy at best.

Now using software to recalculate the image appearance is indeed possible but that also can also create problems (see the image I posted, straight from the web site). The arrows point to problems like the lines that appear in the bands as well as a blotch that is not present in the original (that blotch could be a scanner issue thought). The blacks are denatured, they run green, The beige line in the white goes from light in the wider area to darker where it is thinner...

I am not impressed at all.

Do not forget that regardless of what you do it still is 600DPI print so for me there is a misrepresentation of what this program can do. That alone will keep me away from this, sorry. Note that is why I looked more into details.

(Download)

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Rongnongno - my suggestion is print something, and then comment. That's what I did.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And my answer is to look at what the company toots as 'superior', using their own stuff.

It simply is not up to par, sorry.

You are happy with it? Great.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Rongnongno - No reason to be sorry; you are allowed to be wrong. The image you used was from a 2011 article printed at 600 ppi on a Canon Pro 9000 printer using a 5 year older version of Qimage. I am attaching the 2400 ppi scanned images of actual prints using Qimage's overdrive interpolation. I looked at these in Photoshop at extreme magnification, which wasn't really necessary as the difference is visible to the naked eye. The proof is in the pudding, and the print I made bore this out.

So I guess I will stand by my original suggestion - before you tell others something is no good, you might want to actually try it.

(Download)

Bill_de Loc: US

I wonder how On1 Resize (formerly Genuine Fractals) would compare.

--

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not think you actually get it...

This is a piece of software that manipulates the image to be printed as 1200 DPI. The problem is that the 1200 DPI claim not possible. A 600 DPI printer will still be 600 DPI however hard you* try to claim achieving that 1200 DPI feat.

That the software manipulation leave artifacts is normal. Now, if you or anyone else is willing to live with that (see arrows) that is fine. As to the image you posted just look and compare and you will see problems in there too. Just more subtle. I find the Mosaic problem interesting. Looks like a magazine scanned image, not a inkjet/laser print scan. I compared all other sets by D/L then flipped to check them.

So forgive me for debunking this 1200 DPI lie** and pointing out the problems in processed images.

I did not address the other flat out misinformation about LR this time.

On the printer driver (ICC profile) can it be improved to get better results? I do not doubt that but then again, the 1200 DPI claim gets in the way.

Am I wrong to point out the issues w/o trying this? No.

Are you wrong to say you like it? Absolutely not. If you like the result, that is good for you. For me, looking at samples that are supposed to convince to purchase this? Sorry, they are driving me away as much as the false claim.

-----
* You as company, not you as an individual or user.
** I did not see any disclaimer stating that the printer still printed at 600DPI.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Okay, so now that we've determined you won't believe your lying eyes, I have another (and final) suggestion for you. Check out Luminous Landscape's printing forum. Search on "Qimage overdrive", and look at the first couple of posts. The commentors on this forum are universally acknowledged to be some of the best and brightest when it comes to all things printers. However, since you already called Mike Chaney a liar, I suspect that won't make any difference to you. Its kind of like a high school football coach saying Bill Belichik doesn't know what he's doing.

(Download)

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

I have both of those lenses and love them. Paid 1895 for the 24 - 70 f2.8 and bought the 28-300 from B&H for around the used price you mentioned. One of the best decisions I made . Although I like the 24-70 for indoor shooting the best.