I am also a D90 photographer. I bought mine 7 years ago, and other than the Canon SX50 I bought just for it’s 50x optical zoom to 1,200mm, the D90 is the only DX camera I own and use.

Like most everyone, I see and read the reviews of all the new cameras that come out and think, wow, I’d sure love to have one of those. But then reality kicks in and I ask myself, “Will that new camera make me a better photographer?” The answer is no. A new camera would not improve my vision, imagination or artistic ability any more than a $400 Montblanc pen would make me a better writer than the $1 Bic pen I use now.

Everyone agrees the D90 is an excellent camera. Its capabilities far exceed my abilities and in no way would I presume to say that I have mastered it. When I get the urge to explore any photographic vision I may come up with, I think of technique, the lens I would need and what I could accomplish in post processing. For me, the lens is far more critical than the camera not to mention a good lens will rarely lose value whereas a digital camera body in a few years will be worth a fraction of its initial cost.

Maybe, maybe not. There's a reason it's called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Yep, it's a '73 Dodge Charger.

Nice work, Lauren. Pensive and reflective.

I too will be more than happy to take that batch of films off your hands.

As I understood Northrup's video, applying a 1.5 crop factor to a 2.8 aperture on an FX lens would make an aperture equivalent to 4.2 on a DX camera. Wouldn't that change the depth of field? I understand 2.8 is 2.8 whether DX or FX as far as light gathering goes but what about the depth of field?

The Tony Northrup video was interesting. I didn't realize that the crop factor on a DX camera applied not only to the focal length but to the aperture also. Now that is disappointing.

Good point. More than one road leads to Rome.

The only two agencies I’ve even heard of are the US Trade and Development Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts. I seriously doubt the aged or the poor are dependent on any one of these frivolous agencies in any manner whatsoever.

I think we can also add in Tampa Bay Bucs Coach John McKay’s answer to the question, “What do you think of your team’s execution, Coach?”, to which McKay replied, “I’m in favor of it.”

Very, very nice. Great job!

Good one, Samantha. Heard it before but it's still funny as hell.

I believe the keyword can be found in Amendment One of the Constitution, "...the right of the people 'peaceably' to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

“Climate change” an appallingly stupid euphemism. The climate is always changing. The environmentalists are the real climate-change “deniers” because they basically want global temperatures to maintain absolute static relative to 1970—not coincidentally the point at which environmentalists first began paying any attention to the issue. Earth's climate may be the single most complex thing we've ever studied. Tens of thousands, possibly millions, of variables, all interacting in countless ways including countless feedback loops. Utterly unknown upper-atmosphere processes. Equally unknown oceanographic effects. And the climate "scientists" want to pretend all that damn-near-infinite complexity doesn't exist and claim it's all about CO2.

I am proud to report that I survived the coming ice age that Jimmy Carter, his fellow leftists, and the consensus of scientists were screaming about in the '70's and '80's. I expect I shall soon be able to report that I also survived the "Global Warming" hysteria so di rigueur with today's leftists.

I too have a Leatherman Wingman on my belt and a Swiss Army Tinker in my pocket. Hardly a day goes by I don't use one or the other.