I could not resist, even with the LX200 rumor! Also, I'm going to a grandson graduation in Hawaii and visiting a daughter in Italy, so I do not want to carry my D810 with it's heavy lenses. Took a trip to California last week to see some other children and only took the LX100. Yes, it does not have 36 MP nor the zoom of my 80-200 mm f/2.8 lens, but it did everything I could ask for plus some other features to boot.

Todd

I too am going on a trip for my grandson's graduation in Hawaii and then to visit our daughter in Italy, so I needed something easier to carry than my D810 and either my 24-70 f/2.8 or the 50 mm f/1.4. Nothing smaller can equal the 36 MB sensor, so I'm not going to try. All I want is something that will give me some images that will make good 8 X 10's. My choice: Panasonic LX100.

While visiting other children last week, that was the only camera I took and I'm quite happy. Yes, I wish it had more zoom and a 16 MP sensor, however it has many other offsetting features -- nothing is perfect.

Todd

Though I use Nikon, I think the Canon 35 f/1.4 only has a focus override on the lens. Sometimes after whatever he did with his left hand on the lens, he took several pictures *without* putting the camera to his eye, then took a quick look at the LCD screen. Fascinating for me to watch as he continually moved repeating that process.

He seemed to have the sequence of checking the viewer (at least, most of the time) and then with his left hand, make some adjustment to the outer ring of his lens - not something I see when observing photographers in video coverage.

He certainly makes it all work!

(Download)

During the live coverage of the Pope's visit, Pete Souza was present in many scenes with what appeared to be his Canon EOS 5d Mk II and his favorite 35 mm f/1.4 lens. In many of his sequences he appeared to be using manual focus with slight adjustments between each shot. Anybody else note him "at work"? Manual focus? Maybe Manual mode too?

Another interesting observation was the second camera with a "potato masher" flash attached (looked like a Metz) - not something I see these days.

Thank you all for your detailed responses; greatly appreciated. Yes, as a software developer that has written applications involving the various conversions of image resolutions and compression's (with resulting file size changes), I should have been more exacting in throwing around MP and MB. Leaving out the different compression algorithms, I was not paying attention to the 12 bit and 14 bit depths, which influence the file size (versus 8 bit JPEG's).

And, yes the article I read on the gimmick of "small RAW" should have set my mind straight...it didn't unfortunately. A couple of my clients only need 5 X 7's at 72 dpi, so 1,000 images take up a lot of unneeded disk space...time for my D700. For other times, those 36 MP's are really nice.

With appreciation,

Todd

I am an owner of a Nikon D810 and most of my event images do not need 36 MB resolution, so I decided to try the small RAW setting. The menu says that large RAW is 36 MP and small is 9 MP, however the small actually average around 29 MB files.

What am I missing? Or is really 3 X 9 due to the three pixels needed for re, green and blue?

Todd

Thank you for the suggestion of slrgear.com. It definitely answered my questions about the Nikon 24-120 f/4.0 vs. the 24-70 f/2.8: you pay for the increase in quality through $$$ and weight. Though my 28-70 f/2.8 was not specifically tested, the reviews at slrgear and elsewhere indicate that the quality justifies the weight. So, if I want to travel "light and compact" with my D700 and/or D750, it is hard to beat a 50mm f/1.4 with 35mm f/1.8.

I currently use the HEAVY Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 for general event images. After checking out the 18-120 f/4.0 lighter lens, I was disappointed in one site's report on chromatic aberration.

Maybe I need to carry a couple of lenses e.g. 35, 50 and 105 like the old days.

Todd

It is a very interesting point you make. In our area, fly fishing is very popular and to observe the Gadget Acquisition Syndrome contrasted against the newly popular fishing rod: the Tenkara (http://www.tenkarausa.com/), a simple rod with no reel.

Thank you for the inspiration. In my community, I'm surrounded with many professional photographers, including in my Rotary club. So many times they have encouraged me to leave my heavy artillery home and learn to "see" with one lens. Of course, I resist...probably out of insecurity. Yet I spent years with a Leica M4 and a 50 mm...need to let go of my Gadget Acquisition Syndrome.

With several friends loving their Fuji X100T for travel and me without the $$$ at this time to get one and wanting to travel light and compact, I have a question: has anyone on this forum traveled with just a prime 35 mm lens on their DSLR. I have done so with a 50 mm f/1.4 and really enjoyed having such a "light" camera...none of those f/2.8 zooms and such a small accessory bag: batteries and charger plus a card or two.

I realize it would take some getting use to the 35 mm perspective where foreground is more important.

What is the brand of your walking stick? Been looking for one that can be used as a mono-pod...though not for my 80-200...it needs a special bracket as stated in a prior message.

Hey, I'm 76 and use one of the original, push-pull models (80-200 f/2.8) mostly hand held. To use a tripod or mono-pod I need a special adapter which is an inconvenience. However that lens is SO sharp.

I routinely see the current Nikon and Canon equivalent used by the press, hand held. With the great results of the sensors in today's pro grade cameras, using high ISOs allows for high shutter speeds.

I have a 24" portable softbox with the double diffusion and it is particularly handy if I have an assistant to hold it. However it is bulky and for portable use, not as convenient (the price for soft light) as the umbrella. Are there small (40") double diffused umbrellas? I have not found any.

Todd