Let me preface this by saying I have looked at a number of reviews lately and can't specifically remember the source of this particular review or for which lens it was about. However, I know that some hogger will probably demand a source so I'll try to find the review again.

I was recently reading a review of one of Sigma's recent lenses and came across an interesting comment made by the reviewer.

As many here know Sigma has recently released a number of new lenses (Art) that have exhibited extraordinary sharpness, not just at the center but also extremely good corner and edge sharpness. Apparently this is not just due to superior optical design...although Sigma seems to be getting pretty good at that.

In the review I read the author claimed that what Sigma is doing with these lenses is having them project an image circle that is larger than needed to fully cover the sensor. As a result the sensor effectively crops out the far edges and corners where you could expect image sharpness to fall off.

He also said that this is not being done by Sigma alone...that other lens makers are using the same trick. I remember he specifically mentioned Nikon and perhaps Canon.

I am lucky<script id="gpt-impl-0.8560583805556565" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_76.js"></script> to own a D7oo Nikon, a 50mm 1.4 a 24-70 2.8
and a 70-300 4-5.6 and I keeping making the excuse its too heavy to lug around. I know, I will have a look at some of these modern types like the Olympus OM-D But is that what I really want.I have been at a stand still for about 18 months and have had both my hip joints renewed this year and now I am getting near the time to get out and about again.Any ideas from anyone out there in similar circumstances .

The blunt answer is NO. If you're not willing to sit up and learn something with even the slightest effort of being a student of something you don't know yet, you can't just get a big red EASY button at Staples for free, push it, and get magical before-and-after results. The before-and-after results you saw were from people who may have edited that one photo for an hour or more with numerous editing functions of a quality program that they LEARNED how to do over a few months of experimentation and frustration until the light bulb went on above their heads and they "got it."

Free and super cheap programs many times don't even have rulers in them to resize a photo and without that to fit standard size papers for printing you're screwed and might as not even edit at all.

Free also doesn't mean easy. Free many times actually means confusing and harder than a paid software that has some better programming thought put into it by an actual photographers. GIMP is free, has very little instructions, still has bugs after years of existing, and is harder to use than Corel Paintshop Pro X8 that has been on Amazon this week for $28 and is a direct competitor to Photoshop with great abilities far beyond anything you could imagine at this point.

While I'm not expecting you to become a Photoshop expert, you couldn't get into a better, easier to understand editor than PS Elements and you won't even read past the welcome page of the manual on it so why bother? Just push the auto-adjust button on the printing kiosk at WalMart or Costco and let it do the editing for you.

There's also nothing wrong with editing JPGs. It was the standard of digital photography until recent years and many professionals made a lot of money with JPG, PNG, and TIF before RAW came along. So don't worry about RAW.

I got an email from the art director at Rhode Island Monthly Magazine asking for permission to use one of my pictures in an article about my home town. I said it was fine with me, just give me a credit line and a copy of the magazine. I didn't ask for any money because I didn't want to kill the interest and I'm not a professional. The shot was taken in 2009 and I cringe at some of the mistakes that are now apparent to me but, oh well.

The question is, should I have asked to be paid? How much? Keep in mind this is not National Geographic. The photo is attached.

Many (many) years ago I owned several film slr's Konica, Canon, Minolta. I honestly don't remember much about them. I did a lot of my own B&W processing. Being a bio major i had access to dark rooms at the university.
Now I am thinking about dabbling in film processing again since I have the room and time. And, I love B&W.
Lots of cameras out there. I currently own Nikon DSLR's, 3300 and 7000.
I think with some Fotodiox adapters I could attach my lenses to a Canon (and other film cameras)
What, in your collective wisdom and experience are good film cameras that might fulfill my current needs.
Probably will be shooting architecture, buildings, cemeteries, ghosts.
Thanks

Are you actually able to achieve MORE depth of field with the 135mm Nikon lens than with the 135mm Palinar when the aperture on both lenses is the same when shooting the same object?!?

Yes. TONS more.

FWIW. I do not think that you can assess the amount of light making it to the theoretical film plane coming through two different lenses which have different maximum apertures based on the appearance of the aperture blades ....

I think that YOU may need to put the two lenses on a common "body" and then meter, accordingly ...

Yup. They are different.

OR, put both lenses on a digital body, set the aperture, and then see if the resultant "shutter speed" is the same-or-similar OR decidely different.

That is the first thing I did yesterday before posting this. Theyu are not the same