Every RAW editor applies a different color profile to a RAW file when opened for editing...a starting point, if you will. Guess what starting point you get with a proprietary editor? Often it's substantially the same image you'd get with the default jpeg setting of the camera.

So of course the Olympus of Nikon software gives you a "truer" image right off the bat...true to the camera's jpeg engine. True to reality? What's that?

The upper "photo" part of the image is hyper sharpened, while the lower AI section is very soft. Also the sun light comes from two different directions, 90 degrees different between the two sections. Overall I find it quite fake looking.

All those drives are so much larger than anything I'd ever buy. It would be nice to see similar stats for smaller drives.

I was going through my stack of old hard drives this morning (throwing out old junk), and found two 2.5 inch SATA drives that failed the surface scan tests....both Toshiba. Hmmm

Some of those failure rates are staggeringly high!

I named mine "zipfiles"...all downloaded programs that need to be saved are moved from the default downloads folder and are saved there as soon as they're downloaded. It's also important to sometimes not accept the default name when downloading (or rename after downloading). The common "setup.exe" should be named something meaningful, for example.

It's also good practice to save these files, like ALL data files, on a drive that's dedicated to such files, not the operating system drive.

So we've learned that a helmet is fragile, like a piece of thin glass, and an airbag (which breaks noses and bruises faces) is a puffy, ephemeral thing. Not only can you not spell it (ephermal), you don't even know what it means.

You're a real pro, acoarst!

As I said...never cease to be amazed.

I saw an article yesterday...a huge percentage of the busses already sold are broken down and can't be fixed. The builder is out of business. They've been a disaster in some locales.

Can you imagine the electric service it would require to charge dozens of very large vehicles parked together at night all at once?

Anyone who believes that a tough thing (lens element) can be protected from breakage by placing a fragile thing (filter) over it should watch UHH member Steve Perry's test on Youtube. I'll never cease to be amazed at people who break a filter and then claim that this somehow saved the lens from breakage. Makes not one whit of sense.

https://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds?feature=shared

I didn't suggest that. My state only requires that I carry liability. I self insure for the cars, not for liability. Uninsured motorist is not required and is redundant here. Liability covers my passengers for all hazards. I save about half by taking on the minimal risk for the value of my cars. I've saved tens of thousands over the years with this approach. My risk is minimal.

From my post which you quoted:
"Yes, we need liability coverage and health insurance, but the cost of insuring "stuff" is completely out of control. I prefer used cars that I can afford to replace....(no collision, uninsured motorist, or comp insurance)

Increasingly, I feel like I don't want to own anything that I can't afford to self insure. Yes, we need liability coverage and health insurance, but the cost of insuring "stuff" is completely out of control. I prefer used cars that I can afford to replace. (no collision, uninsured motorist, or comp insurance).

If we're afraid to make a claim, why carry the coverage?

My D300 is the one camera I know I will never get rid of.

This is a great deal.

Count me among them. The 16-85 is my favorite lens...sharp and portable. The 16-80 is considerably larger and heavier, and more costly. While I don't own one, I have read numerous lukewarm reviews of the 16-80.