I remember in the past there were many articles written about the newest audio speakers available for the "true audiophile." Whenever a new speaker was put on the market, those obsessive self-proclaimed audio experts were quick to pontificate upon the advantages or disadvantages of the newest technology. Problem was and is... most if not all...these differences were either a subjective matter of opinion or were differences the human ear could not detect.
I propose a similar arguments for image quality produced by cameras. It all boils down to personal bias and preferences. If a person with perfect vision cannot tell the difference between an image made from a $2000 dollar lens from one made by a $200 lens (assuming both using the same camera with the same settings) the I vote for the lens that makes you happy. It's your money and your life. The obsessive lens aficionado will keep looking for the latest and most expensive lens anyway and the lens manufacturers will be happy to keep churning them out.

All the technical data makes for good reading if you are into stuff. But in my universe, the best answer to your question is to take several pictures with each camera set to the same settongs, make prints of the same size and use your own eyeballs to see for yourself.

My Pentax has the IS built into the camera body instead of the lens. I like that design better. I am now wondering if the same advice would apply?

Will Picasso photos be converted to the new Google format?

If you are near a dental school, you may be able have the work done less expensively. And, while it will take longer, you can be pretty sure the work was done properly as each step is checked along the way.
The fee quoted does seem excessive...but fees are usually higher in big cities because overhead is higher, often up to 70% of the fee is office overhead and then the dentist pays federal, state, and local taxes on what's left over. He doesn't put your check directly into his vacation fund.
(I am a dentist.)

I forgot to mention that streaming movies on Roku won't work with Google streaming in the background.

I forgot to mention that streaming services such as Roku also won't work with Google backup running in the
Background.

I forgot to mention that streaming services such as Roku also won't work with Google backup running in the
Background.

I have only a broadband Internet connection uploading at a painfully-slow 1.5 or so mbps. When attempting to use the new Google service, the process slowed my computer to it being unusable... like the old dial-up days...or worse.
If you have a fiber optic or ultra high speed Internet, you might like Google...as for me, no thanks.

Before I knew better, I used a micro cloth and cleaning liquid on my front camera lens. I don't see any difference in my images but now wonder just how easy it is to remove the coating on the lens by doing what I did? Anyone know?

The documented advantages of shooting in raw noted in the several posts prior to this one are certainly true and cannot be denied. However, the technological advantages made in haw most modern digital cameras over the years have made these advantages much less of a problem for all but the most purist of photographers. I personally have taken scores of pictures in raw during some vacation or other event and these images languish on a memory card. While other times, I use. JPEG and enjoy my efforts right away. Is it considered blasphemy to state the obvious... that more times than not, the JEPEG images are perfectly fine and one would be hard pressed to see any way that tweaking them in Photoshop would have improved them enough to merit all the time and effort required to do not? If that is your thing...go for it. I love photography but I personally also have a life outside my digital darkroom.

You seem to know what you're talking about. I certainly can't argue with you. All I can say is that I also am an experienced photographer and with a moderm, high IQ digital
SLR camera with excellent lenses, very consistent and high quality images certainly can be achieved in automatic modes.
It is when I wish to override an otherwise good exposure to achieve a special effect that I use manual.
Maybe your eyes are better than mine...or more likely, it's different strokes for different folks.

Of course, everything said in favor of shooting in manual is correct.....but, what if one is a sports photographer, or taking pictures of anything that requires extremely rapid response of the photographer to capture a fleeting image? In other words, manual may be fine for landscapes, for example, but if used at a wedding reception where candid, unposed pictures are desired, the automatic modes may be better.

A math expert could calculate how much water it would take to cover the entire earth... so where did all that water go when the waters receeded? The atmosphere could not hold that much water from evaporation. It could not soak into the ground in such a short time. What about all the salt-water fish that could not survive in oceans now too diluted with fresh water?

The statement that a "non partisan" government watchdog committee came to this conclusion is curious. A truly objective conclusion would place the blame squarely on the president who ultimately was the source of the directive. Obama may or may not have came up with the plan, but he most certainly was involved in the final decision.