Is This The Answer?

I wouldn't personally, but I'm sure it will sell. If they package a cell phone capability into it might sell even better. It state it uses 10 lenses, then compiles them into one image. I wonder if just one of those lenses becomes inoperative if it will shut down the camera's function, or just provide a degraded image?

A faddish product possibly.

I am always open to new technology...Wait for it to come out for a bit and get reviews.

Not yet.

This is nifty and I may buy one but there are some BIG BUTS when thinking this can replace a DSLR. First and foremost is sensor size. If I understood the video the camera basically uses cell phone like sensors but gives them a true optical zoom. Great, BUT when the light is iffy cell phone produce crap. Try and shoot in starlight or moonlight and you get nothing. Until sensor technology advances that is a huge issue for pros.

looks like a great point and shoot so far... there is still the need for control...

plus just like any point and shoot... the screen can be blind in bright sunlight.

At first I was going to predict this will just become a toy for rich celebrities to take their selfies, but then I read more about it. The "folded optics" aspect is good, as is the 52 megapixels, I guess. But it doesn't have a neck strap and looks about as unwieldy as a cell phone. I'd be nervous about sticking it out a train window, as the guy does in the ad. The price is ridiculous.

There is no "the" answer. But the Light L16 is definitely one answer. It will be absolutely perfect for many photographers. It's an important stepping stone in the technology evolution. I'd like to take it for a spin.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

No view finder so it will be hard to use in bright light.

Guy sticking his head out the window is lucky not to lose his head or arm.

Why does anyone want DSLRs to go away anyway? View cameras are still viable and they have been around since the dawn of photography.

I personally would never spend that money for a "camera" that tries to replace a "real" camera. I'd like to know if the sensor is still cell phone based,which it sounds it is and also if the "lag time" on the shutter is immediate of still slow and behind the actual capture point.

The dynamic range will be an issue too, JC and if that's still limited to cell phone technology, not replacing much.

I've got a Samsung Galaxy 4, which does take good photos, but I would never use it, for actual images that would end up here. BUT with that said, I would use any device to get an image, Vs not getting an image.

Dan, yes it wil be good for many "photographers" and I think that's the market the company is going after, "advanced amateurs" giving up their point & shoot cameras and maybe a few entry level DSLR's. But if you already have ALL the gear, and he refers to the Canon 5d MKIII, and $10k of lenses, don't see many getting rid of them for this,

Rich

Looks interesting but would want more info before I plunked down the money on it.

its cute. i can not see a birder or a sports guy using this, tapping away at the screen like a woodpecker. its rather bulky for a pocket camera. and i did not see closeups of these images and what they looked like. they give a size of 52mp... but is it?

foveon say it was like 24mp, but it was really more like 8mp stacked with 3 colors. they don't give a lot of info. and what happens if you block any one of those lenses? and what if a few are dirty? i'd need to see a lot more info about it. its a neat idea, i can see them being put into phones, but i don't see dslr's going away any time soon.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Edward,

That is a major issue for me, having a nice big viewfinder, although by then, Hoodman or somebody will come up with a nice big hoodie thing,

David, YES, a lot of money for something that attempts to replace a real camera. Would have to see a real file and compare. Does shoot RAW though!

Rich

I never trust the visuals in those marketing ads, as the man said the images were not as punchy as the DSLR (sounds like contrast and shading). As JC mentioned with the small sensor there are too many limitations. Why wouldn't DSLR camera makers be aware of cutting edge technology and get on the band wagon when something is worthy. In the mean time I'm not going to jump every time someone comes up with a new phone camera.

Mike,

Yes, this device isn't gonna put Nikon and Canon out of business!

Rich

Rich, ... the answer is, the Texas Rangers will win this afternoon !

it can zoom only to 150mm, which is nice, but my other one can do 300, so they would have to shrink it and improve on the zoom. still a neat idea, but, nah.... if they could post real samples of full sized images, then i would look at it.

i kind of wonder why the lenses are spread out like that. you would think that a grid would make more sense.

and i wonder about battery life, certainly 16 ccd's or whatever would eat up the juice pretty fast.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Needs a hand cuff wrist strap if used in the city.

Kind of fails in the long term business sustainability department. DSLR manufacturers realize that the camera is only one step in a long relationship with their customer - namely selling lens and accessories.

If the intended market is cell phone camera users - why would they carry around another device. The whole reason they want a cell phone camera is for convenience.

I Sure would! The question is what would it do for photographers? and would not everyone now who presses the button be a photographer?

You guys are looking at this all wrong. For instance: The Toyota Camry is consistently the world's best selling car. To come in and say "Yeah but it can't win the Indi 500!" is just silly and irrelevant.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

And, consider all the time invested by DSLR users in learning/mastering features and functions of DSLR bodies and lenses.

There is always a market of early adopters, but it takes much time and marketing to shift large, entrenched market segments away from what they know and are familiar with - especially when DSLRs continue to meet the needs of those segments.

It's something I'd love to try, but not something I need to buy...

Dan, basically in the video he DOES say that his Camery can replace the race car.

First minute he compares it to a Canon 5Dmklll.

I think he is on drugs with that statement.

Cannon and Nikon are going to have a harder and harder time of it financially.

Both are at high risk. Even if they continue to sell well, they are seeing sales dry up year after year.
They no longer can sell film etc..... Their problems are going to get much worse.

On the flip side Dan you are sort of wrong. Any mechanic will say that the best of racing is seen in German
cars some five years later. German mass manufactured cars. Same for American and Japanese brands as well.

The race track is where everything gets developed. Then with full production the costs come down. Ball joints, suspensions,
engines, multivalve engines, brakes, tires, etc everything gets tested first on the track.

Same so to speak with cameras. Imagine a camera world where all you could buy was a full frame camera. One day that
might only be your cheap option. That day might be less than ten years off.

The companies that survive what is currently a meltdown in the industry will be selling very cheap amazing products.

Dave

Canon and Nikon never sold film.

Unlikely a DSLR killer, but it's an interesting piece of tech. Do 16 itty bitty sensors and some software tricks equal one massive sensor?

JC,

I think David means, Fuji and Kodak.......

And no, nothing like the Canon 5d MKIII or even the new-ish Nikon 800 series. Will wait to see about the new Canon sensor numbers,

Rich

Its an interesting concept, thank you for sharing, Rich. If the price point was $300-400 it would fly from the shelves, but at $1300 it's just way too expensive. Also, as Edward pointed out, once they sell you the camera how are they going to make money on peripherals, perhaps charge a lot for software/firmware upgrades?

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

"I'd bet it could take a big bite out of print sales if more people are able to get better photos with larger file sizes they can print themselves."

That is happening right now.

Anyone can get a print done by FAA right now, same quality we are selling. Not to mention every dime-store and office supply store and drug-store offing prints.

I ordered two! I don’t expect this camera to replace my Hasselblad or Sinar systems, The Sinar with the Exact back , by the way, gives me single shot 192 megapixels or 10 , 20 30 –it’s variable megapixel-wise. These are expensive systems, far more costly than Nikon or Canon systems. The biggest problem I have with these high end systems, (not that one can easily carry a p2, p3 , camera around with ease, of course), is transportation. I fly a lot and for the sheer convenience of it size, focal options and 50 mp, this camera is worth the money. I only wish it would be released for Christmas. This camera easily fits into a brief case. This camera travels easily. And, those 50 megapixels are going to look great on my large flat screen TV.

Floyd same quality as far as print quality goes (assuming they don't want a 40x60), but definitely not as well as the average FAA photographer is capable of taking a photo. This probably won't change when high quality cameras are available to the masses either.

Just try to get someone up at sunrise to go on a shoot or carry around a tripod for long exposures and night shots (or even teaching them how to do a long exposure). I won't even get into post-processing. Most people just want to point and shoot whatever they happen to see- it takes a special breed to get up at 3:30am and drive 2 hours to take some photos :).

Are you affiliated with the company, Johann?

@johann - got any of those 50mp pictures from your fancy camera?

and why do you need two of these other cameras?


personally i would never buy a camera, let alone a concept camera without any kind of review. its a rather expensive gadget. 50mp on this camera will be probably really disappointing, compared to say a medium format camera. size isn't everything and the number is just out there to impress. the up close quality and light range is far more impressive.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

@ Mike Savad
Yes, I have many photographs taken at 50mp. Which, (‘fancy’), camera are you referring to in your post? I have and take great delight in the photographs I shoot at 100 mp with the Sinar cameras and backs.
The file size and format the 50 plus mp cameras generate are too large for this pod site’s web upload restriction and downsizing these files to 8 bit, srgb web profiles is counterproductive from the stand point of image quality. It would be idiotic to invest in such high end equipment to fulfill a pod site’s limitations. The image of pulling a trailer with a Ferrari comes to mind. And then there is the issue of infringement which is pandemic in POD site arenas.
I emailed a relative who attends MIT, where the camera is well received, to tell my relative I ordered two of the cameras. I thought it coincidental that the camera’s were mentioned in the forum. I am not affiliated with the camera company. The answer to your question why two cameras is simple: One for my wife and one for me.
I recall you questioning my Hasselblad ,in previous posts ,another member of this pod site questioned my computer set up. I have no interest in selling POD images. I thought, fineartamerica . com and fine art.com were mutually owned and operated companies- they are not. I’m interested in the Andy Warhol,’ Elvis image series’, as I have in my collection the promotional piece which is the same,( as in similar), piece Warhol used for the Elvis series. Legally the rights to the Elvis series belong to Warhol’s estate, while the image is taken from a movie promotion- go figure?
Here’s a question for you: Lets say I downsize a 16 bit tiff file shot at 100 mp to a 25mb srgb , 8 bit jpeg optimized for the web , as Fineartamerica.com stipulates, and then have a 40 inch wide large print made from that file. Now, I get the fineartamerica print and compare it to the print I made from the original file ,( same dpi,paper, ink even the same,model inkjet printer)-which is the fine art photographic print?
Good luck.
Happy Columbus Day.

Johann,

Then WHY are you here?

Rich

the fancy camera - the blad? the $20,000 camera you keep showing off. any sample shots? i'd like to see it up close, what can a camera like that do for me. and kind of curious what you do with it.

you remind me A LOT of a certain street photographer we once had on this site, that loved showing his equipment off - verbally.

besides, it doesn't matter what kind of camera you have, once posted, it doesn't matter what it was shot with. like you can go to school in a Ferrari or a mini van. its just a form of transportation. i don't think a ferrari can pull a trailer.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

"Different materials gather light at different rates. Films, not camera film, are being developed in the lab that could
blow your statement out of the water. Dont be surprised if it goes down in size. "

But what you are not getting is the fact that even if they make a new material that could reduce the size of the sensor and keep the quality you could use that same material on a larger sensor to create a new standard. Size of the light gathering surface will always matter......its physics. Physics isn't something that can be changed with technology.

And that is just sensor size, you haven't even begun to talk about the resolving power of lenses. When you decrease the size of each individual light gathering cell on a sensor, aka cramming more megapixels on less space, not only can you not gather as much light per cell, but your lens must also be able to focus the light much more finely to actually resolve a sharper image when printed or viewed large. If you think that those tiny lenses can match the resolving power of something like Leica glass, or Canon L glass.....you are sadly mistaken.

It might be cool and it might take great photographs in a really new an innovative way, but its not going to touch the IQ of current full frame systems, let alone APS-C, let alone medium format or large format digital or film. Size.....ALWAYS.....matters.

I think I will second Rich's question.....

Wise advice Sharon. I'm open to everything new, and this looks interesting. Best to wait awhile and see how it performs for people. Thanks for sharing.

no, and there is something novel about being able to change my lens.

@ "johann" though i am confused by your example. there is no 100 mega pixel images unless you group 2 50s together which makes no sense at all. and if you actually know anything about printing and graphics you should already know that you NEVER choose - OPTIMIZE for the web or you'll destroy too much data. and you'll also know there is very little difference between 8 and 16 bit when it comes to printing. your eyes can't tell them apart.

comparing something to the original file means you looked at it on your screen which will look totally different, if your screen isn't in calibration or if your dot pitch is higher. but since you probably never bought anything from here, you can't compare the difference at all.

but i do wonder why a person like you would be in a place like this. with a hassalblad i would assume you shoot portraits since they are often used there. its not a casual camera and it costs quite a bit. which means that you would have to have steady work to make it pay for itself, yet you have not only enough free time to hang out here. but a person like yourself with a $20,000 camera and a $6000 video card etc. with enough pocket change to buy odd ball things like this funny camera - why would you go to a POD in the first place? you would have gone to a local printer.

i'm still curious what work you do, what is your website? what does the up close quality of that camera look like anyway? you seem to show it off in every post.

in any case you don't leave the camera at 50, you either crop it down or shrink it, or reduce file quality, none of which will be seen at all if you know what your doing.

infringement will happen any place.. but here is the thing - why does that matter to you? they are getting a 900px image of your file. your image is far larger than that. and that one single image you uploaded here then erased - that odd doll like thing in the window - no one will steal that.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Thomas,

Fifty...forty...perhaps thirty years ago someone would have said exactly what you just said with supreme authority.
I did not say the lenses must be smaller. The sensors are generally smaller than the lenses. Camera physics. Light physics.
Photons are so small that your current camera setup of a full frame sensor and lens is missing capturing most of the photons
to begin with. Just some food for thought.

I held out size as a possibility. I maintain that the cost will come down.

Dave

Rich Franco; I answered your why I am here question in the post above yours. I shall recant it for you:
“I emailed a relative who attends MIT, where the camera is well received, to tell my relative I ordered two of the cameras. I thought it coincidental that the cameras were mentioned in the forum. I am not affiliated with the camera company. The answer to your question why two cameras is simple: One for my wife and one for me.”- J . Lux.
And, the reason I entered this website is also in the same post and I shall recant the reason again:
“I have no interest in selling POD images. I thought, fineartamerica . com and fine art.com were mutually owned and operated companies- they are not. I’m interested in the Andy Warhol,’ Elvis image series’, as I have in my collection the promotional piece which is the same,( as in similar), piece Warhol used for the Elvis series. Legally the rights to the Elvis series belong to Warhol’s estate, while the image is taken from a movie promotion- go figure?”.J.Lux
Update on the Elvis series -I ordered the images from Fineart.com .This may be of interest to you: May upload tiff and Psd files for prints to Fineart.com. Larger files= better print capabilities.
Mike Savad;
You seem to be in lots of posts on this site. You are not listed as an employee or associate- are you a troll?
Lets answer you queries one by one:
1. @ "johann" though i am confused by your example. there is no 100 mega pixel images unless you group 2 50s together which makes no sense at all.” -M.S.
I mentioned using Sinar cameras with the Sinar Exact backs-which offer variable megapixel ranges all the way up to 192 megapixels. Please read my posts again-take your time .
2. “and if you actually know anything about printing and graphics you should already know that you NEVER choose - OPTIMIZE for the web or you'll destroy too much data.”- M.S.
The upload restriction to fineartamerica is a maximum 25 mb ,8 bit srgb color profile which is optimal for a website not a fine art photographic print.

3. “and you'll also know there is very little difference between 8 and 16 bit when it comes to printing. your eyes can't tell them apart.”- M.S.

I know a lot about printing. Try this: in Photoshop open a 4x6 inch, res.72, transparent background file in 8 bit and one in 16 bit, draw a 2x 4 inch rectangle in both files and fill with a black and white gradient. Open levels, and adjust the black and white sliders inward toward gamma in both files. You will see banding in the 8 bit which on large prints is noticeable.

4. I have compared prints from several pod sites including this one . The fact that I own 4 high end printers in my studio means I don’t need to order prints from this website. The only reason I ordered prints from the other site – I don’t have the legal rights to print the images that site offers.
5. “but i do wonder why a person like you would be in a place like this. with a hassalblad i would assume you shoot portraits since they are often used there. its not a casual camera and it costs quite a bit. which means that you would have to have steady work to make it pay for itself, yet you have not only enough free time to hang out here. but a person like yourself with a $20,000 camera and a $6000 video card etc. with enough pocket change to buy odd ball things like this funny camera - why would you go to a POD in the first place? you would have gone to a local printer.

i'm still curious what work you do, what is your website? what does the up close quality of that camera look like anyway? you seem to show it off in every post.

in any case you don't leave the camera at 50, you either crop it down or shrink it, or reduce file quality, none of which will be seen at all if you know what your doing.

infringement will happen any place.. but here is the thing - why does that matter to you? they are getting a 900px image of your file. your image is far larger than that. and that one single image you uploaded here then erased - that odd doll like thing in the window - no one will steal that.”- M. S.

I own two digital Hasselblads . I’m in a pod site like this trying to get the low down on the Warhol/Elvis series which I previously explained. I am an investor, franchise and property owner- burgers, coffee and donuts. Photography is 5th in my sources of income. I’m day trading, watching banner prints roll out of a 72 inch wide printer, and monitoring the activities of my franchises as we speak-multi tasking.
If you are curious about the Hasselblad system, go to B&H Camera’s in Manhattan, and don’t forget to inquire about the Sinar camera and Sinar digital back systems while you are there.

6.” infringement will happen any place.. but here is the thing - why does that matter to you? they are getting a 900px image of your file. your image is far larger than that. and that one single image you uploaded here then erased - that odd doll like thing in the window - no one will steal that “ - M.S.

That odd doll-like thing, the image I uploaded to this site is from an original 35mm negative. I didn’t want to sell it ,I was curious as to how it looked on the site. It was a test of a plug in filter. It does show what can be done with the filter. I would never expect anyone to order or steal over processed images, mine or yours- which is my opinion. Also I think it laughable trying to pass pod site prints off as fine art photographic prints- 25 mb – get real!
It’s all about the details- never sacrifice the details.
As far as giving out personnel information on a website goes-no way.
Before I go , I must give Rich Franco kudos , I enjoyed his galleries of cars.
Oh and Mike Savad, a fair question- Why does any of this matter to you?
This post was about a camera not selling photos.

Johann Lux.

David,

As you implied, the "glass" technology, is now behind the sensor technology and that is a limiting problem. The "new" camera that came out a year or so ago, that can capture an image and then later, you can set the "focal point" is actually the future, not this "toy".

Mike,

I have a friend that has both a medium format back, I think it's a Phase One, that captures 85mp and he uses it for landscapes, flowers, wildlife,etc. He also has a back for a 4x5 camera, that will attach the Phase One back to the 4x5 and has some limited movement. He has his own printer, 9900 and has printed an almost life sized alligator that came out 8 feet when printed(gator was really about 12') over in Merritt Island and used 2 stitched images that were about 1.2gb when sent to the printer. So there are people that use this gear, instead of 35mm, for their own pleasure.

Just not sure about JL yet.................

Rich

do realize - that the ONLY thing a customer see's is the print. and not fancy things with gradients. which fail pretty fast if your screen isn't up to par.

i hear you showing off a lot - but i have yet to see a single image. you speak a lot of jargon, but aren't producing any results. from that i just toss out anything you said.

fine art is not about the RESOLUTION its about the art. most people will not see details or care about them. you'll see plenty of detail in my images. most buyers don't care about pores in the skin or counting each hair. however if you want to talk details, show us examples.

i don't care about hassleblad, i don't care about sinar. why would i?

it matters to me because you have a lot to say on the topic, without having a back up of what are saying based on skill. putting down the site, putting down our art indirectly, showing off imaginary cameras you own, claiming you work 5 job, but have plenty of time to talk on a fine art forum. your not selling anything at all on this site, you won't get info on Warhol/Elvis on this site, yet your here on a POD forum. you don't seem to show up ANYWHERE online, i did check. seems odd to run so many businesses and not show up any where.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

so you have to hassleblads? 2 - $20,000 cameras.. let me guess, one of them is for your wife?

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike,

Before "you know who" gets involved, let's back off and see what we see. There are people out there, with "real" money and how the spend it and why, is sometimes beyond comprehension, I know a few.

Your buddy Rich

Mike Savad:
This site, lists an , “Elvis three”, which is not the Warhol, Elvis Three and an Elvis single which is one of the images I was seeking. In your checking up you forgot to check this site.
This is a website, and therefore one’s identity and security is at risk.
I complimented Rich Franco on his work.
You have made some statements that I find erroneous, regarding what people see in prints and the printing of 8 and 16 bit images. I’m a person. I’m a printer and I can see the things in a finished print you say buyers do not. The web is a grossly limited , low resolution display venue from the stand point of image quality. Are you saying that a large 40 plus inch print made from a maximum file size of 25mb,8 bit, with an adobe color profile will have the same , detail, saturation and color values as a print made from the original Tiff,16 bit, procolor /custom ic profile of say 1000 mb or larger? I don’t buy that hype. The key to POD site sales is low price images. Try passing off a low res pod site print as high res fine art and see how far you get. If you want to see a fine art photographic print, check out the Sony exhibition in Manhattan.
Interesting avitrar you have . I see costumes are popular on this site, perhaps with the coming of Halloween. Giving adults wearing costumes any data is uncomfortable.
If anyone spends an inordinate amount of time on this site it has to be you, juding by the number of posts you make.
Good luck with your pod sales.
No both the blads are mine.
And for your information I don't own the hasselblad that costs $145,000.00 usd.


Johann Lux.

I personally cant wait to see what photographers will do with new technology.

most people will not be able to tell which is which unless they see the original and you point. it will be a very minor difference. but the thing is - you want filet Mignon and this is burgerking. you won't get the exact same results. but no pod will allow a 1 gig files EVER. bandwidth alone would kill a site. and the difference is minor. you'll only see the difference on screen and only if you adjust things. otherwise your eyes can only see so much information. most people's screens is using sRGB, there is little point in using aRGB. you'll have to point out the site where your images are. i simply don't believe your really a photographer. and yes, its halloween. i can only guess you are the blob?

what are your thoughts on DPI?


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

"Fifty...forty...perhaps thirty years ago someone would have said exactly what you just said with supreme authority."

EXACTLY...they were just as right then as I am now. That is why an 8x10 film camera with a good lens using decades old technology can capture and print detail that even a medium format digital back with modern lens technology cannot.

Size always has, and always will matter when it comes to focusing and capturing light.

The fact that you even bring up photons, which is on an atomic particle level vs sensor pixels which of course are man made, really proves to me that you don't understand what principles I am talking about here.....and thats ok. We can agree to disagree.

They will make cameras smaller to be sure, they will do things that currently isn't capable to be sure....but if you take that same technology and apply it on a larger scale you will set a new standard. Size will always matter.

Johann,

We, here at FAA, get folks that come here and post and boast about themselves AND their gear, so we mostly ask to see some sorta proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you're not the "troll" of the month. Provide some web site or a few images or discontinue your posts/boasts.

I know who I am and how good I am, and need no one to try and flatter me. I've competed in the real world and I have a sense that you might not have, so prove me wrong or desist from posting here, at least on MY posts,

Rich

go back a 100 years, 8x10 images - wonderful clarity. even with its lack of initial range and lens clarity, it does pick up a ton more detail. i love working on those over today's stuff because its not hard to extra detail. low noise, deep focus and depth of light. as you move on, as the camera gets smaller, the medium format, you can tell its medium. the clarity lessens, more grain, but its still better than the 35. then 35 comes out, and while there are more images because its smaller, the quality drops a lot. comparably its like they weren't even trying to focus.

then we come to digital. a 50 mp medium format camera will not compare to a 50 mp 35mm camera. and its not all going to be comparable to this pop tart like camera. because 50mp means different things. the above camera has 3 13mp ccd's (they didn't mention if it was cmos or not), and it tiles it on. the clarity i doubt will be there.

when i switched from a cropped sensor to a full frame, the difference was very clear. and i would imagine a medium format would be even better. they do make 50mp 35mm though, i think the 5d mark X or whatever they call that one, is a 50. but i don't think it compares to having the same hugeness on a much large sensor.


its true they will keep improving light abilities, but they won't decrease the size of the device. they will only increase the iso. right now we have 100,000 iso, the best camera goes to 200,000 i believe, but at the sacrifice of megapixels. newer cameras will be even better.

the 5d mk2 and mk3 have the same size sensors, almost the same pixels, but the clarity is far higher in the 3 because it is more light sensitive. photons etc, we file that under star trek. its not a word used in today's photographic language.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike,

My friends Medium format Phase One back, is, I believe made up from 2 sensors, Kodak(?) maybe. But the quality is amazing, overkill for here, but not everyone just sells here. And when he got it, they had 2 versions, one was designed for LONG exposures, star trails,etc.

Rich

i'd love to have one of those. be able to shoot a room, and crop what you need. but way outside the budget. i'm hoping the newer 5d models which i thought would be announced by now, will have a 50mp like their other version. but we shall see. the downside to huge images is huge sizes, which of course is a bummer.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com