SantaFeBill

Just one more reason to stay far away from Adobe products (except - perhaps - the free ones). And as far as LR goes, it's only a question of 'when', not 'whether' Adobe does the same with it.

G6 - Strange combination of advanced features that would appeal to the technical savvy user but an obsolete sensor that will turn those same users off. I can only guess that Panasonic was afraid that a significant sensor upgrade from the G5 would hurt sales of the GH3.

You're quite right. An f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens, whether it covers APS-C, FF, or MF. F-stop is a ratio between the focal length and the size of the maximum aperture opening. I'm most surprised DPR doesn't seem to understand that - and it makes me wonder about their reviews. ;-)

Interesting, but still no attached GPS unit to write GPS data at time of exposure. No options to add EVF or hot-shoe external flash.
No GPS is SOP for m4/3 (one reason I've stayed away), but the lack of reasonably-priced external flash option seems strange if Panny is really aiming this at more sophisticated users as well as less sophisticated ones. As, to a lesser extent, does the lack of an EVF.
(The FL-360L is priced at US$270 at B&H. I can't see many adding a unit of that price to the GF6.)

The kit lens already looks huge compared to the body. Wonder what a 500 would look like?

From the Google Official Blog:
"Beginning today we’ll no longer sell or provide updates for Snapseed Desktop for Macintosh and Windows"

Seems perfectly clear. And yes, updates to OS and/or other system components mean that at some point the desktop version of Snapseed will stop working.

And do some still think that the rest of the Nik programs for desktop are going to stay around? That would be a triumph of hope over experience.
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Nik software ... ." (With apologies to John Donne.)

Thanks for the clarification. As you say, we need to specify whether we mean 'physical focal length' or '35mm equivalent focal length'.
Guess I've been around photography so long that I always read 'focal length' to mean the physical measurement, as was safe in the old days.

Quote from the review:
" we calculated a focal length multiplier of about 1.07x ..."

Can someone explain how _multiplying_ the focal length by 1.07 _decreases_ the focal length?

According to my calculator, 50 x 1.07 = 53.5.

Even if you think DPR doesn't know the difference between multiplication and division, and divide 50 by 1.07, you still don't get the values for reduced focal lengths stated in the review.

Apparently somewhere in the process '0.71' got turned into '1.07'. ( And then there was the multiplier value of '1.09' mentioned earlier in the review)

Proofreading anyone?

A Gh3 + the Panny 150 f/2.8 will weigh only a half-pound less than the D600 + the Nikon 300mm f/2.8? I don't think so ... . :-)

Once more with feeling ...
In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.

So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)

Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.

If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.

90mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/2.8 (35mm focal lengths equivalents) at prices. whatever they will be, far less than their FF equivalents! Although the apparent lack of O.I.S. seems a most strange omission, as it would make using these lenses - esp. the 150 - with an Olympus body the more obvious choice.

A prediction: IF some maker can come up with a m4/3 body that has continuous AF as good as, say the Nikon D7000, AND has GPS capability, either built-in or add-on, m4/3 will replace the DX format systems for many users.
It's only the lack of these two things that has kept me in DX.

Of course, FF and MF shooters will likely stay with these formats for the IQ advantages.

+1 on that. ;-)

Just curious - Why is the site referred to as '500px'? The posted logo is _clearly_ '5' plus the infinity symbol, so why is it not '5infinity'? Is 'px' mathematical shorthand for the infinity symbol?
And where do the two '0's' after the '5' come from?

In short, how do you get from '5infinity' to '500px'?

What's confusing about "without any compensation to you"?
But I think they may have realized they made a mistake, and are looking for a way to back down.

The DPR analysis of the new terms vs. the old is just incorrect. It overlooks the explicit grant in the new terms to _sell_ your images. As another poster pointed out, the old terms were somewhat ambiguous on this point. Even more importantly, the new terms _remove_ the restriction on to content declared private or non-public. Under the new terms, _even_ content declared 'private' by the OP can be sold by Facebook.
Another nice goodie in their terms of use is this disclaimer: "None of your Content will be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of Instagram, and Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Content you provide."
N.B.: "ANY use". They can sell your photos to a porn site if they choose.
Read the entire terms, and then decide if you want to use them, even if they back off the 'we can sell your stuff w.o. paying you' bit.

Wonder how long before lawsuits start over some photo of someone's attractive wife/daughter/girlfriend showing up in a come-on for a men's magazine, I'd hope that the person or persons bringing the suits could wring Facebook dry (as in shut the doors) for invasion of privacy, as I'm not sure that any agreement for unlimited use would protect against invasion of privacy of a non-public figure. (If you're a Ms. K. it's different of course.)

I'm not sure that 'any service' reserves these rights. If you see a post by Malch (sp?) alerting us to this policy, he also says that Yahoo tired this some years ago and then backed off in face of protests. In any case, this is why I don't relocate any data - unless that includes e-mail, which I long ago assumed was fair game - to any on-line service. I would say esp. photos or any writing I care about.
They stay on my computer, with good sw and hw firewall protection. I'd _never_ use an on-line backup service.

Thanks so much for doing this challenge. Rt.66 has so many memories for me.
The images bring them alive again.

Sorry. I should have said "depressing for DX/APS-C _DSLR_ users ... ."