Looks really interest and they say it's cheaper as LCD with better colours
link

Thank you Flossie I'm sure the XPS 16 display is more than acceptable but was curious what the impact off contrast matters.

The contrast I quoted are not from what the manufactures but what reviewers found to be so these are true contrast values so to say, the difference between the brightness white and the darkest black.
As you can see the Envy has almost twice the contrast as the XPS and that's because the black level of the Envy is almost half of that than the XPS while brightness is roughly the same.

I'm curious if that means that the Dell is capable of displaying a wide gamut but not a great difference between the colours?
This getting really complicated

That's really good and interesting, will surely give it a try when I get a laptop.

How do you deal with the differences in file systems, Windows use NTfS and Apple HFS so it would be hard to share the same information across systems or not?

Was serious but it was meant not to be taken personal so hence the wink on the end to lighten it up.

Reason 1. is what I said and yes it would be very satisfying if you nail an airshow shot with a 5x4 plate camera don't you think?

Reason 2. I agree with but using advanced equipment and relaying on it are different things and that's what I mean.
If the advanced equipment helps you get better shot easier than I won't argue with that but if you're only capable to get a decent shot because of all the advanced equipment so truly let the camera do all the work is not what photography is about for me.
Of course the reason for you buy the camera rely depends on that.

If you want to take photographs for records off your family and friends and things like that, then there is truly nothing wrong with that but if you bought a camera because you like taking photos than the achievement of making a good photo is important so if the camera would do most of the work you won't get much satisfaction from it.

I'm sure Oggy will make better photos with the AF, he would be more pleased with the Canon most likely but would he be a more pleased with the act of photographing (not talking about results here)?

Isn't the way of creating/making a photograph not just as important as the result?

Like Chris said I would love to use a 5x4 plate camera not because it's practical but for the experience.

This not for everyone so but I think it would be for most of us here on this forum because we're passionate about photography, if you just interested only in pretty photos than you would be on Facebook and/or Flickr only.

ps. please don't take this personal, it's meant in general.

Indeed, there are three in a 5 minute radius

Yes Smeggy but the fisheye give a distinctive distortion not see with normal lenses and that's why you buy a fisheye lens so to say that the Pentax 10-17 compliment the Sigma 10-20 is not really right.

Yes, this behind why lenses appear longer on APS-C than on 135 format because the angle of view becomes smaller on APS-C.
No can be horizontal or vertically too.

The image sizes are quite small so any difference would be gone, I wonder if you see the difference when you print them on A3 or larger.

Not really because the Pentax 10-17 is a fish eye and you use that very differently than a lens like the Sigma 10-20.

Congratulations Oggy, I hope the camera serves you well

Well you buy a camera to practise photography so it would be silly to throw the towel in the ring because you need to learn difficult techniques and practise them.
Good you might get better in focus shot when you use the AF of the Canon or Nikon but that doesn't give you the thrill when you get the shot with a Pentax because you did it well and not the camera

Btw for motor-sports where you pan your photos it doesn't matter which system you use so there are exceptions.

Thank you Shaky, the bare metal thing is interesting, does that mean you don't need to run the host OS but can solely run the virtualisation?
Will have a look at the VMware site.

I've looked for more screen information and have found it off the Macbook Pro 17 and dell XPS 16 RGBled.
Here is the information.

Macbook Pro 17
Maximum: 312 cd/m²
Average: 292.7 cd/m²
Illumination: 86 %
Black: 0.43 cd/m²
Contrast: 726:1
Brightness on battery: 312 cd/m²

Dell XPS 16 RGBLED
Maximum: 268 cd/m²
Average: 232.1 cd/m²
Illumination: 81 %
Black: 0.55 cd/m²
Contrast: 487:1

HP Envy
Maximum: 292 cd/m²
Average: 263.1 cd/m²
Illumination: 80 %
Black: 0.29 cd/m²
Contrast: 852:1
Brightness on battery: 247 cd/m²

sRGB, MBP17 is transparent grey



sRGB, XPS 16 RGBLED is transparent grey.



aRGB, XPS 16 RGBLED is transparent grey.



MBP17, XPS 16 RGBLED is transparent grey.



sRGB, HP envy is transparent grey.



MBP 17, HP envy is transparent grey.




Does anybody know how important contrast is compared to the gamut?
The Dell have less contrast so can I say that the screen will look more greyish compared to the other two?

Can't fully agree because there is the 645D now, If someone is willing to pay for a Nikon D3 or Canon 1D then surely they can stretch a bit more and get the 645D instead but to be honest, photographers of those calibre don't need to be said what they need to use and they are already brand committed half of the time.
I agree with the lenses though there need to be more specialize lenses and Tamron must make 180mm macro and the 200-500mm for Pentax as well

Sorry I just need to link it again link