They even thought about previous when you want to go back!

Yeah like Martin said it was very spontaneous, we need to better plan this next year!
But we have some photos (9) so shall we do a competition tomorrow in a form of a voting system?
I don't mind doing it manually so that everyone can make a top 3.
place 1 will be worth 3 points and 2, 2 and 3, 1 point that way you get a scoring system.

I really don't know what more we can at but some comments on the photos would be nice...?
Maybe you should explain your top 3 if we do that???

I got my mind bend around it but I can't come up with an idea

Kris I think you missed this one
Anyway, the range is too small for me as I found 10-20 a nuisance and reverted back to the 16-45 a lot of the time.
That's being said about the 11-16 so 14mm would be even worse

1. don't know for sure but would say yes, the 1.7 are quite a bit sharper it seems but someone else can answer that far better then me.

2. the DA 55-300 is seen here as best in his range.
You also have the Tamron & Sigma 70-300.
Tamron is sharp but has CA problems,
Sigma doesn't have those problems but isn't really sharp at the long end,
Pentax is the best compromise between these.

No since it's only a digital back, so you need also other components to make a camera and what's the cost of that?

Yeah gigapixels, the only problem now is that they need 100 pixels to make one pixels although like someone in the comments there said, the more light there falls the faster they cycle so if you count the amount of cycle you could use ever pixels on is own to get a grey scale instead of using 100 for 1.
If they could do that, that would mean indeed gigiapixels sensors but also lower noise and higher dynamic range.
When no lights hits the pixels that one cycles 0 times so you get true black while others might cycle for a thousands times maybe.
Since everything is zero and ones upscaling that to an higher iso might work far better reducing noise that's introduce by various other components needed for CCD or CMOS sensors.

Also since the pixels are so small when you have a giga of them, that means that noise size is also small, since it's size is relative to the pixel so when you view a photo now at 100% you can view at 20% or so but have you ever notice a lot noise when viewing your photo at 20%?

*sighs* was 3:21am here when writing that comment

Interesting read about this link

New wind is blowing through digital imaging land, hopefully it's a breeze which isn't too cold or too hot and has a nice smell

Today we have the CCD and the CMOS sensor, both work very well but surprisingly they are analogue devices.
The signal that from the sensor needs to make a trip around various components before you get a digital image.

Now someone at the TU Delft (go Dutchies!) has found a way to directly convert light into a digital signal and the great thing is, it use existing techniques and manufacturing processes use for memory chips, that means it's cheap!

I won't explain everything since you can all read it here link

So what do you think, can this be the new sensor for the 10s?

ps. seems the idea isn't new though but well still interesting.

I really like the popping in this photo, wouldn't have worked so well without it.