Ah. So there are - I'd only looked at the ones that were stitched.

We need to get the language right, though. It's a synth, not a synthy. With a percentage of (presumably) synthiness that tells us how synthy it is.

Not sure I understand then. I can't see any stitching failures.

They're quite specific about that kind of thing in their guidelines doc.

I think it will be a while before the technology, and people's ability to use it, matures, and I'm sure the things people put up there will contain everything from the sublime to the truly awful - like ordinary photography.

But I really like the concept, and, all things considered, the implementation, which is IMO pretty damn good for the first public release of something so novel.

Are there really two bridges in yours, or has it just got it completely wrong?

Yes, don't get me wrong. I'd be happy for them to come out with some monster (plus lenses) that I could drool over from time to time. And if it shuts up the rather dull "yeah but they have nothing for pros" line, then that would be good too.

And if it pushes people towards the high-end APS-C dSLRs so that there's a growing market for that too, I'll be happiest still, since it's pretty much where I'll probably stay, now, lottery wins notwithstanding.

Well, it's funny how it goes.

I've now taken more digital pictures with my K10D in a year and a half, than film pictures with Super A and ME Super in 22 years.

The average quality, though still nothing to boast about, is much higher than it was with film, and I'm having a hell of a lot more fun. Whatever the angle of view looked like on film, I don't really remember it, except when I play about with my old ME Super for old times sake and think, blimey that's wide.

There's very little more that I want in a camera - I'd like the K20D's pixels, and I'd like better handling of dynamic range extremes. Not particularly fussed about FPS, but low-noise high ISO and (even) quicker AF would be nice.

But what I really, really, don't want, any more, is a 35mm frame. The amount of money, to say nothing of muscle power, I'd need for the longer lenses would become ridiculous.

So I'm still hoping for a new body at some point, with a 24x16 sensor - above the K20D, but below this 35mm thing they're touting.

I don't mind paying about a grand for that, but I don't want to pay two or three grand for the same features with a 35mm sensor, that would mean a new mortgage for lenses to be able to do airshow shoots with.

I must admit it would be interesting if John and Gary were to hang around here long enough to give us their impressions of life with Nikon.

Pluses/Minuses compared with Pentax, kind of thing. As one that's only ever had Pentax, I've led a very cloistered life.

Yours evidently isn't, Don...

My feeling is that the crop is a shade too tight, especially at the top and (less so) the left.

Guess so...
Hmm. I can see why that would make it poor. It's fast enough for me though. Maybe it'll speed up - considering how many thousands of synths are there already, it's not surprising if it's slow to start with at times.

I can't believe no one here would be interested in PhotoSynth. Surely I'm not the only one here childish enough to run around taking a bunch pictures and then uploading them to see if it all really works?

So, shameless bump