I'm not using Opera 10 yet.

This is how your post looks to me in IE8. I've your image has been resized to 800 pixels, but I've put a red outline on to show the width it would take up if it were shown 1024 pixels wide.




Notice the ads on the right have been shoved off screen.

Dan

Ahhh, this explains something that's been puzzling me. When I look at this thread (K-x ISO 1600 Shots) there's masses of empty space and the right hand column is pushed way off screen, as if the photos were much bigger than they appeared. Turns out they are, and although the forum is resizing them to 800 pixels wide, it's still allowing them the space to show full size. I'm using IE8 and Opera, it does the same in both.

When looking at Thoughton's test, I can see space to the right where the forum's leaving room for a 1024 sized image.

Is this everyone's experience? If so, I'll put in a bug report.

Dan

Cressing Temple Barns?

Dan

If you shoot RAW, then it's simple enough to include a grey card or just a white piece or card/plastic in the frame to take a white balance from - this will also remove any colour cast that the filter imparts. Take two shots though, one with the white card in, one without!

Dan

Are these RAW or jpegs straight from camera? If they're RAW, any idea how they've been processed? I think these need to be answered before we either write off the K-7 or herald the K-x as the successor to the D3.

As we've seen from the DPreview review of the K-7, there's really not any difference in the noise performance between any of the cameras (K-7, K20D, D300, 50D) when shooting RAW. Is the D90 any different (assuming the K-x does use the same sensor)?

Dan

Or jpegs? At quality level 12 you won't be able to tell any difference between the tif and the jpeg. Should at least halve the file size too.

Dan

Sounds like a truly terrible day at the office!

Dan

DA*300mm for 18 months no problem.

Dan

Don't forget your polariser!

Oh, and a tripod. That was a 3 second exposure.

Dan

Alamy.

Dan