[IMG]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy9/i_berg/Goldfields%20Cemeteries%20Victoria/IMGP1708r.jpg[/IMG]

C&C welcome, as always.

From my limited understanding there's another way to get some indication of why the megapixel race is suspect. That is to use pixel density - how many pixels per square mm for eg - (as done in past reviews on another forum) as an indicator of why the race can't go on forever.

Pixel density is also a good way to better understand the limitations of compact camera sensors, and they were reached some time ago. APSC-sized sensors will soon come up against the same limitations, if that is seen in terms of comparable pixel densities.

Once that has been reached, the only way out is with FF - by providing a larger sensor area over which to spread the pixels (and thus reducing the pixel density that we started with here).

So the bottom line is that in a given area, if you wish to squash more pixels in, the pixels must be reduced in size (and so must the microlenses that service each pixel site). That approach has physical and practical limitations which will impact on camera performance & IQ - and there's the problem.

G'day and welcome Jim.

You'll be getting more letters after your name next David! Splendid achievement.

G'day and welcome Kev.

G'day and welcome.

G'day and welcome Chris - this feature can be quite useful, so don't be in a hurry to switch it off.

One of the advantages of digital photography is the ability to get instant feedback on your shots. This feature is one way of getting a feel for what works for you, exposure-wise.

Nice choice!

The filter would end up allowing less info getting to the sensor. But your intent is to reduce only unwanted light, while having the sensor work with only those frequencies you are wishing to capture. That means you can expose specifically for that desirable part of the spectrum, without blowing the image with light from the unwanted parts of it.

As to how you would make your own, not sure - sorry!

A second body is surely useful (even as an amateur) to give flexibility with focal length, and avoid changing lenses? That last is pretty useful here, as it can be windy and dusty for three seasons even in the southern part of the continent. In the centre there's the risk of dust 12 months of the year.

That brings on a second point - good sealing for the body itself, if visiting those more remote parts.

I should have added in my earlier post that should your trip extend to Melbourne, make yourself known Kevin, as I'd be pleased to catch up and show you around.