That link does work, so thanks for that Gamka.

Before I start, let me explain that what follows is merely a musing, a contemplation of where ultimately something could lead. It might make a basis for a plotline, it arose as I was working out details for something totally unrelated that I'm planning to write.

I was musing about cameras and internet connectivity and wondering if (a) now we have cameras connected to the internet whether we now need ant-virus software on them and (b) whether taking that one step further the technology could be used to actually plant images on someone's camera and thus frame them for something?

(a) probably is the more practical question and (b) maybe a long time off as a possibility, but do we think ultimately it could be done?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, so we should rest the subject lest it become pointlessly tedious.

Can't seem to make that link work Steep, can you check it please?

Who cares? I care, but only in the sense that I'm interested. You must care as well Smeggypants, otherwise you wouldn't bother putting in a reply about it.

It's merely interesting, we don't have to have an emotional stake in it to find it interesting....

We get all that, but anecdotal evidence is not scientific.

Amongst all the rhetoric there are facts to be found if we look.

Incidentally, battery care is important. And these days Lithium cells are viewed as dangerous items - just try to post one somewhere. Now that might be overkill, or it might be a real hazard, but it's right to mention it without it being called scaremongering, which clearly it isn't.

I've moved this to General Chat as it's moved into areas that are useful, but nothing to do with a Leads to Deals.

That saves it from being culled at some point, but can I remind everyone that Leads to Deals isn't the place for discussions. They get removed eventually and then all that effort is wasted.

Added to that, even lenses are rarely exactly the marked specification. Apparently, according to Photo Technique, in the 1970s/1980s, say 24mm lenses were likely to be closer to 25mm.

However, 24mm sounds better.

Then we have zooms. Does the M series 24-35mm actually go as wide as the K 24mm? Nominally yes, but in reality maybe or maybe not.

The Ricoh GR is actually marked 18.3mm though, so maybe that's just a bit of honest reporting.

As I recall the test published some time ago, even the Pentax batteries didn't meet specification, but they only missed it by a pedantic whisker. The others didn't come close, with some being abysmal.

If someone can pull up the table I'm sure newer readers would be interested.

This has gone so far off topic as to be come slightly unhelpful to the OP I suspect.

So how is Aura getting on with her RAW files? Any thoughts yet?