The same is true of the data on my dad's 2GB eee PC, the internal storage is too small to be useful so it runs off an 8GB SDHC card (which would work equally well in a K10D).

I don't think an arguement that an eeePC is not a computer would hold much water do you?

Also the act refers to the "contents" of a computer. The card is contained within the device being considered as a computer, therefore the entire card constitutes contents.

interestingly, if you can call a DSLR a computer for the purpose of this act then under section 3 subsection 6 (I've always wanted to say that!) destruction of data stored within a DSLR would explicitly NOT be criminal damage.

George you crack me up.

that deppends on how much prop blur you want, but as a guess I'd start at Tv mode ~1/125th.

nice capture, although I must admit it looks like both engines have died and he's about to crash.

I think that's the OP's point. Baring a few specific situations final real world image quality is brand independant. It's the other features which one should base ones system choice on. But the easiest way to pull the wool over the eyes of the punter in a camera shop is to tell him he's buying better image quality.

Very nice shot, I hope it sells well!

but it does, I am not familiar with the act in question but my understanding of what the OP said implies that the act creates an offence to do with the destruction of data stored on a computer.

If you could classify a DSLR as a computer for the purpose of that act (TBH I think it would come down to who had the better lawyer as to which way that went) then the photos would be documents stored on a computer and an unlawful attempt to delete them would be in breach of the act.

the logic is flawless, but it hinges on the definition of "computer".

I tend to assume that if someone has taken a picture of something and put it up then they have a reason to be interested in that thing, and my saying "I wouldn't have photographed that subject" isn't going to be helpful.

Comments on the composition and technical execution of the photograph are more likely to help the photographer take the shot they want and get the effect they are looking for the next time they go out with the camera.

A question then comes up about where you draw the line between form and content.

If someone posts a portrait of a person but their hand is sticking out the side of the frame, I might comment that I would have framed it to include the hand. Is this a comment on content (I wish there was more of the person in the frame) or form (the composition is sub-optimal)?

or have I still not understood what is meant by form and content?

A lot of older Sigma glass registers as Pentax glass in EXIF. I used to have a 28-200 which thought it was an FA 28-105.

Other than for journalistic purposes, I don't believe you can have a truely great photograph which is not strong in both catagories.

Even in a journalistic situation, if two photographers are present at the first martian landing and one gets the shot in focus while the other ones metering system is confused by the glare of the heat ray, which one are you going to publish? A trick question of course, since the invasion will destroy all the newspapers and TV stations, but still.....

Sorry Stefan but you've lost me as well

surely photographer is a subclass of artist in the same way as painter or flower aranger is?