Payment sent...

You've obviously not tried peaking on a camera that has it well implemented!

PM sent re Sigma.

LOL @ Don... If you're really bothered about some faceless weirdo who you're never going to meet getting off on a photo of your son's ass (irrational but understandable) - why post it online in the first place? Even so, the thought of some paedo going to the effort of deblurring a pic seems rather implausible.

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky image software engineers! (shakes fist)

But seriously though. People who are paranoid about their faces being unblurred on streetview need rounding up to have their actual faces permanently 'blurred'.

Do you mean just storage or storing/viewing reduce sized versions of your images?

Google+ seems better than flickr - images are resized to 2048 pixels a bit like flickr, but there's no limit.

You can upload larger images to Google+ via Picasa, but there is a 1GB limit for such images.

You could always email the images to yourself on Gmail - the storage limit there is 10GB or something!

It looks similar to FocusMagic, but allows for (and automatically detects) more complex camera movement.

You can zoom the sigma in to 12mm to reduce the worst excesses of the distortion. But you can't zoom the 12-24 out to 10mm...

I went from a K200D to a K7. I didn't really notice it being noisier at base ISO- I was more impressed with how much better it was at high ISO: usable ISO1600 - wow! (Seems rather quaint now!)

The low ISO images (ISO400 and lower) do, however, have a bit more grain to them. You can either eradicate this in LR3 or similar, or just accept that this sort of noise has no impact on prints or web sized images. If you're not happy, send it back or sell it on - or get some professional quality ISO100 negative film scanned and pixel peep it for a bit of a 'reality check!'

I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view, but unless we take photos purely to view them ourselves, other people's perceptions do matter. Thinking about this and the other thread, it strikes me that being 'true to life' is less important than plausibility / attractiveness. As long as the image is plausible, and attractive, it will be pleasing to other people. Sometimes you might improve the image by 'rebalancing' the colours. Alternatively you might alter the colours in a blatantly unrealistic way, which can be successful if it's artistically justified and / or attractive.