Hello guys! Long time no see, uh? Yeah, I had a freaking couple of months lately... more or less I was able to achieve most of my goals: now I'm preparing my degree thesis (guess what, talks about digital photography! Actually it's an in-depth overview of the physic processes that involve digital image acquisition through modern sensors: it is quite an interesting subject, I'm telling you! ) and I got two exams left. My goal is to graduate in the end of May, let's hope for the best!

Meanwhile, I've been watching things changing here in dA! I'm feeling so... "old" somehow! There are so many new features and stuff around, I'm not feeling I'm prepared to start over learning the rules of this place again!
On the other hand, the time that has passed from December has brought many changes up until now indeed, and I got my good deal of news too.

First the lens matter: guess what, I haven't bought anything so far! I couldn't make up my mind, so I decided to wait. Besides, today I had a couple of hours to take my camera in hands for the first time in the last months, so I don't really have an urge to get new equipment. On the other hand, I got myself a new Canon compact digicam to bring always with me just in case. It is a "cheap" Powershot A570IS, just like a 560 but with stabilizer and full manual controls.



I've chosen this model because it was one of the cheapes Canon compacts with manual control over exposure, and the stabilizer is a nice feature on a compact. IMHO Canon are the only way to go with compacts, they are simply superior to the rest of the gang (though Fujifilm here is a strong player too). If I had to waste money and pursue a serious camera, I would have bought the A720IS for a bit more than the A570, but as I told you this little camera is going to serve me for everyday purpose: the more I shoot with it, the more I long to return back with my Nikon body in hands. Still, it's better to have a small decent camera always with me instead of having "nothing"!

I also made a couple of major changes in my "way of life": I discovered libraries! Now I'm using them to study and concentrate without being distracted by pc/videogames/skies/music/etc... For the last exam I sustained, I was able to study about 8-9 hours a day for almost a week without feeling any major stress! At home I can't usually keep concentration for more than a couple of hours, so this score was outstanding considering my standards!
Besides, I went through another "small revolution": name's Linux. I know, I know... I'm just the last of a loooong list of Linux newbies. Most of us got trapped once we experienced "wobbling" windows and 3D effects of the Compiz environment, but here things went a little different. I've always been a Pc hardcore gamer (stand-alone: never liked to go multiplayer, it was frustrating for me!), thus I never considered switching to Linux due to the well known limitations to the gaming experience (long ago it was because of drivers... now we have decent drivers, but we still lack software houses' support)... things dramatically changed recently.
First, I played a lot of great titles recently, such as Bioshock, The Witcher, Call Of Duty 4, etc... , and even though I enjoyed playing them a lot, I'm forced to think that what I liked more was an overall "experience" these games are giving, not gameplay on its own. We're now enjoying games that have cinematic visuals pursuing Hollywood movies... how different is playing a game today from watching a movie? Plus I'm totally puzzled by seeing games such as Crysis and Assassin's Creed being developed for computer with monster specs: what's that for? With my 1-year old pc I can't play them decently, they look awful con my setup, much worse than GoW/Bioshock/CoD4/etc... where's the innovation? I suspect that these graphic engines are paid by the hardware manufacturers, otherwise no software house would decide on its own to cut off from their potential buyers about 90% of pc owners: that would be economical nonsense.
So, in the end, yeah, they're cutting me out, and I'm saying "ok, I'm happy with it... means more time for my studies and for my photography at least!"
That's it, I tried installing Ubuntu on my laptop, and I totally fell in love with it. It's beautiful, it's fast, it's responsive, it's transparent, easy and free. I bought a second hd for my desktop and I've installed Ubuntu there too, though I'm having some troubles with it. It's a shame, more so since my laptop is working flowlessy since the day linux was installed. I'll probably lose a lot of time understanding what's wrong with my desktop and why the system freezes all of a sudden, but since I've tried Linux I don't really feel I can go back to windows. Everything in windows feels old, sluggish and misplaced once you fully experience a good linux setup. No doubt the complete switch will be a huge pain for me though, since most imaging software is not avaiable on Linux right now (only serious raw editors avaiable are Bibble Pro and LightZone), but I can virtualize windows for that very few softwares I miss (or eventually run them with Wine when they're compatible).
The best setup probably would be switching to Mac OSX, which somehow has most of the strong points of both Linux and Windows, but not only costs too much (since you need to buy Apple's hardware): it also misses a lot of the ethical value of Linux and of its convenience (I'm talking about the huge amount of free software avaiable).

Anyway... this is a period of changes, I hope I'll survive to all of them!
Since I couldn't (and I can't right now), I'm thanking everyone who has stopped by while I was away, who has faved, commented, or watched me: THANK YOU!
I'm uploading something new, few things since I didn't have time to shoot a lot recently!
Features will come afterwards, when I'll find the time to sort them!

Hello guys! I'm writing this due to the amazing confusion I made around the new lens I wanted to buy. I've asked you suggestions being too vague in the first place, and then I've spoken of "street photography" but included in the lens list only telephotos (no real "street" companions by standard means).
I've appreciated your comments and critiques a lot! I've understood quite some things, both about certain lenses and about street photography as well. I'm going to develop a bit the discussion, so that you may understand what the whole thing was about.

Prologue
I'll be quick! Before getting the D80 I had the long zoom Fujifilm S5600. It has a built-in lens that is equivalent to 38-380mm. I've used it for about 7 months, and mostly at its widest focal. I also felt the wide I could reach wasn't wide enough for some of my ideas, so I also bought a wide converter (which worked, but caused obscene distortions and loss of sharpness at borders). I occasionally used the telephoto capabilities of the Fuji, but not often for sure. Therefore, when I moved to a reflex I enjoyed the 27mm wide offered by the standard zoom, and wanting more in that direction I recently buyed the ultra-wide 12-24. What I was surprised to discover though was that with my kit lens I was using 70mm (eq 105mm) rather frequently, surely more than what I used to do with my bridge. My take is the following: on a digital compact you see things from a certain distance (at least with mine, since the EVF was almost useless I had to rely only on the LCD) and it gets difficult to "enter" into a scene. Therefore static (wide) landscapes are more likely to give less frustration to the photographer than action shots or out of the studio portraits. And now the real matter is...

Yeah, what to choose? Why I used the words "street photography" after all? My favourite subjects in photography have been landscapes. I'm always looking at the sky, waiting for sunrise/sunset colors, searching for new locations etc... so why bothering "street photography"? Dunno, I wanted to experiment. I feel I should try to break some barriers I've always had. I don't know what street photography is, technically, but one thing I know it's that when it's done the proper way, I simply love it. The best thing about this photographic category IMHO is that gives more power to imagination and concepts, portraing the most common things in the most uncommon situations. At least this is what I feel when I'm in front of a piece of art I can regognize as a "street photograph".
My great problem with it is that I'm very shy, and I'm scared to do something that could make people go mad. Thus I was thinking of getting nearer to the subject little by little, THAT would be the use of a moderate telephoto in my mind.
Most of you suggested me to get a 35mm f/2... I understand very well that most of the best street photographs are taken with normal lenses: they get you INSIDE the scene, instead of screaming "I'm spying this guy/gal from a fu**in' tree a mile away". My dear friend Gianluca (aka =nasht-01) also suggested me to read `cweeks "guide" to Street Photography and to buy a cheap rangefinder camera to start. Even though I don't really like Cweek's way of "explaining things" (that resembles quite more a "to-do list or-you'r-fckd" to me), I can understand why a 30€-worth rangefinder could be more comfortable than my dSLR for this purpose. I don't know what to say about this... right now I had in mind to experiment other techniques and types of photography, not restarting to learn new tools and a whole new format. I've put efforts and money in my equipment, and I want to try what I can make out of it before saying "ok, I need a totally different gear for this task". Btw, my father wasn't surely a photographer nor a photoreporter, but he managed to take some wonderful street shots with its old slr back in his days. He also had to run a lot now and then, that's to be said! He didn't have super telephotos: only a 50mm and a 135mm.
To go straight to the point, I'm more interested in getting a telephoto than a normal. This is because I completely miss longer focals, not because I KNOW ('cause I don't) they will be vital to me. On the other hand I'd prefer to spend a little more for a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of getting the Nikkor 35mm f/2. No doubt the prime is brighter, has better optical quality, and would probably be more fun, but I'll eventually need a bright and high quality standard zoom: I can't get double the optics only because primes can be handier and better at times. Having limited funds I must take decisions. On the other hand I already cover wide to normal focals (even if with a moderately dim standard zoom), so a good complement to my current equipment would be something reaching at least 135mm. There is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, but I would prefer the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 for the versatility. Nevertheless this lens isn't cheap, it isn't motorized and suffers from crazy halos in contra-light. On the other hand Nikon doesn't provide moderate telephoto zooms apart from the cheap 55-200 4.5-5.6 VR. I had it in hands, and I didn't like the feeling I had about its construction.
*DimensionSeven suggested in the first place to take the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR. It isn't a moderate telephoto, but up to 200mm its resolution is exceptional, has a good bokeh and doesn't have major shortcomings apart from the slow max aperture.
Another great friend, ~dEivIDmx, suggested to get the 80-200mm f/2.8. Apart from the fact we've already agreed that a tele is not suited for street photography, even if I were to consider getting a tele only for the purpose of having one, this couldn't be my choice. This lens is spectacular. I found one to try out in a store, it's truly built like a tank, screams "I'm a pro lens"... but unfortunately it's also screaming "I won't fit in your bag". Too darn big and heavy. I won't be trying any street photography with that lens. Eventually I could just do sport or wild nature photography. Even arranged portraiture would feel a bit hilarious I'm afraid...

Ok, this is the story, if you made it to the bottom. I really don't know how things are going to turn. I don't dislike both the 70-300 VR nor the Tokina 50-135, and I'm aware that in trying street photography they won't play a major role (except in a few peculiar occasions). I'd consider the 35mm, but then again I'm asking myself if I could skip it over a bright and sharp standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50. I'm accepting suggestions, thoughts, opinions, critiques... whatever! The more I think the more buying a telephoto seems the worst choice... but I wouldn't like to give away the addictional freedom of composition obtained with a wider choice of focals. I'm a bit stuck in a dead end...

ahhh, anyway...

most important thing now...

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE! MAY YOU ALL ENJOY YOUR HOLIDAYS AND RECEIVE EVERYTHING YOU WANTED FROM SANTA CLAUS!!

~PaulPat





~JCNero

Hello everybody! Christmas is at hand, isn't it?? I'm studying hard for my last exams right now, but I'll be done shortly! (though I'll have to keep on studying for my last three exams).

No real bad news so far... as always I've been away from dA for quite some time... this site is truly a time devourer, and there are still so many things I need to do... I'm missing photography a lot! Because of my time shortage since I came back from Paris, I couldn't have a moment with my camera for about a month. I'm also missing some of my best friends, who are working or studying and I couldn't catch up with recently.

One good news is that my parents bought me a great Christmas present: a Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8D! I've opened the box to check if it was all right and functioning and, omg, it's soooo small and cuteee!!
Here he is:



"Small like a mandarin orange" pretty fits its size! It is so lightweight, yet feels decently built. I've tried it with a couple of shots, and what really scared me to death was experiencing the focus ring moving while autofocusing under my fingers!! This is probably the only bad thing about this lens: it is so small that there's really little room to handle it without touching the focus ring while shooting. Still it is the cheapest lens you could get, and probably one of the sharpest. Having 1.8 on a camera is real fun!

So now, since I've spared some money, I'm thinking of new equipment... upon trying a friend's 40D with a Canon 24-105 f4 IS in Paris, I've enjoyed the benefits of having stabilization on a lens. While taking photos on the outside of the Musée du Louvre I've also felt the need of a stabilizer. Since a while ago I had decided to buy a strong tele next to my super-wide Tokina (having the 70-300 VR in mind), I brought with me not only my D80 but also my older Fuji. The reason is simple: it boasts a lens that reaches 380mm with f3.2, and though its shooting performances and ease of use are put to shame by every dslr, having it with me could have proven a fair "preview" of the capabilities of a dedicated tele lens. The result is that I haven't used it much. This is probably a consequence of the fact I grew used to frame with a REAL viewfinder instead of a small EVF or LCD, but also because I couldn't feel the need of such a long focal in most situations. I'm strongly convinced that if I had the 70-300 in hands, I wouldn't have used it over 150 or 200 mm.
Therefore, charmed by the VR technology, my attention was drawn by the very popular Nikkor 18-200 VRII. Now I'm considering to buy it, but I'm really not sure... Why is it so? Well, first thing first, if I buy a 18-200 my 18-70 will be likely to spend most of its days in a box collecting dust. This would be a shame, because selling it wouldn't earn me much, and besides its optical quality is on par or better than the 18-200 on the 18-70 range (surprisingly similar though, and that's quite something for such super zooms). Nope, it's not the HUGE distortion at 18mm that bugs me (my 18-70 has hefty distortions at 18mm too) since I have my Tokina 12-24, almost rectilinear at 18mm. What I'm unsure about is the fact that I could save more for brighter and sharper lenses. But how much is "more"? Right now the 18-200 VRII would cost me about 650€, which isn't bad at all. I wouldn't be able to get any Nikon pro lens with such money, but I could get a "pro" third party lens. I thought about the Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 AT-X Pro and the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 EX HSM as first choices, which would cost me equal or less than 650€. I've considered the Tokina because of the great built quality of the 12-24 I bought, but I read good things (apart from close focus issues) of the Sigma 50-150mm as well (it also has HSM). With them I would lose a good deal of range, but I'd also have sturdier lenses with overall better performances (in terms of sharpness, aberrations, distortions, and brightness). I'm bugged about the luminosityVSstabilization problem... I can't help but thinking that with the 18-200 I could enjoy the VR on the whole range, but I'm also asking myself if one day I'll feel the need for a faster lens...
This is it, I need your help/opinion on this matter. Do you think I should buy the 18-200 VRII or buy a third party "pro" lens like the one I've mentioned earlier and possibly update in the future my standard zoom with a brighter one? (like the Tokina 16-50/Tamron 17-50/Sigma 18-50 2.8)
I don't know what to do, but I'm really tempted to get the all around 18-200 for its coverage and convenience.

Since more and more in-depth reviews of the Nikon D300 (and even D3) are popping around the web, I decided to take a break analyzing other's equipment reviews and this time I'll tell you about an highly anticipated product recently on sale: the new DxO Optics Pro 5. This software has always been a convenient companion for DSLRs' owners, providing the user with automatic enhancements and corrections over database recorded camera bodies and lenses. Quick, powerful, easy... many things have been said about DxO. It's not surely a software to organize photos or to free your expressive capabilities, but it provides lots of useful tools to correct photos in a breeze (no matter the culprit of the errors being the photographer or the lens).
As I said, recently DxO Labs has released the new version 5. This version is said to be completely different from the older versions, having a completely new Raw processing engine. We won't discuss if DxO Optics Pro is the ultimate editing tool, or if it's better than another X converter made by the Y software house. All I want to do is let you judge if this update is truly "critical" to you, potential owner of an "old" DxO Optics Pro 4, or you can live up with your current software without spending extra money.

We'll be judging ONLY the automatic settings chosen by the softwares to see how the two converters operate on the field and to preserve the maximum objectiveness.



This photo was taken with my Tokina 12-24 at 14mm (1/50s f/8, ISO 200). There aren't key differences in the two photos produced by the two different versions. Perhaps you could notice that DxO4 renders some foliage darker than DxO5. The new version appears also marginally sharper, but it's something insignificant. In fact, this first simple test proves that with these kind of shots the two versions can be set so that they work just the same. Let's get to high iso noise handling (which was advertised to have gotten much better).



This is another photo taken with my Tokina 12-24 at 24mm (1/10s f/4, ISO 800). From the small previews we can see even better how the new version lightens up more the shadows (notice the rose window in the upper-left corner that was barely visible in the first photo). I would expect to find more noise with such approach to lightning... but this is not exactly the case. The crops show that the noise is basically the same, but the new version uses a more conservative approach with noise reduction than the older version. While DxO4 smears lots of details giving a very soft appearance to the photo, DxO5 keeps as much details as possible showing off more grain. My thought was: "it may just be that the old version uses a more aggressive noise reduction algorithm by default", so I tried to play with the settings, and discovered that no matter I tried to adjust them I couldn't reach the same output of the new version (I ended having more noise and same details, or less noise and less details). The best result I could achieve is the following:



It turns out that DxO5 is better at handling medium sized luminance grain than the older brother. The results show a more pleasing fine grain, something that is not going to be decisive on any prints, but can give away a sense of better sharpness in very dark areas. Notice that no improvements were made on chroma noise handling, which remains a bit underdeveloped and shows off as dark purple smears.

The final test will be on a specific issue I happened to experience with the old version 4: DxO4 was fooled sometimes by high contrasty dense lines showing evident color fringes that were not present in the same scene shooted in JPEG. For this test, I included samples from a wide variety of different raw editors. (with no real order, Lightroom, Capture NX, Bibble Pro and Lightzone).



As you can see from the crops, this peculiar issue was somehow improved in the new version 5, but color fringes are still there in the form of green and purple lines. Worst news is that there isn't a way to heal them in DxO5 nor 4. Too bad, but luckly it's just a rare issue. Overall DxO (both versions) is really good at handling chromatic aberration. It's interesting to note that each other raw editor present the same issue with different degrees of intensity (apart from Raw Editor C). Most of them though offer diedicated fringe/aberration control that give us the opportunity to completely get rid of this problem. It's also interesting to notice how the raw editors A, C and D introduce some artifacts on some edges of the steps, something both DxO versions avoid.

What's the final verdict then? On the whole the new version of DxO Optics Pro proves to be a competent piece of software for the photographer who doesn't care about editing his/her photo too much (or has another piece of software to do so) but needs a powerful processing tool that gets rid of lenses shortcomings all by itself. There are more changes in this version 5 we didn't speak about that go further than simple image quality and make it a bit more friendly and comfortable to use than the older version. When it comes to final output though, both versions seem equally good. The new version has a slight edge on noise handling, which is generally more conservative than the one on DxO4 (which often smears fine details if not tweaked even at low iso), but that's pretty much about it. Users that are upgrading their gear to one of the newest DSLRs won't have the choice to keep their good old DxO v4 since cameras like the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300 are only supported in the new DxO Optics Pro 5 (same thing counts if you're upgrading your OS to Windows Vista). Everyone else should truly consider saving money and keeping their good old DxO.

~PaulPat





~JCNero

Hello everyone! A few days ago I've returned from my trip to France, and as you may imagine I'm still recovering! We faced the beginning of the giant transportation strike the evening of the first day, and combined with other events things started to go crazy. In the end we decided not try our luck with the trains and we had a "calm" week in Paris instead of visiting Mont Saint Michel ()!

Can't say it was a bad idea, but we had problems finding affordable accomodations since we weren't planning to stay all the days in the expensive capital... anyway, we managed to survive somehow, and it turned out to be less difficult than we thought. On the other hand the underground system was free of charge for the strike, and the most useful trains for us had decent frequency (almost identical to REGULAR undegrounds here in Rome!) so we didn't have to walk miles to get back to our hotel (even though we actually did to visit the city!).

I can't say it was a bad experience for sure, but it wasn't an easy one. The weather was fine, but it was also freezing cold, something we didn't expect (even though we were quite prepared for the harsh conditions of Normandy). Probably we've chosen one of the worst moments to visit Paris: between autumn and winter -> no colors nor snow. Too bad, but we've made experience and that's what was really worth the trip. I plan to visit France again, but first I need to study french, at least the necessary to do basic talking. Then I'll probably go by car, or wait to have grown up enough so that renting one doesn't require me extra charge for being "a stupid potentially drunk youngster"! That's the same plan I've got to visit Norway and Sweden: there are some places I really want to explore, and I won't be able to do it without a veichle.

Interested in some postcard-like pictures of Paris? Well then, here you are!



Why do I checked the Amélie movie locations? That's just because me and my girlfriend love that movie and I wanted to bring home a couple of shots of the locations as a little surprise! Besides our hotel was in Monmatre so it was an easy task!
Oh I didn't put any photos of the Eiffel tower beacuse I don't wanna risk any copyright issues about that junk on night shots of the tower and so on... we visited it only at night, and I wouldn't bother sharing those pics either since I believe anyone has seen a pic of the place once in his/her life!

Now to the "techy" spot... FINALLY some serious tests on the D300 image quality are popping out in the web. For those interested I encourage you to take a look at the samples gallery of The Imaging Resource for the D300 (this is the link to the gallery).

I now have a couple of things to say about this sample, and though the wait was long now most people who were struggling about fancy debates such as D200vs40DvsD300vsD3vs5Dvs(etc...) can get their minds into rails again. The samples shown by The Imaging Resource show very interesting results for the D300. First thing first seems that the Nikon doesn't have nothing in common, not even the sensor, with the Sony Alpha A700: the usual approach to chroma noise reduction remains, and there isn't any chromatic noise visible at any ISOs in the D300 samples. Low iso samples show excellent resolution and sharpness, a great step up from the D200 standard settings (which were famous for leaving some softness in photos straight from the camera). What really sounds good about the D300 is that iso 3200 now IS really NOT an HI 1.0 setting. You can compare the Davebox and multitarget tests with a D40X (best noise handling in the Nikon camp so far), and you'll see that D40X's iso 1600 looks similar to D300's iso 3200. At a certain point you could even say that iso 3200 on the D300 looks cleaner than iso 1600 on a D40X! (note that if you compare multitarget tests on The Imaging Resource, the D40X seems to have a deeper contrast setting or a slight different exposure that tends to make deeper blacks, thus more noise) A strange side effect of noise handling on the D300 occurs at iso 6400 though, and it is evident in the far-field house test: the noise reduction algorithm seems to render an "halo" that totally washes out details. That is strange, because the performances of the camera seem so good up to iso 3200...
In the end, as far as it concerns image quality, the D300 early samples seem to show clear advantages over older models (better per-pixel sharpness straight from the camera, a good stop of advantage with iso performance), so I must admit that I've underestimated Nikon: even though it won't be the huge leap the D3 represents, when it comes to image quality the D300 is not a smaller D2Xs... it's something much much better! Now the last thing we need to see is confirmation of these early tests and some RAW shots without the standard noise filtration to see if Sony did the magic or if it's still the EXPEED doing the trick!

One last word guys. Exams draw near once again, so I'll be very busy lately. I'm hoping I'll find the time to grab my camera and take some shots (eventually uploading something too), but I'm not sure if I'll manage to do that. I'm very sorry about this, please understand me! I'll be in a though situation up until March. Let's hope for the best! Cheers to everyone!

Hello there my friends! I'm starting to think I can't really manage to keep on with this site... actually these days I have doubts I can manage to catch up with my own life itself! It's been a busy month for sure, but at the end of the day... well, I just can't remember what I've done! Where did all this time go? That's just close to 45k minutes gone forever, and I can't even remember what I've done with half of them (the rest is easy: sleeping and driving I suppose! )! I guess that's something that often happens to people who don't plan ahead and take things seriously... shame on me...

Ok, one thing for sure is that a week was gone with a flu, causing myself to rest at home with my father (who got flu before me). Mixed feelings for the rest: I've initially took my time with my girlfriend Michela, but it was about a week since university started over again for her too and she has pretty serious timetables this semester. One thing that pissed me off was that we had an awful weather for a looong time, and I couldn't grab my camera to get some autumn mood up until last saturday. I've also spent a couple of days in Tuscany, Pisa, to have some medical analysis. Some of you already know that it costed me all my filters... let's just not talk about that, I lost them, and I'm still feeling such a shame for what happened... guess I've learned a lesson about that.

Meanwhile I had to buy again some filters, and I choose to go cheap since I was saving money for a trip to France. Right, I forgot to tell you: I'm going to France next week! We'll be leaving on the 13th and we still don't know exactly when we'll come back! The idea is to visit Paris and Mont Saint Michel, but suggestions are really welcome!
Anyway, back to the filters... I bought a couple of Cokin and a couple of Kood ones to go cheap:
- Cokin GND8
- Cokin ND8
- Kood GND4
- Kood C-PL
Actually the Koods aren't bad. The pola surely feels a lot cheaper, especially the structure, which is entirely cheap plastic (while the Cokin's pola is made of metal), but the filter quality is pretty decent, and the GND4 is fair as well (even though I didn't appreciate the fact that is a bit thicker than the Cokin's). I would say you can live with these shortcomings if you're on a budget, especially for the pola which costed me close to one-third of the Cokin's! (I'll let you know if it'll turn to dust one of these days! )

I usually also speak about new technologies, new cameras, etc... I don't have the strength now, really. One thing that is really pissing me off is that the D300/D3 aren't off yet. While the most awaited D3 has been previewed and has already shown most of its insane potentials (check this Andy's journal entry for links on D3 previews if you're interested), D300's performances are still enigmas. We are all very excited for the D3 arrival, and happy-kudos to Nikon for the great achivements on the new FX sensor and the iso capabilities... but I think there would be much more praise in making a similar step forward in APS instead of FF! (most of us could also care more because of the price!) It's pretty evident that the D3 is the revolution, and the D300 will "only" be the evolution. But hell, I want to see how this camera performs!

Returning to serious matters... my devwatch is exploding: 4.300 messages. That's a whole freaking lot of messages. I'm not trying to fool anyone, I won't be able to reply. Right now I really don't have time. I'll try to work on some photos and submit something new, but I won't have the time to reply right now. On the day of the departure I also got an exam, so I'll have to study hard until that day... and then I'm off to France: no chances to waste time!
I'm very sorry about this, I'm so embarassed... especially for those who appreciated my works and commented/faved/watched, thank you all! You know I'm in a very critical moment of my life, I have to get things straight to graduate in a few months. I'm hoping I'll be able to catch up with all the things I'm leaving here on dA (old messages and promises) as soon as I'll have some time to breathe. Hate me, but please try to understand me! Thank you all my fellow deviants!

(hey, I'm not leaving the place if you misunderstood! Things will just continue this way unfortunately, and I'll have really little time to spend here! )