After using the Sony F828 I was going to make the Sony my next SLR but when I had a play with it is seems 'tinny' compared to the Nikon. Perhaps part of the Minolta inheritance. So maybe with this camera Sony will come up with a more solid design.

None of the current lot are as sharp on wide angle as the F828 which lacking a mirror doesn't need retro focus lenses. There is at least a 2-3 pixel difference in sharpness.

Maybe in the digital stakes the high end non SLR cameras can be put into the class of Hasselblad Super Wide. I kinda like the non SLR as I don't have to look for the glasses to see the screen on the back and can review via the LCD viewfinder. My only real complaint with those cameras is that they are impossible to focus manually.

One of the features of the F828 that is a stand out in the studio compared to the Nikon D200 is that you could use the toddle control to move the focus point to any position in the viewfinder. Which when you have the camera mounted on a stand is a right pain with the D200 as manual focus is yuck and you have to move the camera to get a focus point.

There is a lot of options to consider. I've been holding off buying a new camera for a bit, I doubt I can wait till the end of the year. Most likely it will be a Nikon between me and the boys we have a bit of a Nikon lens collection.

I'm still open to suggest on this.

Yani 

Agreed.

Disagree. I don't have to agree with the moderator to play do I? It's not a tennis match where the lines of the court are clearly marked out.

What is the reason for moderation here? It's very iffy. I've seen far more robust debates on Corel forums and the only moderation required has come from the crowd. Far better to let a conversation fissle out than put a cap on it. In fact I've never seen moderation occur in any circumstance except from the crowd. This feels more like "Corel has a new car please wear a shirt and don't sweat on the seats".

Sets a dangerous precedent where people will expect to be saved by the moderator if they claim their feeling are injured for some quirky reason. We have a saying here 'toughen the # up' . Who knows where that conversation would have ended up. But I doubt if it was anywhere very dangerous. And really suggesting that people shouldn't replace cameras for environmental reasons is risiblly fallacious. Clearly assisting Rikk in a paradigm shift here is of international importance as is the presentation in here of true knowledge and serious debate. Else we may well end up with such things as Corel using astrology to make decisions on which features need serious consideration. Which naturally would be all the Capricorn ones.

Seriously Mr Moderator we have had heated debates on these forums that have lead to strong virtual friendships. Moderation needs to come from the crowd. And the crowd wheels a much more powerful punch.

That said issues of vilification on the grounds of race, sex and religion are a special case.

Let me just look back at the thread from another browser... "But please prattle on about being disrespected and be sure that at 2am I care."

I think that is about the most 'serious' comment made. You better be careful here if you start moderation on this basis as some of us practise disrespecting each other as a matter of course. That is how we stop heads from exploding. The only respect you get from the crowd here is rightly that which you earn from making quality contributes that inform and assist. Some have tried to earn respect through prattle but we deal with those as a group and move them to a enlighten position.

Yani 

Yani, this thread has not been moderated (you wouldn't see it online anymore if that was the case). A health debate and discussion is great, and we are all for it. Please don't misunderstand the previously made comment. Having an opinion and sharing it / providing arguments for it is great. Having two members debating in a thread in public is fantastic, as it gives the opportunity for others to provide insightful information. The only request from our side is to do this is a respectful and professional manner. This comment is not directed at anyone in particular in this thread or in the community, but much more a general comment for everyone.

The power of the crowd bring people into line real quick around here. And even some of the best of us have copt the paddle from the crowd on a bad day when everything is going wrong.

But it is good to say 'be nice' and refreshing to know that we are not moving to moderation which is only a stones throw from censorship.

Being sensitive won't get sensitivity from me. It just comes across as ineffective use of control processes. Poor me, aloof, integration, intimidation they don't substitute for rational explanation. Here's a nice little piece on reasoning that is worth making a local copy of. It could well be rewritten into a Corel context and poked in a box as a reminder that poor argument is transparent.

I'll do one as an example...

Straw Argument

1.    People who argue that Australia should become a republic are seeking to change completely Australia's system of government. (Note the simplistic summary and the lumping together of & quotall" those calling for a republic.)

People who argue that Corel should introduce release candidates are seeking to completely change Corel's management structure and undermine profitability.

;)

Reasoning Fallacies

Sweeping Generalisation

1.    By and large, All Aborigines are likely to abuse drugs, and commit crimes

2.    There's a few exceptions, but they only prove the rule, I still say most Aborigines are likely to abuse drugs and commit crimes. (Even worse - a sweeping generalisation pretending that it is not!)

False Cause

1.    Since 1975, Australia has had a liberal immigration policy; and since that time, there has been more ethnic violence in Australia - therefore it is this immigration policy which causes the violence. (One thing happening after another does not equal a cause.)

2.    If there wasn't so much sex and violence on television, our young kids would not be the delinquent hooligans they are today. (Simplistic causal link when things are more complex.)

Circular Reasoning

1.    Socialism is not a workable economic system, because an economic system in which the means of production is collectively owned cannot work. (False categories here - "socialism" and "an economic system in which the means of production is collectively owned" are the same thing!)

2.    You should not be given an extension on your essay because no-one should be given time past the due date for assignments. (Only holds if the latter claim is true - but no argument is made that it is true.)

Ad Hominem (against the person)

1.    Allen argues that rationality is a discourse, but he wears shorts and t-shirts a lot; Therefore Allen's argument is wrong. (Note the gap for an implied premise- People who wear shorts and t-shirts a lot generally don't know much about abstract concepts.

2.    Allen argues that rationality is a discourse but he looks so you; young academics know less than older academics; therefore Allen's argument is wrong.

3.    Allen has researched discourse theory for four years; if he has studied it then he probably knows what he is talking about; therefore Allen's argument is probably right.

False Dilemma

1.    Either interest rates will come down or there will be a world disaster. In either case, I will not have to worry about selling my house. If there's a disaster, ownership of property will come to an end and if interest rates fall, then I can easily sell my house. Therefore although my house is not selling well at the moment, I have nothing to worry about.(Either interest rates will come down or there will be a world disaster - but surely there are other alternatives?)

Golden Mean

1.    It is unfair to citizens already in Australia to let all the refugees and immigrants who want to come here from overseas settle in Australia. But it's also unfair to not let anyone come in, since Australia is a large, prosperous nation. Therefore we should let people migrate to Australia but not come as refugees. (While the first two sentences are important in their own right, they are hardly adequate grounds and may not be strictly relevant.)

Straw Argument

1.    People who argue that Australia should become a republic are seeking to change completely Australia's system of government. (Note the simplistic summary and the lumping together of & quotall" those calling for a republic.)

2.    [Imagine an academic is arguing that she will oppose a small, specific part of a proposed new accounting system - her opponent says:] It is impossible to make changes around here when everything that we want to do with the curriculum is always being opposed. (Taking a specific argument out of contxt is also creating a straw argument.)

Slippery Slope

1.    Letting students have unit representative will cause students to think they should have a say in how Curtin's schools are run. If they have a say in how schools are run this will cause them to try and gain influence over the whole unversity. Once students are influencing the whole university, no decision could be taken without their approval, which would cause the university's standards to slip and its academic integrity to be questioned. Moreover, the power thust gained by students would cause them to try and take control of all aspects of university policy, thus destroying the institution. Therefore, we should not let the students have unit representatives.(Note how the conclusion is reached from the first sentence via a long slide down the slope of bad consequences.)

2.    I accept that as a student with a severe illness and whose parents are getting divorced, you are individually entitled to an extension on your essay. BUT to be consistent, I would have to give it to someone who was well, but whose parents are divorcing; and then, if I granted that extension, I'd have to give in to someone whose cat had just died, and then, if I gave in there, to be consistent, I'd be obliged to give it to someone who had eaten a bad breakfast. Therefore I am not going to grant you an extension. (False appeal to consistency.)