Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="2kon" data-source="post: 148031" data-attributes="member: 14159">Thanks for the welcomes, you all seem a friendly bunch !Having severe difficulties using the site right now ( the Quick Reply box wont allow me to enter text, "Reply to Thread" doesn't operate, my login times out during post entry, and pasting text I prepare elsewhere in case of login timeout seems to add random line breaks and breaks the formatting. Once entered, text just goes gray and then the "Post Reply" button simply does nothing... ) so my membership may be rather short-lived if I can't find out what is going on ! Seems to happen on both my desktop and laptop computers. Anyway, I'll investigate. Eye-level, yes I owned rather too many cameras, but it was instructive ! As I hinted, I think the online reviews can be deceptive. They focus on "this years sensor" far, far too much. Resolution shootouts. Dynamic range. ISO performance. I found that for me at least, how a camera operates was at least as important as any technical aspect of the resulting image. Let's be honest, few times has anyone said to me "Paul, that photo has terrific per-pixel sharpness and must surely be approaching 12.7EVs of dynamic range !".  I learned. It's important we continue buying new stuff to keep the economy moving, but less so to improve our photography. The little D50 is a kind of statement of that belief. It does all that I need. It does it well. It handles well. I am getting superb pictures from it, not because of it's technical spec ( which is poor, by any recent standard ) but because I am not thinking about pixels, VR, lens-correction or ISO or fumbling with the buttons placed too close to my palm when I am taking a shot. Really, the photos are as good as anything I have obtained with far newer cameras. Where good = photographically interesting. I have plenty of technically excellent, dull pictures from "better" cameras, sadly ! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Street-photography, I have minor interest to be honest. I was attempting to buy "one camera" to cover all usage scenarios. Hence a long and expensive foray into u4/3. I believed the portability advertising. In practice, I found that if it is not actually pocketable, it needs a neckstrap and I might as well have a DSLR. I also realised that composing by LCD is not ideal, and that EVFs are still poor. Finally I realised that one camera is a fools errand. Hence I now have the pocketable camera ( Ricoh GRD4, a joy ) and a DSLR for anything else. It's a good combination. The GRD4 really IS pocketable, so it adds nothing to carry it all the time. The D50 works for everything else.If you can read this, it may mean my posting woes have at least temporarily been fixed. Let's see what happens when I try to post it. All text has gone grey again, so I hope I don't lose it !Paul</blockquote>

Verification