Nikon is backwards

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:27:40 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-01-27 17:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

When I used to rent cameras on occasion I would have them show me the
ins and outs of the camera.

That way you know what is correct for that camera (or other tool).

I never thought that Nikon would be so stupid as to reinvent the screw thread. From now on every camera I buy will be a Canon.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:41:31 -0000, Ron C wrote:

On 1/28/2019 5:15 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:47:37 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:52:38 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:46:24 -0000, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:16:09 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 00:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:03:04 -0000, RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:32:41 UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more
than annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner. The rental company was not amused.

The bayonet is fine if you never go from one system to another and
back, but it grates if you do.

Not for me. Everything in life tightens to the right. Taps, screws,
etc, etc. Having to do one thing the other way simply will never
work
for me. It's one of those things I expect to be intuitive. If I
want
to tighten something, it goes clockwise. If that snaps a fragile
component inside the camera, I'll never buy their product again.
There's simply no need to be different to the rest of the entire
world.

cough Sounds to me as if you've never connected a gas hose to a
propane bottle! ;-)

Or changed a lawn mower blade.

No need for either of those to be backwards either. The designers
were clearly dimwits.

Gas bottle threads are left handed to prevent dimwits from using
inappropriate connections. Especially strong dimwits.

That's illogical. What are these "inappropriate connections" and why
can't they be left handed too? Anyway, all the dimwits will do is start
using adhesive tape.

This thread has drifted quite far afield.

We're still talking about thread directions.

Anyway:

A CGA fitting is the standardized system for the attachment of a
compressed gas
cylinder to the required regulator or transfer line. Examples of CGA
fittings would
be CGA-580 for Non-flamable, Non-oxidizing gasses such as Nitrogen, Argon,
or Helium. CGA-590 is used for compressed air and CGA-326 is used for
Nitrous Oxide. There are approximately a dozen commonly used CGA-fittings,
with others used for special purposes.

For more on this see:
https://www.concoa.com/cgachart.html

Without wanting to digest the whole article, how do reverse threads fit into this?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:51:55 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:07 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 -0000, David B. "David wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output.. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

An absolutely cracking shot! :-)

I've never seen a mirrored helmet before, what is it's purpose?


The reflection is in a clear visor, which the rider had reversed, and move
up so that it was clear of his face.

Reversed?


Note that the notch which should clear his nose, and if in the correct
orientation should be facing downwards, is now reversed and facing upwards.

I wonder why he did that.

Anyway, that wouldn't make it reflect more.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:51:56 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:07 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:21:09 -0000, wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:19:11 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.


Which compact cameras, and you know this how?

My "car camera" is a Fuji FinePix F600EXR, and it's the worst buying
decision I've made in the area of photography. I bought it when there
were not as many choices of compacts that have manual control and
shoot RAW as there are now. And, I made the mistake of buying a
camera online without handling it in person. The local stores didn't
have enough of a selection.

Another discontinued camera with technology Fujifilm has long abandoned.

Irrelevant.

Back when that camera was available there were much better compacts
available. I would have suggested a Canon G12.

Yip, Canon was way better than Fuji ****.

The zoom is jerky and extremely difficult to set to frame a photo..
Given enough time, I can frame the scene but that makes it worthless
for street photography. OK for a static scene, but that's not the
type of photo I go after. Shutter response is slow so any moving
target is blind luck. It's not good at low-light, but the RAW frame
can sometimes be rescued.

You chose the wrong tool for the job. You should have got better advise, or
done some deeper research.

No camera should be as slow as those Fujis.


...and that is why that camera was relegated to the trash can of history.

I would not expect a decent brand like Fuji to make rubbish in the first place.


I have known questionable Nikons, Canons, Sonys, and Panasonics. So Fuji is
not alone in the production of lemons.

I've only had one Canon and it was absolutely perfect in every way. My rented Nikon broke because I dared to turn the lens clockwise, my Aunt's Sony is not very sharp, and I didn't even know Panasonic made cameras. I like their batteries.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:51:57 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:06 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:27:46 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

What model is that taken with?


X-T2 with the XF 55-200mm lens.

Your image is only 6MP, the camera states 24MP. Have you a full size version?

I try to be considerate of broadband usage for folks on the receiving end
by down sizing files for sharing.

Nobody has limited bandwidth nowadays surely? I'm in Scotland and even I have 54Mbits/sec, unlimited usage. Your 24MP version took only 3.5 seconds to download. It's nothing compared to the HD films I download.

While I have the RAW files at home, I am
currently traveling (Lomé, Togo, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Cape Town,
South Africa),

That sounds fun!

and I only have my iPad Pro with me. However, For the
pixelpeeker in you I have dug up, a still resized version at 13MP which was
tucked away in my cloud files.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0rlowfnnqomm4h/DSF6645R1E1.jpg

Actually that's 24MP. And unlike my Fuji output, when viewed at 100% it's still sharp, so I guess that camera is actually decent quality.

...and just to show that a little compression, and downsizing when it comes
to online sharing is usually irrelevant, here is another downsized shot for
you to peek at.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dh8q323iuyle153/DSCF6922-E2.jpg

Depends what you want to do with it. Downsizing means you can't zoom in on specific parts, and displaying it large makes it fuzzy.

On 28/01/2019 23:51, Savageduck wrote:
Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

Be afraid, Duck, be very afraid...


I have ceased direct communication with that particular individual.

Did you get cross with me just for disclosing that you are now bald?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sj9k2zo0yz...06.06.png?dl=0

Or was it something else?

It was 20 years ago yesterday that I had to put my elderly yellow
Labrador to sleep so that I could make arrangements for the funeral of
my son. It was a double whammy - as a dog lover yourself you'll
appreciate that.

Your photographs are of superb quality when viewed on my 27 inch iMac!

--
David B.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:51:58 -0000, wrote:

Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner.. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

Be afraid, Duck, be very afraid...


I have ceased direct communication with that particular individual.

Why? He seems quite friendly to me.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:55:00 -0000, Ken Hart wrote:

On 1/28/19 4:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:01:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:38:15 -0000, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:52:38 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:46:24 -0000, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:16:09 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 00:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:03:04 -0000, RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:32:41 UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more
than annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner. The rental company was not amused.

The bayonet is fine if you never go from one system to another and
back, but it grates if you do.

Not for me. Everything in life tightens to the right. Taps, screws,
etc, etc. Having to do one thing the other way simply will never work
for me. It's one of those things I expect to be intuitive. If I want
to tighten something, it goes clockwise. If that snaps a fragile
component inside the camera, I'll never buy their product again..
There's simply no need to be different to the rest of the entire world.

cough Sounds to me as if you've never connected a gas hose to a
propane bottle! ;-)

Or changed a lawn mower blade.

No need for either of those to be backwards either. The designers were clearly dimwits.

Evidently, you don't understand the mechanics of a spinning lawnmower
blade. If the nut tightened in the normal way, the blade would work
loose in use.

And for some reason motors must spin a certain way?

It's standard. If a motor rotated the other way no doubt you would
complain about it.

If the mower blades spun in the opposite direction, you would only be
able to mow grass in the southern hemisphere.

My Aunt actually fell for that - she was on holiday in Africa, and someone "demonstrated" a bowl of water which spun the opposite way as he stepped over the equator line.

On 28/01/2019 23:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:40 -0000, David B. "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 21:37, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000,* wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000,* wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound
wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this.* In fact
more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner.* The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes
the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going
out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two
compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which
claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything
about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the
output
image isn't as good as that?* I don't care if it's the sensor or
the lens
or something else that limits it.* I expect an image worthy of the
MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be
needed.

Yip, did that.* I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote.* Canon gives
100%.* Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output.
Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of
Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

Be afraid, Duck, be very afraid...

He has nothing to fear from me, I assure you - and him! ;-)

Correct, you strike me as a big cuddly gentleman ;-)

Thank you - a bit TOO big, but losing pounds slowly since I stopped
drinking alcohol on the 21st March last year - the first day of spring!

They tried to make me into a gentleman at BRNC Dartmouth. I only
attended elocution lessons because it meant I could miss a session of
drill on the parade ground! ;-)

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-org...brnc-dartmouth

I served a full five year apprenticeship as an Artificer before I joined
the college.

--
David B.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:51:57 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:06 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:27:46 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound
wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

What model is that taken with?


X-T2 with the XF 55-200mm lens.

Your image is only 6MP, the camera states 24MP. Have you a full size version?

I try to be considerate of broadband usage for folks on the receiving end
by down sizing files for sharing.

Nobody has limited bandwidth nowadays surely? I'm in Scotland and even I
have 54Mbits/sec, unlimited usage. Your 24MP version took only 3.5
seconds to download. It's nothing compared to the HD films I download.

While I have the RAW files at home, I am
currently traveling (Lomé, Togo, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Cape Town,
South Africa),

That sounds fun!

and I only have my iPad Pro with me. However, For the
pixelpeeker in you I have dug up, a still resized version at 13MP which was
tucked away in my cloud files.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0rlowfnnqomm4h/DSF6645R1E1.jpg

Actually that's 24MP. And unlike my Fuji output, when viewed at 100%
it's still sharp, so I guess that camera is actually decent quality.


Actually it is decent quality, as are the entire current range of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras. So much so that I now have four Fujifilm bodies, and my
current primary camera is an X-T3.

You should check on a few reviews, and opinions from working photographers
using them.

https://keithwee.com/portfolio/review-of-the-fujifilm-x-t3-refinements-towards-perfection-and-that-zero-black-out-30-fps/
https://www.macleanphotographic.com/fujifilm-xt3/
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2018/09/06/fujifilm-x-t3-review-next-generation-x/
http://bryanminear.com/the-empire-strikes-back-xt3/

...and just to show that a little compression, and downsizing when it comes
to online sharing is usually irrelevant, here is another downsized shot for
you to peek at.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dh8q323iuyle153/DSCF6922-E2.jpg

Depends what you want to do with it. Downsizing means you can't zoom in
on specific parts, and displaying it large makes it fuzzy.




--
Regards,
Savageduck