Tommy Emmanuel. One of several Chet thought were "certifiable."

No mention or musing on a "baker's dozen?" A bonus 13th item always seemed lucky to me!

Wayne Gretzky

Fujifilm's Raw File Converter still exists, for free, on their download site. https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/support/download/software/raw-file-converter-ex-powered-by-silkypix/ X Raw Studio, Capture One 20, Raw File Converter, Irident X-Transformer, Lightroom (s) all do Raw to JPG/TIFF conversions, and are all useful, depending on how you view your workflow. There are other options, as well, but those mentioned are most popular currently. The real treat with X Raw Studio is to be able to get the baked in silicon Arcos directly from the camera caw, if you have framed and shot in one of the color sims, and saved a raw. Nothing like it! For older cameras, use one of the above mentioned apps to demosaic to TIFF, and Silver Efex or the like for B&W.

I think Architect Jim Metzger is confused. The "pavement" in the foreground is a play area in the park (shuffleboard or basketball court), likely quite completely level, and correctly represented. The actual street is not held level, but drains downhill, to the viewer's left. The houses (the famous "painted ladies," are most often photographed looking downhill from a position to the right of this POV) appear to lean, due to the keystone effect from the camera being pointed slightly down, resulting in the sensor/film plane is not being plumb vertical, and thus not coplanar with the house fronts. As a result, the houses, save the one in the middle, appear to lean outward in both directions. Stan B. framed with the best lens and camera available, the one he had with him. If he had had a view camera or a wider lens, he probably could have framed and cropped a completely "square" photo, with all elements orthogonal and appearing normal.

Get the 50-230, keep either the 90 (for speed) or the 100-400 (for reach.) Most folks who upgrade from the "consumer" 50-230 to the "pro-ish" 55-200 don't stay with it long, and move to the 50-140, for real "difference" (speed and "quality.) 50-230 can be had very cheaply, and is amazingly good. Light, too. I thought you never "dumped" a "great" lens? 100-400 and 90 are usually judged to be in that category.

It's Huey's chair. BPP should have copyrighted the image. The six and half minutes it took to get there, all that lame commercial cover art, is cultural appropriation. Should have done a hard hitting exposé on the bean-bag chair instead! Power to the People, Right On! (and get off my lawn.)

Re: Boy Scouts. Tom Lehrer here: https://youtu.be/VTRHv1I0xig Other, longer, live versions also available on YouTube. Re: Snow shovels & John Krumm's suggestion.: Cutting three or four inches off the end of a "grain scoop" blade results in a shovel much more useful for lifting and throwing heavier snow.

Since the bird(s) triggered the camera, shouldn't it/they own the copyright, credit and profits? Disclaimer: I'm not sure that the "monkey selfie" is settled law yet.

I generally prefer the "wide normal" of 35/40mm equivalent FOV, and have both the 23mm/f2 and the 27mm/f2.8 lenses, and like both, and use both. However, I have found the 32mm Zeiss Touit (48mm eFOV) "a tad wider" (than your 51.5mm eFOV, "long normal" 35mm Fuji) to be the lens that always wants to be on my Xpro2. I have the 35mm/f1.4 as well, but I seldom use it. The 32mm Touit has plenty of the wonderful Zeiss-ness. It was initially priced above the 35mm Fuji, and being a stop slower, it had a hard time gaining sales against the Fuji. A "sleeper" lens that deserves greater popularity, you should give it a try if you get the chance.

I hope NatGeo has signed up Geraldo Rivera to narrate the special.

A friend used to say "Thoreau had it easy, Emerson was doing his laundry."

I love Peter's work, and his brother's, as well. " Paris, 1991" is a particular favorite. But I can't become a collector now, late in life, when divestment and downsizing are necessary. I was tempted to buy all three, simply to get a copy of "Paris." I was trying to imagine myself explaining to my wife my potential purchase of "Italy, 2018." This came to mind: https://youtu.be/v_TzzcjRHWo Anyone else? Gorgeous, "precious" work! Fine blog, too. GLWTS - Mike

"Billions -real money", I don't think Warren Buffett ever made that statement, if he did, he was quoting Everett Dirksen, who was usually credited with the line. Dirksen says he was misquoted, simply because it sounded good.

If you like the jazzy Joni, with Metheny, Jaco, Mays, etc., you need to check out the DVD "Shadows and Light." A nice slice of the 1979 tour, great musicians, great band, great music!

Autocorrect got me - it should be "Hektor"

No one with a dog named "Hector?"

The 45mm Olympus f1.8 is a very fast focusing lens, even on the slower cameras (E-P1, E-PL1, E-P2, etc.) The slow ones, AFAIK are all early lenses: the 17mm f2.8 Olympus "pancake", the original 14-42mm Olympus zoom, with the rotating front element (Ctien has one), and the 20mm Panasonic f1.7. These are faster on later model cameras, but still slow in comparison to the rest of the lenses that are available, but they be come quite usable on the faster cameras. I kept my 20mm Pansonic, and now use it in AF mode on an e-p5 or e-m5. I used to use it in "semi-zone" mode on E-P1, E-Pl1 and E-P2 cameras (de-couple AF from the shutter button, pre-focus with AF lock button, shoot away.) I've thought about moving to the 17mm f1.8 Olympus, but actually like the 40mm e-FOV for all around use (compared to the 35mm e-FOV), even though I have always thought of myself as a 35 guy. (Latest adventure is the 27mm f2.8 Fujinon XF on an X-A1, also 40mm-e.) The mixed and often lackluster reviews of the 17mm f1.8 Oly have not been encouraging, either. I'll be interested in how your crowd source review of the 17mm turns out!

OM-D EM-5 is current favorite. It does so many things well, and is "sufficient" for the foreseeable future. This is followed closely by the EPM-2. With the VF-4 finder and the Panasonic 20mm, this is a digital Leica CL! Others I have loved: EP-2 (sold), EP-1 (still have), Samsung GX-1s (repackaged Pentax istDS2, still have) LX-3 & LX-5 (both sold, replaced by LF1, which is "loved").

I hope the tabulation will remove the film cameras, or at least tabulate them in a separate category. I second the motion to have a favorite film camera, favorite lens, favorite camera that you miss, etc. - but not all at once, please!

I think Steven Scharf meant 35mm f2.8 T* Sonnar on the Contax T3. I know I would not have loved or used mine half as much if it had been wearing a 28mm. I'm still looking for the digital equivalent of the T3. We're not there yet in terms of size, viewfinder and image quality!

Great stuff. After looking at a few of the Claridge pages, I was struck by how many of the photos (particularly the "street") shots lean a few degrees to the right. Full frame "contacts", viewfinder errors, the result of snap chest/hip shooting? It had me wondering all through the rest of the pages. Yes, there are a few that lean left, as well.

Contax T-3 Still looking for the digital equivalent of it! E-P1 with 20mm Panasonic and the LX-3 are close, but not quite. I have owned, used and liked many of the small cameras mentioned here. There are many good ones.

You really ought to give the the DA 21mm f3.2 a fair chance to win the spot on your K-5. The lens speed should be more than adequate on the K-5, given the high ISO performance of that camera. The angle of view is so close to the 35mm "traditional" that you should be comfortable with it. I had fears that it would be "feel" more like a 28mm equivalent (which is to say, wide), but it does not, at least to me. A truly great lens, and it is readily available. If you really do want a 24mm, the (old) Sigma Super-Wide II (f2.8) is very nice, and available in the manual focus "A" version for reasonable money. I don't use mine much though, as I prefer the Pentax 21mm to it. There is an AF version as well, but quite rare. - Mike

This is the classic, I think. I have a spelling checker It came with my PC It highlights for my review Mistakes I cannot sea. I ran this poem thru it I'm sure your pleased to no Its letter perfect in it's weigh My checker told me sew. Longer versions abound on the net, if you google "Owed to a spellchecker" One such reference is here: http://grammar.about.com/od/spelling/a/spellcheck.htm