Using the smaller bodies like the 3 Olympus EM10s I own (1 infrared), you can build a capable 2.8 zoom travel kittravel kit in a bag that will have trouble containing more than a FF body + one 2.8 zoom. I've replaced the big 40-150 2.8 Olympus lens with the Panasonic 35-100, the 9-18mm Olympus with the 7-14mm 2.8 Olympus and the small Olympus flash with a small Flashpoint (Godox) flash + controller, but you get the idea from this picture.

The Whitney is downtown at a Renzo Piano designed new building overlooking the Hudson River and the High Line in the Meatpacking District. The Metropolitan Museum leased the old Whitney building and it is called the Met Breuer now. It is being used for more modern and contemporary exhibitions by the Metropolitan. The Met is supposed to be readying a new modern and contemporary wing in the meantime but is running into money trouble.

Let's see how long it will take for the Cubs fans to turn this feel good story into douche baggery, the way the Red Sox fans did in short order.

"The pictures are staged or shot to look as if they were." These are going to be fighting words for a photojournalist like McCurry, aren't they?

I agree with bencr. Not sure why a 300mm f4 for a 1/2 crop sensor is as large as it is or as costly. If it was a 2.8 that would be another thing. The 40mm-150mm 2.8 is a very nice lens, and cheaper than the FF equivalent.

Not sure why people would still be clamoring for the D700 when both the D800 and D600/D610 are superior, excepting the unfortunate D600 design flaw which is finally being rectified properly. The D600/610 in particular are probably superior to the Canon 5D series for much less.

I don't get this Sony. It's an Alpha, but it doesn't use the Sony/Minolta A mount. What are they doing? I thought their big push with the A cameras was an EVF with a version of a pellicle mirror that they have been trotting out for successive generations now. Does this new camera signify Sony is going to standardize on one mount?

I don't understand how the snap, crackle hiss of a record doesn't bother other people. I really dislike when my digital versions of old music have an audible hiss, listening to stuff on a record player would drive me up the wall.

Any love for the Aurora Borealis? This looks pretty cool to me! http://ctein.com/Auroral_Flames.jpg

Framing is exactly the sort of service that people are not going to be able to afford. How many hours does it take to frame a print? More than 1? People are charging more than doctor's hours for framing. I smell a rat.

Ahhh, Dave Butz- he of the battle scarred helmet almost as big as his son who used to carry it after the games. Memories of my childhood.

Something about framing doesn't compute. The actual image capture- doesn't cost anything once you pay for your camera and computer. The print- large prints for less than $50, with good quality, and getting cheaper all the time. Framing- the sky's the limit on pricing. Really? Framing is not the most important part of the process, I'm sorry.

That's a nice picture. Of course it seems to have some noise. And it's in black and white.

I have a D7000, which is just about the same pixel pitch as this D800. I had a D200 prior to that. I have not had to throw out any lenses and things have not gone downhill. Similarly, I'm sure lenses will remain usable on this D800.

It's fascinating how Kodak frittered away all their legacy advantages and even their lead in digital imaging. Meanwhile the whole net is ablaze with excitement over Fuji(film)'s impending camera. Kodak's managers did it no favors.

Well- if the D7000 is a stop or so behind the D700 in noise performance, and the D800 has the pixel density of the D7000, with some Nikon sensor magic this may just have the same sort of noise performance as the D700 with 3 times the megapixels.

Hello. I don't often use a tripod, but when I do, I ALWAYS use an L-Plate.

Yes, if you use makeup and control the light well, any halfway decent imaging device will turn out good product. I bet it would have looked good on a Holga, too. It's the lighting and preparation that's the rub.

http://www.economist.com/images/20090627/20090627issuecovUS400.jpg This is also a made up cover. Is it worse than what we're talking about?

I agree with Keith, it's an opinion magazine and their covers are done for effect. They make points with their covers, and this cover certainly makes a point.

Great stories, great insight. The times I've gone into his Soho gallery, I thought most of the pictures were anodyne. Going through his website, many of those pictures really are great, and it wouldn't even matter whether the subjects are famous or not.

How about a map showing the demographic and socioeconomic statistics superimposed on the locations of the high volume centers for these various procedures? Could this study telling us that minorities are staying close to home for care, and the high volume centers are not where they live?

And The Economist covers more of the world than either era of Time knew existed. I would be interested to see 1968 Economist vs. present day Economist.

But citizen, surely you aren't suggesting that the state would take advantage of its powers and harass innocents, are you? Only those with something to hide have anything to worry about. Why are you so interested in this topic anyway, citizen? Is there something you should tell us????

You can take the people out of communism, but it's not so easy to take communism out of the people. People with authority like to use it, I guess. She likely doesn't know the "right" people in Uzbekistan, so she's being persecuted. The pictures on display don't seem particularly political, so I wonder what else she's done, either in this project, or in the past. Or does she just have bad luck?