That $20 Timex is the better time keeper with its quartz movement over the mechanical movement of the Rollex. If going for mechanical movement watches there are plenty of better options than Rollex. People buy a Rollex to show off a Rollex.

That is just crazy logical talk. How dare you have a well reasoned rational thought.

I thought the assault weapon of the day back then was the Kentucky Long rifle, not those silly smooth bore muskets the British used.

I wouldn't be putting any hope in the TSA being effective given their past performance of a 95% miss rate. Hell I've had a coat with a hand full of shotgun shells make it through their x-ray machine without issue. They were put in the inner pocket of the coat when done hunting and forgotten about so it isn't like I put any deliberate effort into concealing them. That said if I bring my old SLR and lens I get to spend an extra 15 minutes answering questions from the dumbest people on the planet.

I don't think the timecube guy was ever on slashdot.

They were still ahead of Pentax which didn't have a FF digital until a couple years back, yes I do mean 2 years ago.

And you had to go and ruin it. Let us never speak of this again.

From what I have seen of higher end mirrorless cameras the form factor would likely be more similar to my old spotmatic but without the mirror box. Most mirrorless cameras have a much shorter register distance so adapting old lenses to them is simply having an extension tube with the correct mounts on either end to maintain the proper focal range. The benefits of doing away with the mirror box

Control wise I can't speak to Nikon's layout but having used Canon and Pentax DSLRs I find the Pentax setup to be substantially easier and more logical. I would imagine that Nikon's mirrorless would have a similar control layout to their current DSLRs.

For most people all they will ever need is a cellphone camera and even at then the most pixels they would ever need is just over 7 million so they can print a reasonable 8x10. A fully automatic cellphone will produce better results as they don't want to learn how to actually take a picture or work a camera. I use my DSLR all the time and the only time I use the phone is when I don't happen to have my DSLR. I actually still use a fully manual film camera too semi professionally as I know a number of pros who do wedding shoots and having film pictures in addition to digitals is a thing now so I have done a few shoots as an assistant with a couple of film bodies. This is fun for me because those film bodies get a lot of notice as do some of the larger lenses I have because some times I will use a 300mm lens as a portrait lens or a 135mm as a macro. This way I work only with the actual photographer and have to deal with them and as we know each other we know what to expect of each other so there aren't the arguments that they get to have with the customers.

I have tried focus stacking some and it always seems to go sideways for me so I kind of gave up on that technique for now. I have been playing around a lot with macro of late as I have been trying to expand my photographic abilities and just get better all around. As much as I would like an f/0.5 lens as well I do understand their limitations. Even a 50mm at f/1.4 is on the soft side with a narrow DoF but then the people who complain about the softness and DoF of a 50mm at f/1.4 are people who I don't listen to for photographic technique or equipment advice.

If the biggest image you are going to print is an 8x10 then a 7.2MP camera with some reasonable glass would be all you would need. Granted that is a pretty big image for most people as a 5x7 (3.2MP is all that is needed here) is pretty standard and they really don't understand what resolution they actually need. On the other hand I have had 24"x36" prints made from some of my images and there even my 24MP high end DSLR wasn't enough to get the needed resolution. With these images I had created them in different ways as I wanted some very high resolution images some were done using super resolution others were stitched panoramas with lots of overlap, and with one it was both techniques. It all depended on what I was shooting and what effects I was going for but either way I wanted to create some huge images. At this point phone cameras are just a selling point as consumers don't understand that they don't need that many pixels and also they don't understand that they have been diffraction limited to a much smaller number of effective pixels.

This one won't be as diffraction limited.

I really hope you were just playing along there as that is what I was getting at in a joking manner as a DoF is a function of the lens focal length, F number, and distance to the object. To be able to resolve all that detail you would need a lens that isn't diffraction limited for that sensor which would probably be around f/.5 which even with a 3mm focal length would have a very shallow DoF.

For interesting effects I have been known to stick a 17mm fisheye on up to 19mm of extension tube. A reverse mounted 28mm lens on 112mm of extension tubes and there you end up with a DoF of a few microns which is awesome when you are photographing old semiconductors with feature sizes around 2 to 5 microns even when the lens is stopped down to f/5.6. For more fun get a tilt shift adapter to play with the focal plane, sometimes using those "wrong" can be real fun.

There are x-ray lenses that are in that range and they are sharp but again have that razor thin DoF

Because consumers don't understand diffracton and false magnification but do understand a bigger number. Too bad this is only going to make the red amplification problem worse as at a pixel size of 800nm it is getting awfully close to the long range of visible red so it will capture even less of that. I would be willing to be I can capture a better quality image with my old K-2000 (10 year old 10MP DLSR) and old screw mount 8 element SMC Takumar f/1.4 but if I used my K-3 and my modern good glass (I own the 3 princesses) I would absolutely crush it. I'd even be willing to bet I could do better than this sensor with a roll of Ektar100 in my Spotmatic F using that same 50mm f/1.4 lens although it would have more noise from the grain.

That said Sony does make some damn fine sensors but no one who knows about optics and sensors really expects this to compete with even entry level DSLRs or mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, let alone those monster digital medium formats from Hasselblad or Pentax. Instead it will be something for consumers to get into a phone pissing contest over and believe that they can take pictures just as good as a pro can.

But I really want a 3mm f/.5 lens (28mm FF equivalent) with a razor thin depth of field that produces 8bit jpgs.