ness

Naw -- just want to take advantage of the impending Royalex canoe shortage. I'm trying to make back the money I lost buying Twinkies on eBay.

Chunk it up.

Naw -- it's got a hot dog gun though. Everybody loves hot dogs.

200 almost worthless for wildlife? Naw -- scoot up. Tripod -- always; 400 isn't really in the cards for the vast majority of folks. Most serious photographers aren't adjusting resolution in-camera, they're shooting RAW. Much more info in a RAW file than a compressed jpeg. You've got a stop or more latitude in exposure, more dynamic range, and room for other adjustments too. I only use jpg for output -- whether it's computer, web or print.

Just a lowly 10 MP camera there. But, with a pretty sharp lens set on f/2.8 to get the nice background blur. I don't know what your budget is, but for just starting out that 14 MP with two lenses would sure get you going. You can upgrade lenses later if you really want. Here's an option: http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=nikon%2018-70&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e

Yeah -- you're right more MP allows you to use a smaller portion of the full picture with better detail. Kinda the inverse of the point I was making, but certainly valid. The zoom range covered -- 18 to 200 -- is great. The quality of the lenses, not so much. My son has the 18-55 and while it's fine, the difference in sharpness is noticeable versus my 18-70. I'll see if I can give a couple examples when I get home.

ROTFLMAOAWADMFYA!

As far as learning, green or full program modes will make you stupid.

Megapixels aren't nearly as important as the marketing would make you think. In fact, there are downsides to a lot of megapixels. Here's an example -- the first screen shot includes a picture I took. It's at a usable size on a monitor. But if I show it full-sized you see how much bigger the real picture is. Too big for a monitor, so the program basically throws away information to make it fit. Unless you're planning on very large prints, or looking at the stuff on a very large screen, there's not a lot of benefit to the extra MP. And, you're going to use up card/disk space faster and download times will be slower. Just not a lot of benefit to big megapixels for the vast majority of people. I didn't look too closely at the specs on the two cameras, but I suspect you could sum it up by saying the extra 12 MP cost you the second lens and $50. Decent bodies -- I'd say look for better lenses.

No interest, no problem.

Sure -- $2,000 per week is the usual vig.

Whatever color you want!

$10,000 plus I'll thrown in the paddles and deliver it to your driveway.

One company bought another, and it wasn't hostile. Most aren't. I didn't take the time to look too deep, but PolyOne was about twice the size of Spartech which had about a billion in annual sales -- so not a small company. Both companies were profitable beforehand. I suspect Royalex was a tiny portion of their combined business and just didn't fit, and/or the product line wasn't profitable. If you think of all the plastic crap in the world, it's easy to see how that could be the case. As for profit motive -- well, that's what makes the world go 'round. If you're charging money for your paintings, and deducting expenses for your taxes, you're just as bad as those big shots at PolyOne

....well. I don't think we really know what the demand for Royalex is. We also don't know why Spartech sold, but one reason companies sell is because they just can't make a go of it. It's not because big bad cigar-chomping executives break up the companies they buy just for the fun of it, without any regard to the workers or product users or -- yes, profits. If there's value in the Royalex name, patent or material, it'll get picked up, or another suitable material will eventually come along. And we're not out of canoes yet anyway.

Cabal -- had to look that one up

Tom Skerrit, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt. Seriously...dad wasn't much of a fisherman, but loved to hunt, so we didn't fish much as kids. Drowned a few worms here and there. I got married 25 years ago, and my wife's family all fished. I took it up and her uncle Roger became my fishing mentor and also a great friend. He had a fish & ski, and we'd fish the local reservoirs for crappie, bass, smallies and walleye. Before I had my own babies I had a nephew, who didn't have a dad, and I took him out all the time to fish. So, really those were the ones that influenced me -- one as a mentor, another as an enthusiastic student. I started reading up on flyfishing at some point, and it really sounded like something I wanted to do. Sorta dove into it head first, and have really been my main thing for many moons.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. Bob took some artistic license in his interpretation of my book, but it worked well I thought.

If you're interested in family snapshots and fishing pictures, a DSLR is probably more that you need. If you've got a larger body and a couple lenses you'll have some stuff to lug around, and you'll probably find you're leaving it behind and using a point and shoot or phone a lot of the time. That said, there are huge advantages to a DSLR. They're sturdier, feel better in your hand and offer a lot of features only available on higher-end point and shoots. (BTW, there are very nice point and shoots, like the Canon G-series, Olympus Pen, etc.) SLRs have the interchangeable lenses that will focus faster and CAN be sharper than P&S lenses. But the 'kit' lenses are often pretty mediocre. If you're serious about the best quality photos, a DSLR is the way to go. As far as brand, don't believe your source that said stay away from Nikon. Nikon and Canon are the big two. Canon is a much larger company and markets a lot more. They took a lot of Nikon's market share in the early digital years through rapid product development and slick marketing. Nikon took a more measured approach, and made fewer but better and more advanced and better built products than Canon. A typical example was when Canon rushed out video capability while Nikon was working on high ISO (low-light) sensors. Video's cool, high ISO was a photographer's dream though. Think gym photos. They also made big steps in autofocus technology and metering, while Canon spent most of their effort building sensors with more and more megapixels. I shoot Nikon -- with a 8-year old D200. The thing is built like a tank, and I've got over 15,000 shots out of it so far. It doesn't shoot video, but I've never been big into video anyway. It was a fairly expensive body, but I tend to buy quality that lasts. I really like that camera, and it's gonna be around for a while. My son has a 3100, and it's a fine camera too. He can use my lenses, but he's usually got the 18-55 kit lens on it. Now, for lenses. No matter what DSLR you buy, more of the equipment-related picture quality will ultimately depend on the lens. (The MOST picture quality will depend on YOU). I would always recommend you spend more on the lenses if you can swing it. Last I looked, Canon had a wider selection of lenses in the low-mid priced area than Nikon. But Nikon covers all the bases too. Both have excellent glass. I popped for a now-discontinued 18-70, and an 80-200 f/2.8. It really covers the range for me. The 80-200 is especially sharp, but heavy. The 2.8 allows for nice sharp portaits with a nicely blurred background ("bokeh"). I've done a few senior pictures, and mainly use that lens. Subjects can be more at ease if you're farther away. As for editing software, I really like Adobe Lightroom. I really hate Photoshop Elements. Lightroom is more intuitive and easier to use. It does non-destructive editing, i.e. it saves your edits without changing the original or making a copy. It has excellent key wording and organization tools, which is HUGE once you start accumulating photos. It interfaces with Facebook, Smugmug and other photo-sharing applications. There are cheap and free editing packages out there. If you're serious, buy Lightroom. Finally, take a look at B&H Photo/Video. They're an excellent web source for all things camera, computer.

Everybody's got their favorite, go-to flies and techniques, myself included. But I'll also adapt to where I am and what's going on around me. Wouldn't ever rule out scuds in a place crawling with them.

Nice write up. Seems like he might be an ok guy.

Nice!

We've stayed at the Roaring River Resort several times. Just outside the park, next door to Tim's Fly Shop. Rooms from typical motel on up to big cabins. Nice folks.

I'm liking these poppers guys. BilletHead -- you've got some pretty good looking color schemes on those guys.

Nice looking haul there, BilletHead! The peppers look good. I try to spray at the first sight of problems and stay on it. That still didn't help my beans though. I may have a soil-borne problem. First nice-sized mater yesterday too, a Brandywine. Red Cheese pepper is the first of any size. Bananas and others are taking their sweet time. Pulled all the carrots this morning. Brandywine St. Valery These Sun Golds have exceptional flavor Garlic from last week Red Cheese sweet pepper -- I need these to come on, because I wanted to pickle them Dills and Bread and Butter from last weekend. Did 4 jars of Dill, 2 B&B.