You don't need a lot of pixels for a good laugh

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Browne, May 20, 2011.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, May 20, 2011
    #1

    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 20, 2011
    #2

    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Elliott Roper Guest

    That's the difference between weightless and witless.
    (sorry RichA, I couldn't resist it)
     
    Elliott Roper, May 20, 2011
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    (PeteCresswell) Guest

    (PeteCresswell), May 21, 2011
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    ROFL.
     
    Alan Browne, May 21, 2011
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    That was the chuckle. But with Kelly there with his bald head it was
    just too much...
     
    Alan Browne, May 21, 2011
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Neil Harrington Guest

    Neil Harrington, May 22, 2011
    #7

    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads

  1. We don't need you Nikon users switching over to Canon...

  2. The final image is 40,784 x 26,800 pixels in size, and contains about 1.09 billion pixels...a little

  3. Don't laugh but these are our first attempts at Macro...

  4. CS2 under VMWare ? (don't laugh)

  5. Now everyone has had a good old laugh...

  6. You learn a lot by reading...

  7. Why don't Sony and Pentax have this problem? Dead pixels, defective pixels

  8. You know that a larger-than-35mm sensor mirrorless is coming, don't you?

Loading...