greg_lawhon1

I am ready to move up from my trusty Epson 2200 and was planning to

gain the advantage of larger print sizes this time with the 4800 over

the 2400. I've read that the output of the 4800 is better for some

reasons (better profiles and better calibration at the factory seem

to pop up the most), but the max resolution of the 2400 is listed as

5760x1440 while the 4800 is 2880x1440.

 

Doesn't that make the 2400 at least theoretically capable of better

and more detailed prints? Is it just meaningless in the real world?

Sorry... I just noticed that the installation disk for the G6 software also refers to the program as "ImageBrowser 5.0" on the disk (rather than ZoomBrowser, as I first wrote, which is the Windows version of the program). In any event, my basic question remains the same: why different Canon versions for similar functions. Does the same version of third-party programs like Breeeze Browser work with all Canon cameras, for example?

Stupid question... I have a Canon EOS 20D and installed the Canon

EOS Viewer Utility on my Mac for downloading images and converting

from RAW format to TIFF. I also now have purchased a Canon G6 for

those time I don't want to carry all the SLR gear. The G6 comes

with a different program, called Image Browser in the software

manual and identified as "ZoomBrowser EX 5.0" on the Canon Digital

Solution Disk packaged with the camera (I haven't installed it yet).

 

Is any one Canon program sufficient for downloading and converting

RAW images from both of these cameras? Are two separate programs

really necessary? Is there a good reason that Canon can't

standardize on a single program for its digital cameras? I haven't

even mention DPP version 1.1, which was thrown in with the 20D

without explanation.

 

Can anyone clarify before I load the G6 software? Thanks....

Richard, you're hardly out of vogue! Based on the number of other

people I've seen handholding LF the last few years, I'd say you're a

trendsetter.

 

<p>

 

I'm an amateur and have used LF of various sizes off and on for fun

for years. But the one aspect of LF I have stuck with is using a

Crown Graphic handheld with rangefinder for "environmental

portraits" of my kids (I had to use quotes because it seemed like a

fancy term for taking their pictures as they ice skate, play golf,

swing on the swingset, build their Legos, or do whatever they like

to do at the moment).

 

<p>

 

Yes, I have several medium format cameras. I use them more often

than anything else. But I love heading out with the Crown. It's

pure fun. And it gives you a look you can't get out of a smaller

format (but you knew that).

 

<p>

 

It doesn't bother me if the naysayers say nay. I won't have any less

fun. I have a blast with handheld LF. In fact, I'm planning to pick

up a Fuji Quickchange holder system (the modern Grafmatic) so that I

can burn off 8 shots even more quickly!

Are all or most modern 135mm/f5.6 lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji) small enough to permit me to fold and close a Crown Graphic without removing the lens and lensboard? Modern 135s look longer and a little wider than the original 135mm Xenars and Optars or 127mm Ektars that came with the Crown, but my guess is they'll still fit ok. Can anyone confirm that they're ok before I order one?