colm boran

<p>I'd like to see some new firmware that corrects the inconsistent auto focus issues on the 7D ...</p>

<p>In this recent <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00XwUf">post</a>, I mentioned the inconsistency that I have been experiencing with Canon 7D Auto Focus. My friend that returned his 7D due to focus inconsistency bought a Nikon D700 instead, and we were curious to see if it could focus more consistently on static subjects. He came by the other day and we shot a few frames. </p>

<p>This quick study is far from conclusive, but as you can see in the images <a href="http://www.number6photo.com/Canon7DvsNikonD700/index.html">here</a>, despite using center AF detector aimed straight at the middle of the cylinder, and using single-point AF (set to Spot AF, for pin-point focusing), the Canon 7D seemed to be back focusing on the rope cylinder for some of the images. You can tell because the edges of the cylinder (farther away from the camera) appear more in focus than the middle of the cylinder. As you can see, the 7D eventually nailed the focus on the fourth frame. </p>

<p>The Nikon D700 is a full-frame camera with only 12 MP, so the magnification of the rope isn't as great in the cropped images. It appears to hit the focus in every frame identically, and appears to be focused on the front of the cylinder. But is it really better focused? Or does the full-frame combined with the fewer pixels make it too hard to tell? </p>

<p>Setup: similar to the previous study, each camera was mounted on the same tripod, mirror locked-up, shot with self-timer, at 200mm focal length at f/4. Between each frame, we manually de-focused the lens, alternating between front- and back-focus points. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>David, yes, I was shooting in single-shot mode, with manual de-focusing between each shot. I did some earlier comparisons with AI Servo and saw no difference. For portrait shooting, I think single-shot mode is the only realistic alternative if you want to focus (e.g., with the center AF point), compose, and then release the shutter.</p>

<p>@Robert: That's a good article, and no doubt many will be helped by it. It certainly applies to my experience with my 85mm f/1.8 on my friend's 7D. But it doesn't address the repeatability issue that I found on my brother's 7D. Without changing any settings, or camera position, etc., the focus error changes enough to be noticeable (at the pixel level) from one frame to the next. Or at least it did one day, and not the next, which is a little perplexing.</p>

<p>I think it's this inconsistency that shakes people's confidence. If you the camera / lens combo always does one thing, you can use the micro adjust feature to fix it for good. But if it's front focusing one shot, and back focusing the next shot, and it's difficult to see if it did either one on the LCD display, you won't know if you've got or missed the shot until you get home.</p>

<p>For moving targets like sporting events, no one expects 100% of the images to be perfectly focused. Most of us have to admit that the camera is doing a much better job than we would do if we were focusing manually, especially at 8 fps. But for static images like portraits or landscapes, most of us were probably able to get 95% or more shots sharply focused manually, and we expect the camera that can do such an incredible job on moving targets to do a damn-near perfect job on static subjects. In my experience, neither my old 20D or the two new 7D's I have tried are consistently nailing the static shots.</p>

<p> I'm beginning to think the auto focus errors have always been there. For example, my simple comparison showed that my aging 20D, which has been consistently very good with static subjects over the years, is in reality no more repeatable than the 7D, which I initially thought was erratic. I think it's simply because the auto focus errors are more visible on modern cameras (at the pixel level), especially 1.6x crop bodies with 18+ megapixels. Perhaps that is also why people shooting 20+ megapixel full-frame bodies don't notice it as much. </p>

<p>As I mentioned, the focus error in reality is very small, and not noticeable in the final image (assuming only moderate cropping was applied to the original image). I do believe that 18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop body has reached the point of diminishing returns however; whether from the optical path not being able to resolve any more detail, or whether it's from auto focus error repeatability, or a combination of the two.</p>

<p>@Puppy Face: Intrigued by your results with Spot AF, I mounted my 300 f/4 L again, and shot the scratching post cylinder again with Spot AF, and Single Point AF; 8 shots each, alternating between manual front and back de-focusing between each shot. Oddly enough, all the shots came out essentially the same this time; I can't discern any significant difference between any of the successive frames, much less whether they were shot with Spot AF or Single Point AF.</p>

<p>You can see the results here: <a href="http://www.number6photo.com/CanonSpotAFversusSingle-PointAF/index.html">http://www.number6photo.com/CanonSpotAFversusSingle-PointAF/index.html</a></p>

<p>I don't know why it did this well, although I did notice that I had inadvertently left the Image Stabilization ON despite being mounted on the tripod. I had heard on older lenses like my 300 f/4L IS that leaving IS on while holding the camera absolutely still (e.g., when mounted on a tripod) could potentially degrade the image, but these images are as sharp, if not sharper, than the previous attempts on the tripod with IS OFF. 2s timer and mirror lock up were used in all cases, so I'm at a loss to explain it.</p>

<p>I also did some quick tests using Spot AF with my new EF 85mm f/1.8 using the MA focus custom function. On my brother's camera, the lens does very well anywhere between -5 and +5, so I plan to leave it at 0. I'll see if I can borrow my friend's 7D again and use Spot AF on his to see if it makes a difference.</p>

<p>If the 7D can focus this well all the time, I would be thrilled. Thanks for the tip!</p>

<p>I borrowed my brother's 7D camera body a few months ago for an outdoor portrait shoot, but my initial plan of shooting in the late afternoon sun was thwarted when heavy clouds rolled in right as I started shooting. From my experience with my 20D, I was nervous about noise if I increased the ISO too high, so I left it at a fairly low setting (400), and took my chances with slowish shutter speeds. I was shooting with the camera mounted to a tripod, and from experience I knew if I kept the adult model still, I could shoot shutter speeds at 1/30 s or so, and be alright.</p>

<p>Although I loved the features and handling of the 7D, I didn't feel the images were better, and perhaps not even as good, as what I would have obtained with my 20D. Everything seemed a bit soft and the focus seemed to be off in several images. I was kicking myself for breaking my own rule about never using new equipment for the first time on an important shoot. But, I chalked up the soft images to the slow shutter speeds and possible model movement, and dismissed the whole thing as operator error.</p>

<p>Weeks later, a friend of mine loaned me his 7D after complaining about less-than-spectacular images he got on his Hawaiian vacation. Coincidentally, I had just received a brand new EF 85mm f/1.8 from B&H that day, so I mounted that lens on his camera to test both at the same time. I had read reviews that this lens may be a little soft when shot wide open, so I took some tripod-mounted photos of the bar code on the lens box. The photos at f/1.8 were indeed pretty soft, but as I stopped down toward f/4, they became very sharp. The troubling part, was it looked like the f/1.8 shots were out of focus, not just soft due to the optics. Out of curiosity, I switched to Live View with 10x magnification, and manually focused. The f/1.8 shots were now very sharp! After going through the range auto focus of microadjust settings, I found that the sharpest focus was achieved at a setting of +15 with the 85mm f/1.8 lens. I began to wonder if my portrait shoot using my brother's 7D might have gone better had I calibrated my lens beforehand ...</p>

<p>Fast forward to today, and I am considering buying a friend's EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. He took his 7D back after getting fed up with focusing issues on 3 different 7D bodies that he had tried, and he ordered a Nikon D700 instead. He's now selling his Canon lenses. He loaned me his 70-200 for a few days to try it out to see if would like it. I plan to upgrade my 20D to either a 7D or the 7D's eventual successor, so I borrowed my brother's 7D again. I took some test photos of my cat's vertical cylindrical scratching post (made with sisal rope) using the following lenses:</p>

 

 

<p>300mm f/4L IS</p>

 

 

<p>70-200 f/4L IS</p>

 

<br />

 

<p>I focused each shot on the center of the scratching post. The vertical cylinder is a good target because you can see if the lens is front- or back-focused by seeing which part of the cylinder is in focus. If the sides of the cylinder are more in focus than the front, the lens back-focused. If nothing is in focus, you can assume it front-focused.</p>

 

 

<p>All images:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>were shot with the lens at maximum aperture (wide open) to minimize depth-of-field and better determine how well the camera was focusing on the target </li>

<li>using Auto Focus were shot with the single, center Auto Focus point selected</li>

<li>of the scratching post were made with the camera or lens mounted on a tripod, with the mirror locked up and the 2-second timer active to minimize camera shake and mirror-induced vibration</li>

<li>shot on the tripod had Image Stabilization (IS) disabled</li>

<li>shot hand-held had IS enabled (Mode 1)</li>

<li>were routed through my usual workflow: raw capture, processed in Adobe Lightroom 3.3 with Adobe Camera Raw conversion (sharpening set to narrow (faces))</li>

<li>were cropped at 100% magnification to show the pixel-level image</li>

</ol>

<strong>

<p>Auto Focus Microadjustment</p>

</strong>

 

<p>I varied the Custom Function Auto Focus Microadjustment parameters from -20 to +20 in increments of 5. Between each auto-focused image, I manually de-focused the lens, alternating between back-focused and front-focused.</p>

 

 

<p>Initial Conclusions:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The images made with the telephoto L lenses didn't really benefit from auto focus microadjustment (i.e., the best images were with settings very close to the default (zero)).</li>

<li>There is focus error variability from frame to frame, even when the focus microadjustment wasn't altered between frames. The differences could be repeatability error in the auto focus mechanism, but in some cases there seemed to be more consistent error when the focusing was recovering from front-focused points rather than back-focused points.</li>

<li>The 70-200 f/4L lens appeared sharper than the 300mm f/4L when shot at the optimum microadjust settings.</li>

</ol>

 

<p><strong>Auto Focus Repeatability</strong></p>

 

 

<p>To further test focus error repeatability, I set the microadjust setting at 0, and I shot 5 auto focus frames one after the other, always manually back focusing between each shot. Then I shot 5 more auto-focus frames, always manually front focusing between each shot.</p>

 

 

<p>I was curious if the 7D had more focus error repeatability than my old 20D, so I put the 70-200 zoom on the 20D and shot 5 auto-focused frames with manual back-focusing between each frame, and 5 more with manual front-focusing between each frame.</p>

 

 

<p>Initial Conclusions:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The 7D has auto-focus error variability (i.e., the camera's auto focus is noticeably unable to repeat the focus from one shot to the next), but nearly all the shots were focused well enough to be considered acceptable in my opinion</li>

<li>The 20D auto-focus error variability is similar to the 7D.</li>

<li>The 20D images appear generally as sharp as the 7D.</li>

</ol>

<strong>

<p>Hand-Held Shooting</p>

</strong>

 

<p>Since I shoot a fair amount of sports and candid portraits, I can't always shoot on a tripod, with the mirror locked up, and on self-timer. So I also shot the bird feeder in the back yard, hand-held, with the same lenses, plus a couple more non-L lenses that I own (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6, and EF 85mm f/1.8). All images were made at maximum magnification (zoomed in), with wide open aperture. I shot with both the 7D and the 20D with all four lenses.</p>

 

 

<p>Initial Conclusions:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>There is no significant difference in the focusing error between the 20D and the 7D in my handheld quick shots.</li>

<li>The 20D images appear generally as sharp as the 7D.</li>

</ol>

 

<p>You can see the complete results for yourself here: <a href="http://www.number6photo.com/CanonAutoFocus/index.html">http://www.number6photo.com/CanonAutoFocus/index.html</a></p>

 

 

<p>Titles and captions for each image show the equipment and settings.</p>

 

 

<p>I'm pretty sure the somewhat soft images issues I had during my initial outdoor portrait shoot were likely due to not calibrating my non-L lens that I was using, combined with the slow shutter speeds, some camera and model movement. Perhaps more importantly however, looking at the 7D's 18 megapixel 100% crops, and comparing them to the 20D's 8 megapixel 100% crops is a little unfair. Camera movement and focus issues are amplified at the pixel level on the 7D compared to the 20D. I'm happy to report that despite looking a little soft at 100%, normal-sized prints of my outdoor shoot made from the 7D with typical crops looked just fine. It does make you wonder why Canon bothered making the 7D's imager 18 megapixels vs 8, 10 or 12 though. Seems like a waste of memory, and the processing engine has to work that much harder to shove all those bits through the pipeline. Plus, larger photosites from fewer pixels on an APS-C-sized sensor, combined with Canon's noise-processing prowess, should lead to even better noise performance.</p>

 

 

<p>I have seen some issues posted by others where the focus on their 7D bodies appeared much worse than the two 7D bodies I have tried, and I have no doubt that my buddy that turned his 7D in for a Nikon D700 had genuine problems. I'm not sure I'm ready to pull the trigger on purchasing my own 7D yet. I'm interested in the improved AF tracking and frame-per-second capabilities of the 7D compared to my 20D for the occasional sport shoots that I do, but the images I have produced from the two 7D bodies I have borrowed have not been significantly better than my 20D, so it's hard to justify the upgrade. I think I may like the 5D Mark II, but I don't think the AF has fast enough sport-shooting capability (specs seem similar to my 20D). If I didn't already own so much Canon glass, I would consider get the Nikon D700, which seems to have the auto focus and higher frame-per-second shooting, combined with a full frame sensor at a sensible 12 megapixels. I would love to compare the auto focus capability of the Nikon 700D vs. the Canon 7D. Maybe I'll have a chance after my friend's 700D arrives.</p>

 

<p>It's probably <em>not</em> the equipment you're using that's causing your dissatisfaction with your images, it's more than likely the lighting and maybe some composition issues. Try shooting photos of someone standing close to a window that is letting in daylight, but not direct sunlight (e.g., a north-facing window). Use a tripod, no flash. Put the focal length around 70-85mm, shoot wide open or stopped down a little bit (you may need to crank up the ISO to 400 or 800 to get a fast enough shutter speed to avoid blurriness due to your subject moving).</p>

<p>If those results look better to you, buy a copy of Light, Science & Magic from Amazon for XMAS and learn more about how the quality of light is the single most important thing you can do to improve your images: Stop using the on-camera flash indoors, instead opting for ambient light with higher ISO. Do use the on-camera flash outdoors, on sunny days, as a fill flash. Stop shooting landscapes between 10 AM and 4 PM on sunny days when the sun is directly overhead, etc.</p><div></div>

<p>Our old Kodak point-and-shoot camera that we keep in our lab died. It was several years old and the image quality wasn't that great, but it did have threads on the end of the lens which we used to mount on our microscope, attach an LED ring light, etc. For various reasons, including cost and size, an SLR is not a very good option. So I'd like to replace it with another point-and-shoot, but I can't find one with filter threads at the end of the lens. Is there such a thing made anymore?</p>

I've used that EPSON Heavyweight Matte Paper. Pretty dull and lifeless compared to semi-gloss or gloss.

Is the reason that the R1800, R2400, etc., don't clog as often solely because of the pigment-based ink? In other words, do all EPSON dye-based ink photo printers still suffer from clogging like my EPSON 1280? Do dye-based printers from Canon and HP clog as often as the EPSONs? My 1280 clogged all the time as I only use it every few weeks and I wasted a LOT of ink cartridges constantly unclogging it.

 

I need to buy a new printer as my 1280 is no longer working properly, and I need to be in the same price range as Matthew. I would consider a pigment-based ink printer, but I also use will use it for general word processing, etc. Are there any disadvantages to the pigment-based inks (e.g., printing text on regular paper)?

 

Another item to consider before purchasing a new printer: I found that I always got the best results (color matching, longevity, etc.) by using EPSON paper with my EPSON printer. But EPSON doesn't make 2-sided glossy paper, which I need for various projects. Canon (and InkPress) make 2-sided glossy/semi-gloss paper, and I was leaning toward getting a Canon simply for this reason alone. Or, if I bought an EPSON, does anyone have any experience printing on Canon or InkPress paper with the pigment-based EPSONs?

Having the ability to make good prints at home vs. a lab offers the same advantages as digital capture vs. film. With digital capture, you can see immediately what you shot and determine if the camera is working properly, if lighting is OK or there are strange reflections from strobes that you didn't notice with modeling lights, whether eyes were closed, etc. Making prints at home you can immediately determine how well the final product will look, and you have complete control over the color, brightness, contrast, etc. You don't have to go to the store, or wait a few days for an on-line lab to send you back your prints (only to find that the colors are wrong, etc.).

 

That said, you need to be prepared to spend significant time and money on inks, papers, etc., getting your home system up and running consistently. Someone above mentioned an EPSON 1280 printer, which I also own. I have produced really excellent prints with this printer, but it this printer has a lot of shortcomings:

 

- Color inks are all combined in one cartridge. If you print a lot of images that use one of the colors, you have to replace the whole cartridge.

 

- The print head clogs often when you don't use the printer every day. Cleaning the heads uses approximately 5% of the ink in the cartridges, and it often requires 2-3 cleanings to get all of the nozzles working properly. I estimate that I only get to use 50-60% of the ink in a cartridge in actually making prints.

 

- Lately my 1280 will occasionally print strange colors. It's intermittent and happens with new and older ink cartridges. But it's frustrating to make a tabloid-sized print, and find that the printer shifted color on you half way through the print. If you re-print it again, it might be fine, or it might show up again.

 

I have no experience with Canon printers, but I'm thinking of trying one because I'm tired of all the trial and error with the EPSON 1280 and Canon have separate inks.

I have been making custom calendars for my parents and in-laws with photos of

their grandkids for several years. I print an assortment of photos on the

coated side, and the month with birthdays, etc. on the uncoated side. The ink

used to bleed slightly on the uncoated side, but it was still very legible.

Since it was just the text and not the photos, it was no big deal.

 

But EPSON has discontinued ColorLife Semi-Gloss paper, which was the only

paper in their lineup that didn't have "EPSON" written all over the uncoated

side. Same with Kodak. I bought a box of Ilford Premium Photo Pearl Paper,

but the ink bleeds so badly on the uncoated side that it's useless. I don't

want to print on two sheets and glue backs together.

 

I found that Canon and InkPress both make gloss / semi-gloss papers that are

coated on both sides. In particular, the Canon Semi-Gloss Paper Plus Double-

Sided looks promising. But before I buy a few boxes of that from B&H, I'd

like to hear from anyone that has used this paper with an EPSON 1280 or

similar EPSON printer.

 

Thanks!

I have an older 50mm CT* that I only use a few times / year. I

needed to use it today and went through my usual check that the

aperture settings and shutter were working. I noticed that the

slower shutter speeds (e.g., 1s, 1/2s) were at least twice as long

as they should have been (e.g., 1s setting was more like 2 - 2.5s).

Not a big deal as I was shooting indoor flash today (at higher

speeds), but still I'm curious ... does this usually mean the faster

speeds are also longer by the same amount? I know I could shoot

some Polaroids to figure it out, but I don't have any on hand at the

moment.

 

I guess I need a new main spring? Any advice on where to send it?

I live in Michigan but the Hasselblad authorized repair center near

me didn't impress me much the last time they fixed this lens. That

reminds me, the spring was replaced and a CLA done on this lens

around 5 years ago by that local Michigan shop. The lense only

light use by me. Does it make sense that the spring would need

replacement again with such light use?

 

Thanks!

I have used my 500 C/M on several trips to Europe. I usually take my 50mm Distagon and 150mm Sonnar. I have an 80mm, and even though it is small, I have stopped bringing it since I never use it. All the lenses are f/4 and I use a tripod for every shot. But if you want to go handheld, the extra stop you get with the 80/2.8 might help quite a bit.

 

Since I always shoot on a tripod with a locked up mirror, I have no use for an eye-level finder. In fact, the waist-level finder helps me view the image with both eyes and composing the shot seems much easier. It's also smaller and lighter than an eye-level finder.

 

The whole set up is very compact and fits (barely) into my carry on luggage, with my clothing! The RZ67 is a big monster compared to 6x6 Hassy. For portability, there's no contest. If you insist on the larger image, then you might consider the RZ67.

 

The comments above on the flex body are well worth considering. I don't shoot much architectural stuff, but if I did, the adjustments from the flex body might be well worth it. Should be right up your alley considering your LF background.

<html>

 

<body>

 

<p>I'm considering buying a newer 80/2.8 C T* lens.  This is the

<b>Bay 60</b>

version, not the older Bay 50 version.  When were these lenses

built? 

What is the difference, especially optically, between the C and CF of

this era?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

</body>

 

</html>

Art,

 

"irregardless" is not an English word. It's another common mistake made by many; apparently even English teachers :-)

 

"Irrespective" or "regardless" would have worked in that sentence.

One minor correction to Charles' list:

 

13) The circuit is called "sample and hold", not "track and hold". If it "tracked", it wouldn't be much of a exposure lock, would it?

I just bought a used A12 back (RU xxxxx makes it a 1987 model).

Cosmetically it's in excellent condition inside and out. The crank

turns smoothly, the light traps are supposedly new, etc. The film

rollers roll smoothly and don't make any noise while turning.

However, they have quite a bit of play up and down (i.e., along the

same axis as the shaft). If you hold the back in your hand and turn

it upside down, you can hear two fairly significant

thunking/clicking noises as each roller slides from one end to other

along it's shaft. It's loud enough that when I first took the back

out of it's box and heard the noise, I thought something was rolling

around loose inside. When I opened the back and removed the film

insert, it took me a minute or two to figure out that the noise was

coming from the rollers.

 

I own a single 500 C/M and a single A12 back, both from 1972. They

are both in mint- condition. Over the years, I have rented

additional A12 backs from a local shop when I needed one. The shop

has sadly gone out of business, which is why I'm bought the second

A12 back. The other back that I own, and the half-dozen different

backs that I've rented (all fairly recent models from the 1990's)

have never made the kind of noise these rollers are making.

 

Is this common in A12 backs from the mid 1980's? It doesn't appear

to me that it will affect film flatness, etc. Is there anything else

I should be aware of?

 

Thanks.

In Ernst Wildi's book, <i>The Medium Format Advantage</i>, he talks about how the waist-level finder is inappropriately named. For hand-holding a Hasselblad with a waist-level finder, he recommends pushing the finder firmly into your forehead while shooting. He also makes some recommendations on how to use a monopod effectively: don't stand it straight up like a pole, lean it out in front of you, spread your legs a bit, and again, push your forehead down onto the camera to help steady it. Personally, I don't like pushing my forehead down onto the waist-level finder and I don't own a a monopod. I use a tripod almost all the time and even with it, I notice a pretty big difference between shots made with the mirror locked up and those where the mirror is moving.

 

 

Get a copy of <i>The Medium Format Advantage</i> or another one like it. You can get it for around $35.00 at buy.com or book stores.

Like you, I used to shoot hand-held 35mm and was never very happy with the image quality. I researched everything for about a year, deciding between a high-end 35mm camera system or MF. I bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M with a 150mm (I bought it primarily for portraits). I took my first roll to a local shop for processing and held my breath. Unfortunately, the results were worse than my typical 35mm images. It wasn't the quality of the camera, but I found hand-holding a Hasselblad with a waist-level finder gave me soft images. You can't really steady the camera very well to your mid-section. If you try to push the viewfinder against your head to help steady it, it is also awkward. Perhaps with a prism finder it's easier. Certainly many wedding photographers use Hassy's hand-held in this way. However, the other poster above is absolutely right: in my experience, you will want to mount a MF SLR on a tripod to achieve significantly better results. In fact, using a tripod for your existing 35mm gear might make a bigger difference than you think. Not just in camera-shake, but it may force you to slow down and think more about what you're shooting. In most environments, it's very hard to tell the difference in prints (up to 8x10") from negatives taken on my Canon EOS Elan with 28-105 zoom vs. my 500 C/M with a 150 CF. B&W is another story. MF beats the hell out of 35mm in that category. Chromes are also much easier to examine in MF.

I agree the organization of the new site isn't up to par with the old one. But regarding the speed, you guys aren't "logging in" are you? I've noticed this makes the B&H site go into security mode and everything takes 10x longer for every page to load. If you search around without logging in, it doesn't seem that much slower than anyone else's site.

Check out Ernst Wilde's "Medium Format Advantage". I'm pretty sure he has something in there regarding the history of MF.

Polaroid is supposedly introducing a new 120 format scanner (early) next year (2001). It should work for 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 (I think). Do you really need 4x5" coverage? Can you wait?

</head>

<body>

I suggest you do a search on this site for Epson 2000P.  There has

been considerable discussion regarding this printer already.  There

is apparently a problem with the longevity of some of the ink/paper combinations. 

For starter, see this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0011KG&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet">link</a>

or this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013Id&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet">link.</a>

</body>

</html>

<html>

<body>

Try a search on this site for <i>Minolta Scan Multi</i>.  I've been

looking through the postings for the last few weeks for the same reason. 

Also, try looking at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012UB&topic_id=35&topic=Medium%20Format%20Digest">this

posting</a> from last month.

</body>

</html>