simonpg

<p>Thanks for the tip Bill. I will.</p>

<p>Leslie, have no worry about the AF speed. It seems excellent. As I say above I suspect battery performance is normal. I always carry 2 anyway, no matter what camera I use.</p>

<p>Don, while I always use hoods, I confess to not doing so with a P&S. Tell me please, is it convenient and effective?</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Thanks Gents! It makes sense then that the eye-piece has some free-play.<br>

I have started to explore the camera's performance and image quality - RAW and JPEG files - not scientifically but first impressions.<br>

I am VERY PLEASED with this wonderful camera!<br>

The shutter release is fast - not DSLR fast but near enough. AF in normal light is very quick and way ahead of good P&S cameras.<br>

Continuous shooting is extremely fast - amazed me. I got 6 frames in low light at 800ISO and 1/15 sec shutter speed in an instant!<br>

The quirky digital function buttons are easily learnt. The more quirky menu system has some terrific features and after about 10 minutes of set up time, I'm very familiar with it.<br>

Like a post above said - who cares about quirky functions - image quality is everything.<br>

The normal shooting functions are GREAT in the true traditions of iconic cameras. I love the traditional shutter release and having an optical viewfinder (which is bright and clear). I really like I am using a quality camera.<br>

Image quality - excellent. 400 and 800ISO images are very clean on my 27" iMac. JPEGs direct from the camera are very pleasing. <br>

The best news is that 1600 ISO images are very good and very useable. I shot night scenes and very low indoor light at 1600 ISO - yes some CA is visible in the RAW files depending on the light, but normal and easily correctible and regardless will not kill the print. The noise performance at 1600 ISO is very good and certainly not a "turn-off".<br>

Flash - I am AMAZED by this tiny little pop-up flash. Room scenes are evenly lit; groups of 6-8 people at about 4 meters away are perfectly lit. Fill flash is accurate always. I am so pleased with that - a great surprise.<br>

My next step is to print these files to A4 and see how they really look. But I expect they will be great.<br>

Keep in mind that I have not fine tuned any camera settings - all are in default position out of the box. The EXP setting seems to have some very clever smarts for optimal image quality - I'll explore that soon.<br>

It strikes me that Fuji have perfectly paired the Fujinon lens with the sensor characteristics.<br>

Finally, BATTERY usage. I have taken about 80 images with lots of extra focusing and playing with features between shots and a great deal of looking at images on the LCD. I also took about 30 with flash. The indicator is still showing 100%, so depending upon how that indicator operates, it may be much the same as the LX3's battery usage, which always pleased me.<br>

So, what pleases me so much is that I can finally have a non-system (shooting 6x6, 35mm, DSLR etc I do not want another interchangeable lens system camera) convenient P&S camera that I can take with me anywhere anytime and be sure of quality images. At the same time I can use it as a real camera and feel 100% at home with it in use, knowing I am not sacrificing much lens optical quality, sensor performance and functional convenience - all in one compact beautifully built body.<br>

To those who say: "I wish it had this or that; it should have this or that", I suggest you try to enjoy it for what it is and does so well.<br>

Now my trusty mint LX3 will need a new home!<br>

Well done Fuji!</p>

<p>I've just unpacked my long awaited X10. I'm impressed! I've noticed a small amount of "wobble" or free-play in the viewfinder eye-piece and wonder if that is normal?<br>

Having set it up I should say that visually the menu system is quite different but took just 10 minutes to get familiar with its functions and logic.<br>

BUT 1 question. The build quality seems outstanding. However, I have noticed that the plastic eye-piece around the viewfinder has a very small amount of "wobble". I detected this while adjusting the diopter setting.<br>

Can anyone tell me if this eye-piece is supposed to be 'fixed" or if others notice a very small amount of 'wobble'?<br>

By the way, my initial examination of image quality indicates it is every bit as good as promised. I'm also amazed by the quality of the inbuilt flash.<br>

Many thanks.</p>

Thanks Benny. Your comments about SilverFast are helpful and similar to Jurgen's experience. Funny thing was the lab

thought the Colour cast was due to the setting being mistakenly on E-6! Cheers.

Many thanks.

It is clear that the issue of profiles if far more significant with Ektar than anything I've shot before. My lab will just have to

get therofile set upmin their system.

Shashlik your experience is very similar.

The analolgy some users have made with the scanning process having a parallel with digital RAW capture is an interesting

one that puts handling Ektar into perspective.

Thanks again.

Many thanks to all for your comments. Well it's been a revelation!

I had no idea that Ektar was so sensitive to scanning workflow since my lab always does my scanning and Ektar is not

readilly available here. I don't do any scanning myself.

I gather that my lab needs to get the profile right for this film or risks triggering this Colour cast.

Despite having listened to many pro podcasts discussing the film's great attributes but never has Colour cast been referred

to when discussing it's scanning attributes!

So I will let my lab know they need to seek out the right profile and / or tweak their scanner.

Thanks for the kind offer Greg. My lab tells they managed to tweak the Colour. So if it persists to be a problen,Ill post an

image!

Cheers,

Simon.

<p>Recently I shot a number of rolls of Kodak's Ektar 100 (135 format) and FujiChrome Sensia 100 with my XPan. Since the XPan is more of an MF camera. thak anything else I wondered if MF users have had a similar exoerience?<br>

While the Sensia rolls processed and scanned perfectly, my 2 rolls of Ektar resulted in scans where every image on bth rolls resulted in a strong / heavy blue colour cast (not just a blue tone cast, but a deep heavy blue colour cast!)!!.<br>

At first my lab thought the operator had failed to reset the (Fuji Frontier) scanner from E6 to C41 film type, so they rescanned the 2 Ektar rolls. Alas, the same result (TIF files)!<br>

They were both shot in the same camera body with the same lens fitted and NO filter attached. Every fram has the same deep blue colour cast!<br>

Firstly, the Ektar rolls wee C41 processed along with other films that all developed perfectly.<br>

Secondly, the film was new with a very long use-by date. It was stored in a refrigerator since being purchased.<br>

Thirdly, the lab owner knows what he is doing and checked everything possible. He is hand adjusting thenm to get rid of the colour cast because we cannot think of what has gone wrong.<br>

Is it possible I just got unlucky and the fim was defective?<br>

I have used 120 and 135 Ektar 100 before with great results and love the film - now I am very puzzeled!<br>

So, now I wonder WHAT COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE COLOUR CAST?<br>

Thanks for your help. I posted in the film forum too just in case some experienced users of Ektar don't regularly visit the MF forum.<br>

Thanks for your time and help!<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Janne, is that blue colour cast a very deep strong blue throughout the whole film?<br>

I have been surprised by 2 rolls having a deep . strong blue colour cast and after checking my lab's whole workflow and the film ages etc, I am very puzzled.<br>

But a year ago my 120 and 135 rolls of Ektar scanned perfectly.<br>

Any ideas anyone?</p>

<p>J,</p>

<p>It is a good point about your wait for a G12. Maybe you're just not convinced and if not, then just wait I suggest.</p>

<p>Also, do get to a store with your own card and shoot whatever you're considering. I was keen to get the G11 and then tried one. Personally I just did not like the image quality at all. I was surprised that there were aspects of each image that I was totally dissatisfied by.</p>

<p>Later I did the same with the LX3 and loved it. This surprised me a lot.</p>

<p>Keep in ind that more APS-C sensor or 4/3rds P&S style cameras will appear. It is my view that the direction of the P&S market will be in image quality and thus sensor size - the camera companies' opportunity to drive more volume sales. The current "micro" sensors in most P&S cameras today are very limiting.</p>

<p>Strangely enough I had one other dissatisfaction with the G11 (and I know that most iterations of the G cameras have had great popularity), the form and size.</p>

<p>See I love the "rangefinder" traditional body form of the G11. BUT, it is only a P&S sensor camera - so the overall size/form has none of the real compactness advantages of a P&S - I was looking for convenience! Then I said I'm not happy with the small sensor image limitations in it and it is not that convenient like an LX3.</p>

<p>Tis is why I have an M8 / M7 system - relative size benefits and prime lens quality etc.. The LX3 was bought for pure size convenience with a decent image quality. </p>

<p>So, I suggest you be sure to try out what you're considering first - all ISO and all max apertures and lighting you shoot in.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Juan,<br>

You've received good responses.<br>

Personally (keep in mind I was a film EOS 1v shooter before going to the 50D and cropped sensor so my 24-70mm f2.8L & 70-200mm f2.8 L lenses needed a wider zoom in the kit & my more serious shooting is with prime lenses in 6x6 Hasselblad and Leica M formats), I think you have a mix of 3 issues to consider in selecting your kit. </p>

<p>And like you are doing, my advice is always consider the whole kit of all you might end up owning before buying 1 or more of them - then no tears over a buy that turns out not to fit later needs.</p>

<p>So, I suggest these 3 things are: 1. need for faster maximum aperture like f2.8 (it's always good to have 1 "fast" lens); 2. obviously focal lengths you'll need to cover and limit overlap. 3. any aspects of convenience / weight etc that may apply to you.</p>

<p>The great benefit of the 24-105mm f4L is its range and relative lighter weight and overall good quality. But it is limited to f4. So it makes a good single lens travel kit itself even on a cropped frame sensor.</p>

<p>Personally, I would add the 24-70mm f2.8L because of its true pro quality at wide to normal focal length and f2.8 speed. BUT it is heavy and bulky by any measure and especially compared to your 17-40mm f4L. The f2.8 helps get short depth of field with the wider angle focal length range less possible at f4. SO, be sure you will use it!</p>

<p>I would then add the 70-200mm f2.8L - a brilliant lens and so goood, it is near equal to primes at all focal lengths - a very special lens. The f2.8 allows great isolation of subjects, so is worth the extra money and weight.</p>

<p>Coincidentally, I will admit that this 3 lens combo is my own EOS lens kit! Yes, if I had money to burn, I would add the 24-105mm f4L purely as a single use travel lens. That would be a luxury and not a necessity.</p>

<p>Having said all that, if budget is VIP (but then consider buying a used excellent condition 24-70mm f2.8L if it otherwise better suits your needs), then sure buy the 24-105mm f4L instead of the 24-70mm f2.8L. It will give you the missing focal lengths above 40mm and even though it duplicates some of the 70-200mm range, it gives you the added benefits of weight and one lens coverage for certain circumstances/uses.</p>

<p>Like has been also said, there is always value in having a very fast prime lens in a kit too - like the 50mm f1.4 USM (amazingly good despite its cheap cost) or other as you prefer - for obvious reasons (not applicable in my case since I have multiple systems for different purposes. In the end be sure you have the focal lengths and max apertures you need and will use!</p>

<p>I hope that helps.</p>

<p>J I understand.<br>

Personally, focal range is quite essential with a P&S, simply because its purpose it to cover your needs in one small device. The f2.0 was very appealing to me as a Lieca M7 and M8 shooter too.<br>

Then I considered the 24-60mm limitation and decided my "street" purposes allowed me to live with it. Yes, at times I'd like it to reach maybe 80mm, but understanding optics I know it was not possible. As it stands the 24-60 f2.0 lens of the LX3 is stunningly good. Its macro performance is amazing!<br>

I have an A4 360dpi print of an insect that fills the page and the detail makes some of my 50D & L series optics look average. It seems to defy logic, but my Nikon D300 & D700 pro lens shooter friend has exactly the same comments.<br>

Happy hunting.</p>

<p>Juan, thanks for your private message - you're welcome. The example you posted again shows quite normal performance for the focal length and shot taken as best one can tell on the web - for a very wide angle lens!<br>

Keep in mind my comments about how you hold this lens - any wide angle from 35mm and wider is very susceptible to "user induced" distortion, which your image illustrates. Put it to your eye and zoom and move the camera up and down and watch the distortion you create.<br>

So, as a general rule wide angle lenses (best described as 40 to say 28mm) are not very desirable portrait lenses - the focal lengths risk inducing feature distortion like longer noses etc. Extreme wide angle (say 28 to 21mm) do more of this; ultra-wide angle lenses (wider than say 21mm) are high risk even if superbly optically corrected to create a relatively flat field of view (edge to edge low to nominal optical distortion) like famous German designs from Leica, Zeiss (Biogon) and Schneider (Super-Angulon).<br>

But any wide angle can be great for "environmental portraits" like your post, which tell a story. In that case you can deliberately induce some distortion to add to your "story", or take care to avoid it if you prefer.<br>

Play with the various foal lengths and deliberately induce distortion and see what you get - it can be creative fun!<br>

But if you want to shoot people and avoid distorting their features (like heads, body shape, noses etc) you should stick to "normal" focal lengths (say 40mm+ and around 50mm) and move your feet to get enough in the frame. These will not distort (when used with some care) and will have low distortion if not used at too extreme an angle towards the subject.<br>

But, best of all if you are shooting serious people shots like portraits, stick to shorter-tele lenses like 75mm and even to say 135mm. These will slightly compress facial features and are more flattering.<br>

A post said the 17-40mm performs better than the 24-105mm. I agree it does between 24mm and 40mm. BUT, this is for a simple reason - a 2.8x zoom factor is much easier to optically design and correct than a 4.3x factor. Also that does not make one a "better" lens than the other - these are 2 different horses for 2 different courses.<br>

For similar reason any high zoom factor (typically above 4 to 5 and in any range and 3 in wide angle range) from very wide angle (e.g. 20mm to 150mm) will be of very poor optical quality. The 17-40mm balances angle of view, zoom range, maximum aperture, size, cost and distortion/optical performance) very well.<br>

I am traveling with the 17-40mm and the 24-70mm f2.8L (an outstanding lens) and aspects of the 17-40mm annoy me occassionally but I remind myself ANY very wide angle lens is VERY hard to design as a zoom! 17mm is an extremely wide angle focal length and naturally prone to optical distortion even when on a cropped sensor camera and even if a prime lens! A perfect wide zoom would cost a fortune! In optics you get what you pay for.<br>

So, if optical distortion of even high quality wide zooms like this worries you, dump it and by a couple of wide angle prime lenses - say a quality 20mm and a 28mm lens for example. Some users a happy to be changing lenses to get superior optics. Today it could be said we are too dependent upon zooms and do not use our feet enough and then complain about optical distortion (as well as user induced distortion). :)<br>

In the end the 17-40mm f4L by any measure is a high quality very wide angle zoom especially for the reasonable price it costs and you probably will not find better in the Canon EF mount.</p>

<p>...And thanks to Kelly - spot on, it is being used by pros for exactly the potential one might want in the field - large screen viewing without dragging a laptop around; backup storage and later download to your main system, among other applications. Imaging if the storage capacity becomes 100gb +!</p>

<p>Thanks Kobe.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the report.<br>

I just wish Leica would adopt a policy of "informed customers". They just seem so secretive - repiras come back with comments like: "fault repaired"!<br>

Others like Apple issues software updates with a list of enhancements and changes and fixes you can review before accepting to update.<br>

Based on the no problems report here I'll go ahead and update.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>So, Dan, if your 50D has the AF set to the centre point only, then in servo mode the tracking will be limited to the centre point or the viewfinder/focus screen circle or all the focus points ( a wider area again)?<br>

My 1v had a large elliptical area in the viewfinder/focus screen that tracked servo focus regardless of focus points activated in custom functions.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>So, Dan, if your 50D has the AF set to the centre point only, then in servo mode the tracking will be limited to the centre point or the viewfinder/focus screen circle or all the focus points ( a wider area again)?<br>

My 1v had a large elliptical area in the viewfinder/focus screen that tracked servo focus regardless of focus points activated in custom functions.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I use one on my 50D and not being a fan of very wide angle lenses (especially zoom types), it was the 1.6x crop factor that forced me to add this lens to my EF 24 -70mm f2.8 L and EF 70 -200 f2.8L kit.<br>

Basically the EF 17-40mm f4L is a quite well corrected lens for optical distortion. You need to understand that there are 2 types of distortion from wide angle lenses - 1. optical aberration distortion (a matter of optical physics) ; and 2. user induced distortion - due to the camera tilt you cause when framing a shot. The more you tilt vertically or horizontally, the more exaggerated the optical distortion.<br>

So, when you are shooting in a manner you see extreme distortion like in architecture, position what must be straight as straight close to the image centre. Then in DPP and/or PS you can use optical distortion correction to fix the verticals (and horizontals if that is the issue). BUT, from this the software using your straight line will "stretch out the rest as much as possible causing you to have to crop the final image. SO, when shooting leave room around the image to enable cropping later.<br>

Also, with people shots, because the distortion is its worst at the edges, always shoot group shots / people shots with people well inside the frame edges or they will look very bad in that final image.<br>

Keep in mind that retro-focus designed wide lenses for SLR cameras impose the worst limitations on wide angle design. This is why quality wide lenses are expensive.<br>

Serious shooters use Perspective Correction lenses on SLRs or rectilinear design lenses on rangefinder and medium format cameras or large format view cameras that allow tilt and shift lens movements to correct the verticals while you shoot.<br>

So you are seeing either or both optical lens distortion (sometimes called barrel distortion) and converging verticals in buildings etc..<br>

But, when you use lens / distortion correction in PS, LR or DPP you will need free space around the subject in the frame for the cropping you must do after the software corrects the image.</p>

<p>Yes I use these in SD and CF versions and they are great. The download speed is quite fast and sufficient for convenient transfer to your computer storage.<br>

Like you say they represent great value for money.<br>

I limit mine always to 4GB - any larger means too many eggs in one basket.</p>

<p>As a rather reluctant digital adopter, the idea of a P&S digi-cam was an horrible thought for me. But even my M8 can be a bit much to lug around - "horses for courses"!<br>

So along with a friend with similar dislikes for P&S digi-cams I bought a Lumix LX3 - my need being the convenience of a truly small/compact camera and my purpose being convenient street and social occasion shooting making the limited 2.5x Leica lens range a non-issue for me.<br>

I've subjected it to a full range of image quality tests is all sorts of light at all apertures and cannot fault it (having regard to the obvious limitations of these P&S mini sensors). Even at ISO 800 good image quality is possible. A4 360dpi prints often cannot be differentiated from those from my Canon 50D files (using L glass)!<br>

It is a wonderful camera in every way - image quality is surprisingly VERY good. The f2.0 24-60mm (35mm format equivalent) is outstanding. The camera build quality is wonderful. And its price is very reasonable.<br>

I highly recommend it if the focal range / form factor and P&S limitations suits your needs. <br>

If a P&S is too small for your needs, then I think either of the 2 Micro FourThirds cameras by Panasonic and Olympus in either their DSLR or rangefinder "form-factor" are outstanding cameras - having used the 2 types offered by Panasonic, which friends own, I am thoroughly impressed with the optical / sensor image quality of these cameras. But if like me, your needs are to make a big down-size to a P&S then the LX3 is a wonderful choice.</p>

<p>Well it seems that the iPad might just be an optimal in-filed device for storage (when your cards are full); even backup (itself or via MobileMe); and post-shoot review device as well as for later file transfer to your computer system.<br>

In the past few months I've been contemplating alternative in-field storage / backup devices apart from the obvious laptop soluton (just too much to drag around in my case), which enables you to be sure the images transferred and without any corrupt files (you can actually see them). It seems the only other options are single purpose storage/viewing devices that are not too much cheaper. And then the iPad offers a range of other features!<br>

Maybe this is the ideal excuse to buy one! :)</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone and Bill for explaining focus shift.<br>

The extra stop is very useful to me given how I plan to use the 28mm. I'm not a wide-angle shooter all that much, but the crop of the M8 sensor makes my 35mm Summicron-M Asph now my everyday 45 to 50mm shooter. Hence the need for more occasional 28mm. <br>

I did consider the 25mm for the reason of some extra "space" beyond the 35mm, but there is no real "fast" option. <br>

The Summicron-M 28 Asph would certainly be the best option from what I have seen and read, but would be wasted in my hands by lack of use and is more than I can afford for this use. In fact I was very inclined to go for the Zeiss, but the extra stop is actually important for my use - thus I'm compelled to give the Ultron a try especially given the excellent reviews it has had.<br>

So, I have taken delivery of the Ultron 28mm f2.0 VC lens on a 14 day trial. So far my impressions are very good. Certainly the build, fit, ergonomics and mechanical use are nothing short of excellent. The real proof will just be in the optical performance.<br>

I've been out and shooting in a range of light and apertures and am now comparing like shooting with my 35mm Summicron-M. Sure, its not a 100% real comparison due to the focal length differences, but the resolution, tonality, chromatic aberration and resistance to flare differences will be a guide.<br>

I have already done tests for focus shift as suggested and I'm certain that there is none present at all.<br>

The Ultron is certainly sharp and draws a very attractive image. I do see some amount of softness at f2 out at the edges, but prints will be a much better proof - a computer screen at 72DPI is very limiting!.<br>

I'm sure the best test would be on my M7 with top slide film, but this lens just won't see any work in full frame film - too wide for me - the test for me is how it performs on the m8.<br>

So, right now the indications are very promising. It seems the Ultron might be the best "horse for this course"! More tests to shoot and then prints to do!</p>

<p>Many thanks to you all for your insights and very sensible comments. Certainly my first preference would be the Leica Summicron 28mm!<br>

But, while I have the 35mm Summicron Asph, the current 50 Summicron, and the current 90mm Elmarit - and think each lens is superb - a 28mm will be my occasional street shooter.<br>

My favourite and most used focal length in any format is the 35mm format equivalent angle of view in the range of 40mm to 60mm lenses. So on my M7 the 50mm gets 70% of use. On the M8 my 35mm gets 70% use.<br>

So my purpose for the 28mm also requires it to be fast (it is filling the role that my 35mm lens fills on my M7) so f2 is very desirable to me.<br>

A fast 28mm gives me flexibility in lower light as well as the ability to achieve stronger selective depth of field especially given its wide angle DOF attributes.<br>

If I were to be equally happy with an f2.8 lens, and for the amount of use it will get, I would go for the Zeiss - best mix of performance and value for money in my hands.<br>

But since there is a "credible" f2.0 now abvailable in the Ultron, it has strong appeal for me. That is to say, no one has made specific adverse comments about the image quality overall or even when wide open.<br>

I did wonder about 24/25mm options, but I feel the 28mm is a better option overall.<br>

So, consistent with evryone's comments about my purpose, I will give the Ultron a go. Fortunately locally, I get 14 days to return it for a full refund should I be disappointed. Can't ask for more than that can I! :)<br>

By the way, in terms of build quality, I thought it must be quite good because its weight is only 20gms less than the 35mm Summicron Asph - which is quite a heftly little thing! So I can only assume there is plenty of robust metal and glass inside it?<br>

I will watch out for that focus shift issue too.<br>

Can any one tell me the best way to detect focus shift please?<br>

Many thanks again.</p>

<p>Having recently become a digital convert, I find that my 35mm lens is no longer wide enough for my occasional wide angle shooting (my favourite every-day focal length is 50mm). </p>

<p>So, with the 1.3 crop factor I think I'll buy a 28mm lens. The dilemma is that between the 2 lenses I am considering to buy there is relatively small amount of $ difference - $150 to $190!!</p>

<p>But I am mindful of "different horses for different courses"! My most used lenses are Leica lenses. But unless there is a compelling reason in image quality, if the lens is simply for occasional use, then I am happy to settle for either Voigtlander or Carl Zeiss versions.</p>

<p>I am very aware that both the relatively inexpensive Voigtlander and Zeiss choices offer great value for money and good overall quality and optical performance. I understand the Ultron is 1 stop faster than the Biogon. So obviously if the Biogon was an f2.0 lens, then its price difference would be much greater. I could live with the f2.8 happily.</p>

<p>SO, I'd like users of either or both the Nokton f2.0 28mm or the Biogon 2mm, f2.8 lens, I'd like to hear your views.</p>

<p>My view is that both share good, but not great, body construction. Both are made by Cosina although to different specifications and price points. Both are optically good, but I suspect that the Zeiss optical design may outperform the Voigtlander as too would its glass and coatings.</p>

<p>But, do these differences set them apart by much. We get what we pay for, but at some point the cost of minor improvements becomes exponential!</p>

<p>So, I wonder if users have strong views about their optical (such as distortion, resolution of fine details, viignetting etc) performance?</p>

<p>Are the 2 lenses of similar construction quality?</p>

<p>In the case of the Zeiss - does the black chrome wear as well as the silver chrome.</p>

<p>Is the extra say $200 a no-brainer?</p>

<p>Many thanks for your time and help.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Joseph,<br>

I am so sorry to hear that your hard earned savings for what shgould have been a lovely Leica kit have just been stolen from you.<br>

Clearly you've had many many suggestion of help as well as much discussion about how to avoid this.<br>

I would like to suggest 2 things - one to help you and the other to allert the Photo.net community.<br>

1. There is a spot on this site to list vendors' names and post comments on your dealings with them. I suggest you add to the list the name of his company (regardless of what it actually does) and put a copy of all the information you posted here. Like many others if i am deaaling direct or via eBay with any organisation I don't know I first go to this area of Photo.net to look at members' experiences. On 1 occasion it saved me $1000.00 - the dealer engaged in deceptive practices with a bad history about 5 years long.<br>

2. Although I am an Australian, I recall a wonderful Texan saying: "Don't bring knives to a gun fight!"<br>

I suggest you go to his place of work ( do some investigating to locate that through his bank account name) and "politely" make a horrible nuisance of yourself where others will hear you - embarass they guy. Of course you don't do anything that could cause you even more trouble. But When I deal with ar..h.l.s, I do similar in a very strong but polite synical voice - "just tell Mr so and so I am here to collect the $3300 he stole from me!! Anyway uyou'll get my point.<br>

If he has a bank account you may know the branch he banks at - now I have no idea of the relative distances involved, but maybe with enough telephone calls to his bank branch and even a visit using similar words: I am here to get the $3300 he stole from me....<br>

If nothing else you'll humiliate him and maybe others he knows will hear about his fraudulent ways.<br>

Anyway, my suggestions simply illustrate the ideas and may not be practical in the circumstances, but illustrate some ways of making him know you are niot taking his theft (and that is what he did - stole yoiur money!) lying down.<br>

I hope somehow you get your money back.<br>

PS: I understand it is not worth suing him for $3300. God knows the costs will eat all the money returned (if that even happens). BUT, I suggest you look into the process because maybe for a relatively small amount of money (you may feel that is a worthwhile "pay-bacK") you can get his name listed as a defendant in a suit for theft/fraud. Now that will not look good when anyone does a background check on him later on!<br>

Good luck.</p>