jack paradise

Also this one about the Canon Powershot A80

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/

Or you could wait a few years untill all digicam have APS-C size sensors!

Before you make a final judgment, take the time to read this camera review about the Canon Powershot A620.

http://dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a620-review/index.shtml

Lots of water have passed under the bridge since the Nikon 8400 came out. You might conside the recently introduced Canon Powershot A620, if you can work with a small sensor.

http://dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a620-review/index.shtml

http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_PowerShot_A620/4505-6501_7-31475447-2.html?tag=top

John,

Sony has come out with an APS size sensor digicam, the first ever in its class. Let's hope that this will show the way for digicam.

Jim,

OEM ink outcost even the finest champagne. Extrapolate how much a 2oz cartridge will cost you when you've used a pint of ink per cartridge set.

Jack,

Here's an interesting review with lots of pics of the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%201.htm

"...convert my 120 film to digital. Looking for some quality/price products..."

Easy. Get an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner.

With the right knowledge and software tools, there shouldnt be any problems for prints up to 40". Pro photographers like Jay Maisel have been selling 40" from an 8mp dslr.

You should'nt have any problem doing the same with a 12mp with a ff sensor.

"By 25% I assume that equals what Nikon call FINE or 1:4 compression in the manual. Similar to Pansonic's "seven dots"."

Nope. Just comparing file size on disk with camera resolution.

I've now found out that camera manufacturer also have a role in determining JPEG compression ratio.

I borrowed a Kodak digicam last week and played with it for a while. Average file size of some 50 pictures of very different subjects was exactly 25% of camera resolution. That's way too much compression.

The average file size for a Canon SD500 came out at 40% of resolution.

So it varies. My hunch is that the higher the compression ratio for jpeg, the higher the handicap for printing larger 8x10's.

Here's something I've been meaning to ask for a while. What determines

differences in JPEG file sizes in a digital camera when no settings

have changed?

After shooting different scenes in jpeg format, and without changing

any settings (like resolution or image quality setting) other than

Time and Aperture values, files that I download from the camera have

varying compression ratios.

So what is lost, if anything, in the above example ? And what is the

explanation for that variation ?

PS: This question has nothing to do with quality settings in Photoshop

when saving a file in jpeg. It's also not a jpeg vs tiff format question.

My choice would be the Nikon D70. But then again I'd like the Canon 350D, but the Nikon D100 would have the better body of the four.

Sorry, can't help you. You'll have to decide for yourself!

"It takes great pictures also and has a much brighter viewfinder than my Minolta's."

Could it be an haze in the viewfinder as i've read somewhere that the 7s II's viewfinder are prone to hazing and need to be cleaned.

Hi all,

Thanks for all the camera suggestions. Reading the post I found two seemegly well known small rf camera that I didnt about the Hi-Matic and an Olympus RF.

The 5,6 and 7 elements lens on those small rf, when used between f5.6 and f11, should compare favorably with their slr counterpart.

I'm not done with film yet. Digital will just have to wait.

Everett,

You're right, the post is still there and can be seen at the following url.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DVwZ

And David, photos like these I can make any days with with modern photo gear. I just thought it'd be fun to do it with old rangefinders cameras, as some of them had exceptionnal lens.

So, my question still stand. So what old rangefinders that you know of besides the one I listed in the original post, that had exceptional imaging quality ?

Hi,

This evening I saw a post containing pictures made with an Argus C33.

The pictures were simply stunning. The post has been removed for some

reason.

So, my question is: what classic rangefinder do you know of that can

produce wow pictures. (Please dont give me the "people take pictures,

not cameras" thing)

I'm looking for cameras others than the well knowns Leica, Minolta CL,

Ricoh, Rollei. There must be some sleepers out there that might be fun

to discover.

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the Vuescan .ini file. I've tried it on a few b&w negatives and if works great. I've got a few more negatives to try and if they work out i'll keep the file.

Like you've said, "The image scans a little flat but is easily fixed in PS". I like that as it tends to preserve both highlight and shadows, as once data is lost at the scanner level, there's no way to get it back.

Cheers.

Sorry, make that since 1973 so that would be more than half his life.

His biography:

http://www.sebastiensalgado.com/images/artiste/Bio.Salgado.FR.2004.pdf

"Salgado's Brazilian, though he did flee to Europe for political reasons."

He's been living and working out of Paris, France since 1975.

What would you call someone living and working out of New York since 1975 ?

"I found BO (on the 2200/2100) useless..."

Erik, I have to take your reply with a "grain" of salt. Pun intended. I think you have a vested interest in eliminating grain/noise. Am I not right ?

I have made BO prints and indeed some of them are just beautifull. I have not printed beyond 8x10's.

Hi Gustavo,

Several factors affects image quality in digital camera, like lens quality, sensor size, in-camera digital to analog conversion.

Sensor size, therefore pixel (photosites) size , has a direct bearing on image quality. To learn more about this visit:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes

To get you started, here's a couple of links about film development. I'm sure they are others.

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmdevelop.htm

http://www.pictorialplanet.com/easierloading.htm

Jason,

For "Media" choose "Slide film" and for "Bits per pixel" choose "16 bit Gray" instead of "48 bit RGB".