patrick_drennon

First off, listen to the others, this is a wortwhile upgrade. Secondly, I moved from PC to

Mac with version 4 and Adobe let me do it so I suspect they'll continue to do so for single

license users but I can't speak for them. I've never been remotely tempted to migrate back

by the way.

I know little about the MF digital backs. I do, however, own a Kodak 14n. Were I you, I

would really

study the pros and cons of the slr/n before any attempt to 'substitute' it for a pro level

digital back. What I have seen as far as results from the slr/n (or c) would make me believe

it is not competitive with like sized digital back sensors. The Kodak products are very

good with lots of light available but become quite noisy (my camera more so than the slr/

n)

when iso's increase or shutter speeds decrease. The pro backs I've seen (including

Kodak's)

seem to perform much better as far as minimizing noise throughout their particular

sensitivity ranges making them much more reliable in field (thus 'less' controlled)

environments. Note: Kodak and Canon full frame slr's are cmos, all of the digital backs I

am aware of are ccd.

Just a few thoughts. I started with a Fuji S2 (1.5X) and felt compelled to by a Nikon

17-35 zoom (equivalent 25-53). I was real pleased with all of the results. I recently

bought a Kodak 14n (1.0X). WOW, the camera is quirky but I'm learning its secrets and

using the 17-35 as designed is a blast.

I believe (note this isn't a statement of fact) that we are so accustomed to the

perspectives and aspect of the 35mm that as chip production technology advances

we'll likely gravitate that way. It is getting much easier to package full frame cameras

in 'normal' sized camera bodies so I beleive that to be the center of gravity for the

industry. Then again......who knows?

Have you tried opening them in Photo Desk? There is a known bug in the V 2.0 plugin

for Photoshop CS. It is soon to be corrected with a V 2.1 update. The situation does

not exisit in Photo Desk. By the way it only applies to the reduced files (6 or 3 mp) and

is apparently a problem with the plugin's ability to render the dynamic range. It seems

to react by replacing what it doesn't know with random, strange artifacts.

Yes, it SHOULD be able to use the 2 GB card. The Fuji is not FAT32 compatible which

would allow it to break the 2 GB barrier but the normal file allocation table is o.k. to 2

GB+ (but not 4).

Fuji Frontier draws the image with a laser on normal 'R' type paper and then develops

it in a dev/blix process. It apparently doesn't project an image optically. I found this

out by asking a Fuji service rep the difference between my Pictrography 4000II and

the Frontier.

I had to make the same choice between the same cameras a year ago with the same

parameter (image quality) being the paramount issue. After comparing the cameras,

reading all of the reviews, I chose the S2 and have never regretted it. The D100

handles power issues better (S2 has 2 independant systems) and has 1/3 stop

increments when using compensation (S2 has 1/2 stop increments). The S2 has the

best image quality (apparent resolution, color accuracy, skin tones) according to

everything I was able to research.

I agree with the previous poster. I have a Fuji S2. Bought because multiple reviews

rated it the best (6mp range) in sharpness, effective resolution and skin tone accuracy

(dpreview for one). It has never disappointed me in any way. If you're looking at a

camera in the 6 mp range it's a great camera. It won't replace a 14N but neither will

any of the other choices you gave. The camera has some drawbacks, annoying battery

arrangement, limited viewfinder size, etc. but it takes great pics.<div></div>

If you expose perfectly then raw is probably not necessary. Then again, neither is tiff

(just use fine jpg). If you are less than perfect the greatest flexibility for correction is

raw.

This is new to me. For as long as I can remember multiplication factors are consistent

across the board making Rob's answer correct. Underwater is a totally different matter

because refraction angles change at the water lens (actually housing making it an air/

water refraction for the most part) contact which directly affects the apparent focal

length.

I have a Fuji PG4000II with drivers compatible up to 10.2.4. The Mac folks told me

that 10.3 had a complete overhaul of the printer functions and that numerous drivers

for 10.2 would not retain all of their compatibility. This is very real for the Fuji, the

computer knows it's there but no software programs can find it. Now I have to wait for

Fuji to release the driver upgrade and they aren't fast. I saw no driver updates for 10.3

on the Epson site, you might want to drop them a note.

I don't know that the specs, as Ellis said, would help much in explaining the cost diff.

for the D2H. It's a 4 mp camera aimed

at the sports photography market but obviously useful for other things. It's very

rugged and the build quality is very high compared to Nikon's prosumer DSLRs (D100

and new D70). That,

more than anything is likely to contribute to its elevated cost. The speed (frame rate

and burst capacity) are it's hallmarks. If you're used to shooting with a Rollie you

might consider the hi-res offerings from Kodak and Canon. There's tons on the sight

discussing their various plusses and minusses but both are well thought of when used

right. I have a Fuji S2 and love it but there is much to choose from now and most all

are remarkable.

Yeah, but sometimes these 'pointless' discussions are the most fun and thought

provoking (I mean I'd never thought about it before I read the question).

Most folks I know use a tablet for some things and a mouse for others. I find it

difficult to use many of the PS tools with a mouse yet inuitive and easy with a tablet.

By the same token I don't like the tablet for routine work in other software, the mouse

is easier.

Ansel Adams was a consumate manipulator in the darkroom. From what I can tell,

almost none of his prints were unmanipulated reproductions of the 'reality'. He

seemed to have an image in his head when he viewed a scene. The negative was just

one of his tools to achieve that vision in print and he was a master innovator in how

to best produce that tool. Based on that (and I know how pretentious it sounds to

speak for a man like him) I think he would have LOVED the ability to manipulate

images in the computer.

Wacom has a broad range of choices with the related broad price range.(

http://www.wacom.com/)

If you don't mind spending $3,500 to $7,000 (depending on the model) you can get

silver halide prints that are unequaled out of a Fuji Pictrography PG3000 or PG4500. I

don't think you can beat $2 per 8X10 though, you would simply be buying

convenience.

Quang-Tuan Luong's response is right on. If you are planning on editing on the road

DO NOT expect to nail color on the laptop. Only a clibrated CRT will do for that. An

Apple or a PC should do equally as well running PS for everything else. That said I use

an 800 Mhz G4 Powerbook for 'on the road' stuff. I've e-mailed many a shot from it

but will not send final from it. If you're planning to plug a CRT into a laptop I am of

the opinion that for ease of use reasons Colorsync is much superior to anything in the

PC world but PC users seem to do fine without it. In a nutshell, you can probably make

your decision more on a cost basis than a machine basis.

If you use dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro/) it has excellent

pro-con reviews on both cameras. Both are great values. I chose the S2 because of its

higher resolution and sharpness (not tremendously better but an improvement over

the D100) and it is universally applauded for accurately rendering skin-tones. Both

outweighed the inherently superior design and battery handling of the D100 for ME.

Everyone I know who owns a D100 loves it as do those who chose the S2 so you won't

go wrong if your choice is made for your own reasons.

Also note that even when you chose B&W and the preview shows a monochrome

image, the raw file is still complete with ALL of the color information. It is NOT saved

in camera as a B&W image (raw isn't anyway).

Checked archives but nothing stood out. Is there any known way to mount a

Nikon body onto a P67 lens. My specific goal is to use my 600 f/4 on a Kodak

digital camera? Wish they'd use a K mount but they don't.

I think that your comprimise solution is well thought out Steve. Hang in there,

good moderators are rare.