brian_m.1

<p>Please tell me it ain't so. Lens adaptors cost as much as the camera itself?</p>

See what you've done now? But hey, man needs his toys. Any way, I figured I am never gonna buy a

DSLR, certainly not a full frame. For serious enjoyment I have my film gear. This is one step up from my

bread and butter P&S. What finally pushed me over the edge was learning that I could use Thyristor

flashes with the camera. Small cameras always fail in the flash department. The one that comes with this

model looks exceptionally puny. Any experiences with external flash?

<p>"This is a great deal if you are not having a camera"<br>

<br>

Isn't THAT the truth. It looks so good but do I need <em>another</em> camera, especially a whole new system? BTW, Newegg is superb. </p>

<p>Specifically, is this plastic or metal? It looks very metalic. The $220 price tag is very tempting.</p>

<p>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830111475&nm_mc=AFC-dealnews&cm_mmc=AFC-dealnews-_-NA-_-NA-_-N82E16830111475</p>

<p>Since I was asked what my line for affordability is, I have to say $500. May be I don't want it bad enough but this is the figure that would seriously start tempting me. From what I have gathered so far, today $500 buys you the bottom of the barrel FF. With all the electronics and what not, I am not so sure it is a wise buy but I am willing to be persuaded by the Canon gurus here.</p>

<p>If I ever go digital I must be able to use my collection of EF lenses the way they were meant to be used; no crop factor. I haven't kept up with DSLRs at all so I have no idea what the market is like, used or new. I believe the first Canon FF came out in 2005. Not sure if it is wise to go back that far. </p>

<p>Dang! Why didn't I think of that?</p>

<p>For the inquiring minds.....I chose The Darkroom for my first mail order film processing since, well, when the FTb came out. The closest competitor price-wise was Dwayne's but I went with the Darkroom for two reasons. I rationalized the lousy "standard" scan by realizing that if I ever want enlargements I can just have the negatives scanned. Second, their prepaid envelope saved a trip. I will make sure to come back and post some of their work.</p>

<p>Earlier I raised this point that Kodak should have committed itself to the entire film "cycle", instead of just making films. I understand they did have a film developing service but somehow it disappeared. The name Kodak alone had enough cache for people to choose them over the competition. Why didn't Kodak know that if its film business were to remain viable, people should have access to quality, affordable processing too? No use taking pictures that you can't develop. Could it be that the people running the company weren't really into film?</p>

<p>Our Walgreens used to develop film but no longer does. As to flat bed scanners everybody talks about, are these regular document scanners or specialized film scanners? And how does scanning a negative produce a positive image?</p>

<p>Steve, indeed Dwayne comes very close to my tipping point although those pesky shipping charges always ruin the deal. I don't mind paying for film, yet. I can still get a box of 4(3?) 24-exp for under $7 at Walmart which lasts me a long time. I have three rolls sitting around for a while</p>

<p>-Develop- $12<br>

-Scan- $9<br>

-Shipping to(est)- $5<br>

-Shipping from -$5.50<br>

Total - $31.50</p>

<p>That is $10.50 a roll. </p>

<p>After a lot of research, almost none of the options for mail order film developing appeals to me. At first I thought The Darkroom is it. Then I realized that for $10 all I am getting is a 1-2 meg scan. For enhanced scan it costs $15 plus $5 return shipping, that is $20 a roll. Walmart scan is similarly pathetic. North Coast gives you a decent scan but I really can't see paying $20 a roll, and that is before the cost of the film itself. Kodak would have done itself a lot of good if they had set up a developing service too to support their film business. Looks like they forgot what people have to do after they are done shooting. Now I know why people abandoned film. They can't afford to have the damn thing developed. Develop, scan and return for $10. That is my sweet spot.</p>

<p>Don't range finders look better than SLRs when re skinned? I am not sure I have the stomach to do it myself if the old skin needs to be scraped off.</p>

<p>People customize all sorts of things. Old cars, new cars, bikes, planes, homes, etc. Older cameras are a pretty good candidate too but I don't see very many done. All black all the time seems to be the norm. I have been tempted for a while to re skin a few rangefinder I have. Some look real good in leather. </p>

<p>That Chevy is gorgeous, Janis. Beautiful shades of gray. What is the resolution of their scans and do they post full res? Costco was doing 6MP scans. They were OK up to 16x20. The fact that they were using scans for enlargements and not the negatives kind of defeated the purpose of film.</p>

<p>I ordered some mailers from Darkroom. Too bad they couldn't be farther away. I am in the Philly suburbs. I looked at APUG and they do list an outfit in Philly but they are pricier. Considering that my exposed film has been sitting around for months, a few more days in the mail isn't going to be an issue. All in all, the loss of Costco is going to put a big dent in my film photography. It may be the last straw to push me over to a DSLR. May be I should wait for full frame prices to drop so I can use my lenses the way they were meant to.</p>

<p>Seems like 10 bucks is the floor price. Costco was so cheap I was clicking away just to finish the roll. I think it used to cost $4 for a 24-roll film to develop and scan to DVD. This is really a throw away price. I have to be a lot more selective now.</p>

<p>PS</p>

<p>Can you put more than one roll in their envelope?</p>

<p>The local Costco store was the last outpost to do film around here. They stopped two weeks ago. I knew it was just a matter of time but now what? There is Walmart but I don't feel like driving there. They are probably sending them out anyway. I know this topic has been rehashed before but what are some low cost mail order places? Do they still have prepaid envelopes?</p>

<p>I am looking at $150 tops. I looked at the SX280 but it is on the large side for my use. My camera has to be small enough to slip into my pants pockets. You are right but the A-series. Just looking at the pics is enough to give you the sense you describe.</p>

<p>Well then, what about the A-series? The A2500 has a 16MP sensor, same total and effective pixels, similarly dimensioned, a more believable zoom range and the date stamp I am looking for. They are quite a bit cheaper too. The ELPH appears to have metal body though. That is definitely a plus for me. </p>

<p>Why would they do that? Doesn't Canon have the proper lens that actually fits the camera? Is anybody else doing this? Very odd.</p>

<p>In another thread I was pointed to the PowerShot line for a feature that I want(date imprint). The ELPH 520 HS is advertised as a 10.1 MP camera, which is a rather low count today. However, the specs say the following:<br>

Type - 10.1 Megapixel, 1/3-inch CMOS<br />Total Pixels - Approx. 16.8 Megapixels<br />Effective Pixels - Approx. 10.1 Megapixels<br>

This is the first time I see the distinction between the so called Total Pixels and Effective Pixels. Does the CMOS processor have something to do with it and why? I can pick up the PowerShot ELPH 115 @16MP for just a little bit more but it says it comes with a CCD sensor. Not sure what I am losing with this choice. So, 10.1MP CMOS or 16MP CCD?</p>

<h1 > </h1>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Mike. I think I am going for the A2500. Date imprint can't be easily verified by reading the specs. I had to download the user manual for that. The other little secret is that in some brands when you are adding the date, for some inexplicable reason you have to go to a much lower resolution. I don't think this is the case here though. I Googled this feature before posting here and there is a huge demand for it. I hope they find this thread because they hadn't found a current camera that does it.</p>

<p>What about new Powershots? Do they make them anymore?</p>

<p>Great find, now if I could have one that is a little cheaper. This has a lot of bells and whistles I don't need. As thorough as dpreview is, I know no way of searching it based on this feature. </p>