If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Helmsman3 wrote:
Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't allow in any dust. A minor point. Takes images in absolute silence. Nice. The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? Let us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high resolution enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Technically impossible. You cannot exceed light speed, so any EVF will be slower than optical, and will thus provide worse feedback. No EVF currently on the market in consumer cameras is able to math the resolution and dynamic range of the human eye. Lets also presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. How about the capabilities of a macro bellows or the MP-E or just a common 100mm macro lens? This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world can accomplish this. People have been shooting IR with *film* cameras long before there was a EVF or even a digital sensor. So your 'of course' is of course, wrong. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video HDTV? 2k? 4k? And on which terrabyte medium will you store that? and CD quality stereo sound recording What microphone are you using? Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability, size, weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations, inaccurate and dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR. "inaccurate and dim OVF". Interesting. What OVF have you been using? Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with only 2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. What was that word again? Image quality? I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo. Ansel Adams managed to get the odd photo published and sold, even though he had much more restrictive gear. Of course you can produce good images with a P&S, if you know what you are doing, and if you don't, the most expensive camera will not rescue you. Not one person yet can tell that they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting into one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody would think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do. Ah, which P&S were that again? And which lenses? How much shutter lag do they have? How fast is the AF? So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges, precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens? I can name a few good reasons. Nobody thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5 years ago. My gear spans a 28x zoom range in excellent quality, and if I want to stretch it a bit, 140x is within my capabilities. 200x or 300x is not unheard of. Does your lens offer that? Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. Let's add: - Excellent zoom range (see above: 100x is not a problem) - excellent macro gear (5:1? No problem! 20:1? What's a macro bellows for?) - very fast focussing, hence very low lag - 6+FPS and deep deep buffers - optical view finders --- try your EVF in moonlight - very good long exposure image quality - really good image quality and yet a portable system is possible - I can use my lenses as a makeshift club and go on shooting with them. No problem. - f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 ... - DOF of 2 sheets of paper (as in, the tip of the nose and the base of the nose are already outside the DOF, but the middle of it is razor sharp. - intelligent, automatic remote multi-flash system And at what cost? Dust problems? No problem. Noise? Little if any. Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Not really a problem. Slow mechanical shutter limitations? x-sync 1/250s, I don't think that's a 'slow' limitation. Does your P&S offer better values? Bulk? Weight? Not necessarily a drawback. Do I need to list all the drawbacks? Yes. Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. Nope. They add another choice, something P&S don't have. Many P&S don't even allow their users to choose exposure and/or aperture. Practially none of them can change important parameters without going through a menu. Which is all right, if you stalk buildings --- except during earth quakes. Most of them don't move much faster than you can go through your menues. They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. Show me one P&S that allows me to shoot at handheld at LV -1 or -2 ... without washing out details nor drowning in image noise. When it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR. f/0.7? f/0.5? Less? Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". In a couple billion years, when the sun turns into a red giant, we probably won't be using DSLRs on Earth any more. Based on a design that is half a century old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from way back then. Compared to P&S, which are based on on the box cameras, like "the Kodak" from 1888 ("You press the button - we do the rest."). They still have all the limitations inherent in that format from, uh, a full century and 19 years ago. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them than actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You know, the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run with the mindless herd for fear of getting lost. You really run out of arguments early- The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard. Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World". -Wolfgang |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:18:59 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in : Bill Tuthill wrote: Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d. In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate of the last many years. DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. LOL, high ISO is "arcane usage?" To many people, yes. My favorite film was the late legendary Kodachrome 25. What I needed more speed, I turned to Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome 64. I rarely used anything faster. Many working pros felt the same way. It's not even about D-SLR versus P&S, it's really about large sensor versus small sensor, and virtually no shutter lag versus long shutter lag. To quote Digital Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous". The spec is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken). The spec is 0.009 second for the FZ50. If you asked most people why they bought a D-SLR the answer would not be related to being able to change lenses, it would be about shutter lag and image quality in low light. Most people just buy a cheap body and kit lens, and can't afford more, so that really means nothing. The problem with not changing lenses is that no one 35 mm lens comes close to covering all needs. People that can only afford one lens are much better off with a compact camera. I'm sure that nearly every D-SLR user is also a digital P&S user. The P&S is less burdensome to carry around, but the image quality often leaves a lot to be desired. The better compact cameras have great image quality. It's painfully obvious you have no real experience in photography. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:33:49 -0800, nospam wrote
in : In article , John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:49 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . Try the latest bridge cameras from Panasonic, which have not only superb Leica lenses, but also near instantaneous shutter response. No they don't I'm guessing you've never actually used one -- to quote Digital Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous". The spec is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken). The spec is 0.009 second for the FZ50. only if you omit the time it takes to focus. pre-focusing certainly helps with cameras that have lag, but it isn't always an option. add in focus times and the actual shutter lag is much worse, with a best case time of 0.3 seconds for high speed mode and wide angle and worst case times as long as 1 second at the telephoto end, according to dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp Those numbers are just worst case estimates. Times are much faster when the camera is near correct focus, as it usually is, and continuous focus is available if needed. You'd know this if you actually used the camera. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:33:50 -0800, nospam wrote
in : In article , John Navas wrote: I'm actually just expressing my own opinion of the quality of those lenses, an opinion based on lots of actual experience. no, you are stating it as fact. to quote, Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses. Speaks for itself. that's quite different than saying you tried a few and weren't impressed with the ones you tried. I didn't say that either. I've used quite a few of them, and I've yet to see one that measures up to (say) Canon L glass. so you haven't actually used the ones that do measure up. There aren't any. Suit yourself. I'll pass. and use which oem lens to accomplish the same effect? It's not an effect I care about. note that this isn't a question whether the effect is desirable or not. however, for those who want the effect, their *only* choice right now is a third party lens. That's silly and meaningless. Except when paid to do so, most serious working pros won't use third-party lenses. that's quite a generalization, which you stated previously, are always false. It's not a generalization and it's not false. Since you're just arguing for the same of arguing, that's all I have to say. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Matt Ion wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" wrote in : LOL. With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v' DSLR is not the same. It actually is the same. Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures. What really matters is the photographer, not the camera. Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer. Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he could afford? HAVING them isn't the same as BRAGGING about them, which I believe is John's point. That wasn't a "point", that was his attempt at belittling anyone who mentions a high quality tool. Craftsmen don't buy the "best" tools because they produce a better product - they buy them because they That simply is not true. The best tools produce the best results. Ask a gunsmith about screwdrivers, and you'll likely get an ear full that is ten times more than you ever knew to exist about screwdrivers. But the same craftsman will use the screwdriver on a pocket tool to open up the kid's toy to change a battery. last longer, don't break as easily, require less maintenance, are nicer to handle, or any other number of reasons that makes them LESS OF A LIABILITY. If you're working wood and use a set of chisels all the time, and you buy a cheap chisel that needs to be sharpened every day and breaks under light usage, that tool adversely affects your productivity and therefore is a liability. Exactly. It doesn't produce the same results that a better tool does. So you shell out for quality chisels that won't go dull when carving white pine and snap if you look at them wrong. Ultimately, the quality of the product is still in the skill, talent, dedication, abilities, and care of the craftsman, regardless of the tools he uses. Sure, but skilled craftsmen virtually *always* go for the best tools available. (Unless the very point is to produce something with "old" technology, which has its own attractions too.) There is no reason that photographers would be any different either. The set of screwdrivers, the set of chisels or the camera... might all be whatever is handy for a typical unskilled person, because to them it simply doesn't make any difference which one is used. For a truly talented craftsman, it makes a load of difference. And if you sit around with a group of craftsmen, regardless of the craft, talk occasionally gets around to tools. Professionals won't tell you that "bragging about a tool is a sure mark of" anything; they'll tell you about why they chose this brand over that brand, and almost guaranteed that those will be two of the most expensive sets on the market, for whatever it is. And they will have *detailed* reasons for their choice. The same is true with professional photographers. Bringing it up in "shop talk" isn't the same as bragging, either. To John Navas it is. Because that is the only way he can depreciate the significance of a photographer having good tools. The odd thing is, I know damned well that John happens to be a very skilled person in at least one area. He may not need the best camera around in order to satisfy his photography needs... but ask him about test equipment to analyze modem equipment, and see how many Brand X tools he uses there! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: But the same craftsman will use the screwdriver on a pocket tool to open up the kid's toy to change a battery. One day I was trying to open a can of frozen orange juice with a Swiss army knife can opener. And not succeeding very well. (There's a Mark Twain joke about circumstantial evidence that applies here.) Then I remembered that one of the guys there had actually been in the Swiss army. Hey, how do you use this thing? "They only taught us how to kill people with the can opener. We used our bayonets for the cans." David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: But the same craftsman will use the screwdriver on a pocket tool to open up the kid's toy to change a battery. One day I was trying to open a can of frozen orange juice with a Swiss army knife can opener. And not succeeding very well. (There's a Mark Twain joke about circumstantial evidence that applies here.) Then I remembered that one of the guys there had actually been in the Swiss army. Hey, how do you use this thing? "They only taught us how to kill people with the can opener. We used our bayonets for the cans." See! Just like I said. Use the best tool for the job... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:49 +1100, Pete D wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:40:26 -0000, "Eatmorepies" wrote in : It's a ridiculous argument anyway. Cameras are nothing more than tools, and both "styles" (and everything in between) have their own place in the market. I love the flexibility I get with an SLR (digital or otherwise), but there are times I just find it too bulky and wish I had a good camera. Me too. But I've been spoiled by the speed of the DSLR and the quality of the stuff from the it. I look at the output from the Canon G5 and it's good, but the focus lag is too much too bear. When I read of a compact that has the speed of a DSLR I may well get the wallet out. Try the latest bridge cameras from Panasonic, which have not only superb Leica lenses, but also near instantaneous shutter response. No they don't and they have horrendous EVF lag as well and seriously bad noise problems at any ISO setting other than at the very low settings. And when I can get a waist level finder (pivoting screen) on a (Canon because I have the lenses) DSLR, I will also get the wallet out. That would be the only thing going for them and it is only marginally better than the OV very occasionally. You would do well to get your brain into gear before spouting off your DSLR specific rheoric. You only need high ISO when you have to increase the shutter speed and can't otherwise take the picture. The whole point of this exercise is to show that what is essencial for a DSLR is not for a P&S. No mirror slap must account for at least 2 stops and Panasonic's "mega IS" another 3. Straight away these things gain a 5 stop advantage over a DSLR when it comes to low light *WITHOUT* high ISO. Most noise from these sensors is easiely removed in post processing. But why would you bother? Prints with a little noise are so much more apealling than the washed out "plastic" appearance DSLR owners seem to want. When I print images from my DSLRs, I often add noise to them so they look more like traditional photogrpahs than waxed prints. Douglas -- If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any! |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message ... Helmsman3 wrote: Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't allow in any dust. A minor point. Takes images in absolute silence. Nice. The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? Let us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high resolution enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Technically impossible. You cannot exceed light speed, so any EVF will be slower than optical, and will thus provide worse feedback. No EVF currently on the market in consumer cameras is able to math the resolution and dynamic range of the human eye. Lets also presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. How about the capabilities of a macro bellows or the MP-E or just a common 100mm macro lens? This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world can accomplish this. People have been shooting IR with *film* cameras long before there was a EVF or even a digital sensor. So your 'of course' is of course, wrong. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video HDTV? 2k? 4k? And on which terrabyte medium will you store that? and CD quality stereo sound recording What microphone are you using? Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability, size, weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations, inaccurate and dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR. "inaccurate and dim OVF". Interesting. What OVF have you been using? Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with only 2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. What was that word again? Image quality? I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo. Ansel Adams managed to get the odd photo published and sold, even though he had much more restrictive gear. Of course you can produce good images with a P&S, if you know what you are doing, and if you don't, the most expensive camera will not rescue you. Not one person yet can tell that they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting into one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody would think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do. Ah, which P&S were that again? And which lenses? How much shutter lag do they have? How fast is the AF? So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges, precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens? I can name a few good reasons. Nobody thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5 years ago. My gear spans a 28x zoom range in excellent quality, and if I want to stretch it a bit, 140x is within my capabilities. 200x or 300x is not unheard of. Does your lens offer that? Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. Let's add: - Excellent zoom range (see above: 100x is not a problem) - excellent macro gear (5:1? No problem! 20:1? What's a macro bellows for?) - very fast focussing, hence very low lag - 6+FPS and deep deep buffers - optical view finders --- try your EVF in moonlight - very good long exposure image quality - really good image quality and yet a portable system is possible - I can use my lenses as a makeshift club and go on shooting with them. No problem. - f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 ... - DOF of 2 sheets of paper (as in, the tip of the nose and the base of the nose are already outside the DOF, but the middle of it is razor sharp. - intelligent, automatic remote multi-flash system And at what cost? Dust problems? No problem. Noise? Little if any. Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Not really a problem. Slow mechanical shutter limitations? x-sync 1/250s, I don't think that's a 'slow' limitation. Does your P&S offer better values? Bulk? Weight? Not necessarily a drawback. Do I need to list all the drawbacks? Yes. Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. Nope. They add another choice, something P&S don't have. Many P&S don't even allow their users to choose exposure and/or aperture. Practially none of them can change important parameters without going through a menu. Which is all right, if you stalk buildings --- except during earth quakes. Most of them don't move much faster than you can go through your menues. They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. Show me one P&S that allows me to shoot at handheld at LV -1 or -2 ... without washing out details nor drowning in image noise. When it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR. f/0.7? f/0.5? Less? Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". In a couple billion years, when the sun turns into a red giant, we probably won't be using DSLRs on Earth any more. Based on a design that is half a century old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from way back then. Compared to P&S, which are based on on the box cameras, like "the Kodak" from 1888 ("You press the button - we do the rest."). They still have all the limitations inherent in that format from, uh, a full century and 19 years ago. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them than actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You know, the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run with the mindless herd for fear of getting lost. You really run out of arguments early- The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard. Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World". -Wolfgang Come on mate, you are not going to let all these facts get in the way of a good troll are you? ;-) What bloody rocks do these idiots crawl out from under??? I really loved the "thousands of photos published", riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, LOL! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:33:49 -0800, nospam wrote in : In article , John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:49 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . Try the latest bridge cameras from Panasonic, which have not only superb Leica lenses, but also near instantaneous shutter response. No they don't I'm guessing you've never actually used one -- to quote Digital Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous". The spec is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken). The spec is 0.009 second for the FZ50. only if you omit the time it takes to focus. pre-focusing certainly helps with cameras that have lag, but it isn't always an option. add in focus times and the actual shutter lag is much worse, with a best case time of 0.3 seconds for high speed mode and wide angle and worst case times as long as 1 second at the telephoto end, according to dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp Those numbers are just worst case estimates. Times are much faster when the camera is near correct focus, as it usually is, and continuous focus is available if needed. You'd know this if you actually used the camera. Hey post away with "your" version of the truth, it appears to be making you happy! ;-) Good for you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Film lenses on dslr | quess who | Digital Photography | 4 | September 22nd 06 10:07 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels | arifi | Digital Photography | 11 | May 25th 06 09:21 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 03:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |