Slashdot Mirror

Canon has one too; but it only works with their serious-pro DSLRs, the EOS 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III currently.

So no proof against image tampering from such "low end" cameras as the EOS 5D.

I'll give Nikon a serious edge there, on having their set-up work with the D300, a sub-$2000 body....

Canon's line of 300-400mm DO (diffractive optics) lenses seems to be of similar concept and take care of that problem of viewing angle?

There are scanners which got feeder unit or there are some pro companies who can do such a thing with a price.

Software is important for such a project. For such a job, I recommend Hamrick's Vuescan, it has executables for Windows, OS X and Linux. Thing is, it will make things automatically.

http://hamrick.com/

As I am perfectly happy with my el-cheapo Canoscan Lide 25 (upgraded from Lide 20 which had some accident), I went to Canon USA site to recommend such a scanner but it seems they have some mad invention there which they really failed to advertise.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=122&modelid=9888

It installs to a Canon printer (which looks cheap) like a inkjet ink and printer becomes auto feed scanner. As I assume you got a scanner already, that solution could be a better thing. I am not sure about the quality though. I also don't know if Hamrick Vuescan or even Sane would ever support such a thing too. It is really worth looking into, perhaps see some demo or review from a trustable source.

Other solution is Xerox or HP multiple document scanners (with feeder). I would go with Xerox, I keep reading about HP driver horror stories.

Sidenote: I had an old A80 camera that's maybe 6 years old stopped taking pictures. Turns out there was an old technical bulletin about it in their KB and that Canon was offering free repairs to any affected unit regardless of its age. I sent it in and they did what they promised AND the turnaround was around a week.

Canon has been using the same principle in a couple of lenses for some time now. The lenses themselves are pretty damn expensive but well regarded; I hope the telescope meets similar success.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/cameras_slr/eos_1v.html
The EOS-1v is probably the toughest product ever made. Instead of relying on aneecdotal evidence I look to the wide support of profesional film photographers. In addition you can see from here the technical aspects of this camera. It has a magnesium alloy body with all seams sealed with silicon. This means you can shoot in inclement weather including pooring rain without any problems if you use a sealed lens. Now if you drop it the lens might break but the body itself should be good to go. Of course the best course of action is to always use a neck strap.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/cameras_slr/eos_1v.html
The EOS-1v is probably the toughest product ever made. Instead of relying on aneecdotal evidence I look to the wide support of profesional film photographers. In addition you can see from here the technical aspects of this camera. It has a magnesium alloy body with all seams sealed with silicon. This means you can shoot in inclement weather including pooring rain without any problems if you use a sealed lens. Now if you drop it the lens might break but the body itself should be good to go. Of course the best course of action is to always use a neck strap.

"Firewire (IEE1394) is a true standard coming with every high end Laptop out there. A person buying a $1700 laptop (or $3K) won't trust his/her data to your average sub speed USB junk. High end cameras doesn't even do anything over USB. There is no high end audio equipment for USB2 because of a basic reason: Its advertised speed is completely false. Do you think a $1700 laptop owner have a el cheapo USB2 camera?"

Bull shit. My Cannon Digital Rebel uses USB, so I checked out their highest end camera ($7999). USB.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15710#ModelTechSpecsAct

Here's the one I own (in my print business):
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=180&modelid=15835

There also are smaller commercial-grade inkjets than this one, usually for up to "A3" (DIN) sizes (roughly 2xletter) with color management tools, mostly for media design businesses that want to print a color proof using color profiles of their offset print publishers to get a simulation of the final output before giving it to them for printing. Or, for anyone who wants to print very good photos up to A3 size and is unwilling to wait for a service provider or to rely on their color management - because often photo printers who serve the mass market have no or no good color management, knowing their customers don't have it or even know what this is anyway.

I'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom.

What I mind about the switch is there's no choice, freedom.

And in the case of photo cameras, quality.

I prefer film generally however I still want to get a DSLR, which are approaching the resolution of film. Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III has a 21.1 MP full frame sensor. This is close to the pixel count of medium format digital backs from 2 or 3 years ago. I'll love to get this camera, then I could use the sames lenses I already have for my 35mm SLR with this camera without any magnification or cropping.

A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap.

I don't like not being able to skip all the junk on disks either. Another thing that bothers me even more is that while I never had a VHS tape go bad or get eaten by the VCR, and I have hundreds, I've get a stack of DVD disks that won't play properly. And the oldest ones I have like this wouldn't play in 2 different players.

So what if we can get more channels?

This is 'bout the only thing about the switch to digital I like. I want more choices, even if the only channel I watch is CNN.

'start a Patent Militia' Them be fighting words, I'll bring my d20.

Instead of the D20 I'd rather have Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III with it's new 21.1-megapixel full-frame Canon CMOS sensor. Now we are seeing DSLRs closing in on low end medium format digital backs as well as 35mm film. I got my issue of "Digital Photo Pro" today and it has a review of it and of Nikon's new fullframe D3.

I have 5 iPods because they are the best way to store photographs when on a long assignment where stable electrical current is a forlorn hope. A couple of them are old, but an 80GB iPod offers the best combination of battery life, size, weight, and storage space there is.

I really don't know how big they are but I wouldn't think an iPod could hold as many photos as an external hdd. I only shoot film now but I'd like to get a Canon DSLR, preferably the 16.7 MP EOS-1Ds Mark II however it's out of my price range so I've been looking at the 12.8 MP EOS-5D. Whatever I get I want a fullframe sensor as well as to be able to use the lenses I already have for my 35mm.

I have 5 iPods because they are the best way to store photographs when on a long assignment where stable electrical current is a forlorn hope. A couple of them are old, but an 80GB iPod offers the best combination of battery life, size, weight, and storage space there is.

I really don't know how big they are but I wouldn't think an iPod could hold as many photos as an external hdd. I only shoot film now but I'd like to get a Canon DSLR, preferably the 16.7 MP EOS-1Ds Mark II however it's out of my price range so I've been looking at the 12.8 MP EOS-5D. Whatever I get I want a fullframe sensor as well as to be able to use the lenses I already have for my 35mm.

well, according to the EXIF on the pics, they images in question were shot with a camera like this one, i don't really think it counts as "disposable", except maybe to Gates or someone else with an unreasonable amount of money.

then again, the EXIF data can be faked if one was so inclined.

Methanol and a kimwipe is the preferred method.

For the one you linked though, I'd use a spray can of contact cleaner.

KDawson is a Slashdot editor who doesn't know much about writing, apparently: "If it's for real, the technology would be disruptive at half the speed and twice the price" should be "... the technology would be disruptive if it were half the speed and twice the price."

There's no mention that the ink of the new printer is said to be 1/5 the price.

Our extensive experience with refilling Canon ink cartridges of the the previous series of Canon printers is below, it is rewritten from a comment posted in October of 2004.

We don't have any information about refilling the cartridges in Canon's Pixma series of printers, the most recent series. If you have information please provide it.

Old series of Canon printers: 26 refills, $17. Color printing is a serious hassle. After having many problems, we spent a lot of time researching it. We bought a Canon S820 and a Canon S520, and we have had good luck refilling the cartridges using a kit from IMS, which we bought at a Costco store. The refill kit is NOT available on the Costco web site. Each kit allows something like 26 refills, and the kits cost $17 at the Costco store. The second time you do a refill, it is extremely easy. We inspected photos and font characters under a magnifying glass and were not able to see a difference between the hugely expensive Canon ink and the refill ink. There has been no difference in fading.

The S820 has 6 separate cartridges. It is very slow, but photos are much nicer. The S520 has 4 cartridges. It's faster, and good for printing labels, for example. We have had no problems with print heads, which are separate from the tanks. Both use the same refill kit, which comes with 6 ink colors.

Buy low. Then buy low again. Our experience is that it is far better to pay $50 for a printer, and replace it often with a new $50 printer, than to pay a lot and buy a "good one". The technology is changing so fast that the $50 printer of a few months from now will be better than the $400 printer sold now.

HP: Ugh. In the past we have bought several HP color printers, and been badly burned. HP is expensive, and we have encountered many quirks. (Our experience has been that Carly Fiorino, former CEO of HP, destroyed the company, and it has stayed destroyed. we see a lot of HP printer software seriously failing, right out of the box. Can someone with little technical experience lead a technically oriented company? It's like a horse that can do math. It appears to be possible, until you realize that it is just a series of tricks.)

Canon: Canon is an extremely adversarial company, in our experience, but less adversarial than the other printer manufacturers, at present.

Canon does product churning, and apparently deliberate product confusion. Before, all the companies sold 6 tank printers as "photo printers". Now Canon is selling 4 or 5 tank printers as photo printers. The Canon USA web site has liberal use of web developer resume-building technologies like Flash and Javascript that tend to defeat use of Mozilla's tabs, and provide for menu choice surprises. There are extremely long URIs which are difficult to email.

The Canon i860 is not related to the S820. Note that the web page says, "... it provides true 4 color photo printing...". One day a few months ago, the InkJet printer companies switched from "true 6 color photo printing" to the present "true 4 color photo printing". I don't know their motivation, but the 6 color printers print MUCH nicer photos, in our experience, with much better shadow detail. Tech company marketing departments take extreme advantage of any ignorance they find in customers.

Testing in the store:

KDawson is a Slashdot editor who doesn't know much about writing, apparently: "If it's for real, the technology would be disruptive at half the speed and twice the price" should be "... the technology would be disruptive if it were half the speed and twice the price."

There's no mention that the ink of the new printer is said to be 1/5 the price.

Our extensive experience with refilling Canon ink cartridges of the the previous series of Canon printers is below, it is rewritten from a comment posted in October of 2004.

We don't have any information about refilling the cartridges in Canon's Pixma series of printers, the most recent series. If you have information please provide it.

Old series of Canon printers: 26 refills, $17. Color printing is a serious hassle. After having many problems, we spent a lot of time researching it. We bought a Canon S820 and a Canon S520, and we have had good luck refilling the cartridges using a kit from IMS, which we bought at a Costco store. The refill kit is NOT available on the Costco web site. Each kit allows something like 26 refills, and the kits cost $17 at the Costco store. The second time you do a refill, it is extremely easy. We inspected photos and font characters under a magnifying glass and were not able to see a difference between the hugely expensive Canon ink and the refill ink. There has been no difference in fading.

The S820 has 6 separate cartridges. It is very slow, but photos are much nicer. The S520 has 4 cartridges. It's faster, and good for printing labels, for example. We have had no problems with print heads, which are separate from the tanks. Both use the same refill kit, which comes with 6 ink colors.

Buy low. Then buy low again. Our experience is that it is far better to pay $50 for a printer, and replace it often with a new $50 printer, than to pay a lot and buy a "good one". The technology is changing so fast that the $50 printer of a few months from now will be better than the $400 printer sold now.

HP: Ugh. In the past we have bought several HP color printers, and been badly burned. HP is expensive, and we have encountered many quirks. (Our experience has been that Carly Fiorino, former CEO of HP, destroyed the company, and it has stayed destroyed. we see a lot of HP printer software seriously failing, right out of the box. Can someone with little technical experience lead a technically oriented company? It's like a horse that can do math. It appears to be possible, until you realize that it is just a series of tricks.)

Canon: Canon is an extremely adversarial company, in our experience, but less adversarial than the other printer manufacturers, at present.

Canon does product churning, and apparently deliberate product confusion. Before, all the companies sold 6 tank printers as "photo printers". Now Canon is selling 4 or 5 tank printers as photo printers. The Canon USA web site has liberal use of web developer resume-building technologies like Flash and Javascript that tend to defeat use of Mozilla's tabs, and provide for menu choice surprises. There are extremely long URIs which are difficult to email.

The Canon i860 is not related to the S820. Note that the web page says, "... it provides true 4 color photo printing...". One day a few months ago, the InkJet printer companies switched from "true 6 color photo printing" to the present "true 4 color photo printing". I don't know their motivation, but the 6 color printers print MUCH nicer photos, in our experience, with much better shadow detail. Tech company marketing departments take extreme advantage of any ignorance they find in customers.

Testing in the store:

um, even RAW files are only 12 bit, jpeg is 8bit. what camera are you using that you need 32bit?

While many digital cameras use 12 bits per colour, some use 14 and a few use 16 according to an article in current edition, Jan/Feb 2007, of Digital Photo Pro . I'd bet more and more will use 16 bit colour depths with medium format digital backs having even more depth. I don't currently have a digital camera, but I'd like to get one like Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. I just read where it's colour bit depth is only 12 bits. However I also would like to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 maybe from Mamiya, a Hasselblad, or a Sigma.

if you need 16bit to accommodate the extra bits from your RAW files there is CinePaint (AKA filmGIMP).
CinePaint handles up to 32bit colour spaces.
http://www.cinepaint.org/ [cinepaint.org]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I agree that there is nothing like PS, but for most people gimp works as well as PS. I recently mad the move from GIMP to PS Elements 4.0 (MAC) strictly for the RAW import so I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't change that there are other packages that support higher bit colour spaces. Having never done a RAW conversion on a Linux machine I have no idea what you would use to import RAW files into CinePaint.

I'm not exactly the average person that uses cameras, in high school I took a class in photography learning how to use cameras and work in darkrooms. Because of this and I had a 35mm slr when I was in the army I was my unit's unoffical photographer. My commanding officer would give me film to shoot some photos whenever we went out into the field or when we were training. We had an arts and crafts center on post where I'd develop, make enlargements, of photos for those in my unit. Then in college I took photography as an elective. While it's been years since I have worked in a darkroom I plan on joining a local photography association, IFP Minnesota, that has photography classes and darkrooms members can use. I'm hoping they can help me work as a photographer, I'm on disability and don't work now. As for what OS I'll use, I'm typing this on a Windows PC, however because it's old I recently got a tower PC with Linux preinstalled and I'm getting a Macbook Pro for a laptop.

I wish I had the dough to buy CS2 (or CS3 when it's available) but Elements is all I can afford right now. I still use GIMP a lot because there are some things I'm used to in GIMP that I can't figure out how to do or even if they area possible in Elements. (layer mask for example)

I know what you mean, I wish I could afford CS3 myself. I'm hoping I'll be able to find work quickly as a photographer and can then afford it. However something I thought of which may help you if you want to get CS3, is to find and buy an older version of Photoshop. Around here a few tymes a year we have computer shows wherein booths sale older versions of software with prices dramatically lowered. Then Adobe sales upgrade versions for a lot less than full versions, between the costs of an old version and the new one, this may be cheaper than the full version. You may even be able to find old versions in some stores, though I haven't looked specifically for Photoshop but some of the stores around here have a bin or shelf with outdated software for sale at reduced prices.

Again, thanks for the info on Cinepaint, I'll see how well it works.

Canon has been doing this for a while, though it doesn't seem to be very compelling in SLR lenses. They are smaller, but Canon is charging quite a lot for that convenience and the optics don't seem to be quite up to the standards of their more-popular cousins.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=M odelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7468

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=M odelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

Canon has been doing this for a while, though it doesn't seem to be very compelling in SLR lenses. They are smaller, but Canon is charging quite a lot for that convenience and the optics don't seem to be quite up to the standards of their more-popular cousins.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=M odelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7468

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=M odelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

My 50 year old Crown Graphic takes pictures that the very best DSLRs can only dream about.

I don't know, I've seen some pretty nice shots out of digital backs like this one: Phase One P 45, 39mp, 4:3 sensor, medium/large format. That being said, my next baby is to be this: EOS-1Ds Mark II, 16.7mp full frame. That plus my slowly growing collection of L lenses (currently 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200) will keep me happy for quite a while (as I'd hope, for the investment).

I've never been impressed with the black levels on either LCD or Plasma panels - they both suck, although Plasma is (usually) better.

It's said that Plasma panels no longer suffer from burn-in, but they have too-short a warranty for me to take that gamble. HDR LCD panels should be coming out in 2007, and will certainly give Plasma a shot to the head. Panasonic is panicking and trying to clear-out their Plasma stocks because they perceive the impending threat.

For my money, I'm holding out for SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) panels. Millions of CRT's in a flat panel - neither LCD nor Plasma will be able to match its colour gamut, tonal range nor its power consumption. Now if only Canon and Toshiba (the SED research and production partners) would get off their butts and launch them to markets outside of Japan, instead of cancelling US demonstrations, I'd actually go out and buy one. Although I'd probably settle for a HDR LCD if SED never arrives.

Technically, this is true, but I am not sure about the reasonable cost part. It is also possible to correct chromatic aberration using diffractive lenses which require much less exotic (at least completely passive) technology. Canon has been able to take the concept of diffractive optics technology to market to manufacture some relatively compact telephoto lenses but even after many years of production, DO lenses are still quite expensive.

A little side note here...

Sure, you have your DSLR cameras. You also have your point-and-shoots. However, just because a camera isn't a DSLR does NOT mean that you can call it a point-and-shoot. Take for example this camera. It classifies as neither. Just to keep everybody informed! (There still is a middle ground.)

Exactly. As it is, I run the flash for my digital camera (admittedly a reasonably substantial Canon Speedlite 430EX) off of 4 x 2600 mAH batteries, with a spare set. A couple of 1300 mAH batteries would get very very few shots.

Film may be archaic but as of yet it still beats digital in quality, er resolution. You can spend 10 tymes as much for a dslr and not get the resolution a film slr has. And if you don't get a dslr with a fullframe sensor the camera will crop what you see through the lens. The lowest priced fullframe dsrl I know of is Canon's EOS 5D which lists for more than $3000, ten tymes as much as I paid for my slr almost ten years ago and it's 12.8 MP sensor doesn't beat the resolution, er film grain, of my camera. And if you want a medium format camera you will easily pay 20 or 30 tymes as much for a digital over a film camera and not get s good a resolution. The one area digital can save money is when the photgrapher shoots roll after roll of film day in and day out. I've gone through 2 and 3 rolls of 36 exposure film in a day, at $20 per roll for both the film and to develop it that's $60-$80. The cost could be lower but most of the tyme when I have film developed I also get a cd for the photos as well. I'm hoping to get a film scanner srn so I can digitize the photos myself and save the cost of getting a cd.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a dslr, with a fullframe sensor. But before Canon released the EOS 5D thier EOS 1Ds Mark II was the cheapest fullframe dslr and it cost $8,000. And much like computers, as soon as you get it home, dslrs are dated.

No they aren't. Most optics are refractive, which is the bending of light by passing it through a medium of a different density (a glass lens). Diffractive optics bend the light using diffraction gratings, which are tiny apertures about as wide as the wavelength of the light itself. By the combination of traditional refractive and new, expensive diffractive optics, chromatic aberration can nearly be eliminated. This is what is implied by a lens that has "diffractive optics". The elimination of chromatic aberration is one (of several) "holy grail" goals in the design of lenses.

If its all in one complex see about the options to having fiber pulled inside existing conduits. Otherwise it's time to justify the cost over a number of years, and allow for a redundant pathing setup & better hardware. Do 3 links and run OSPF on the back side - that way you're safe in the event of one link failure. Also consider CanoBeam (Canon) free air optics http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_canobeam/ canobeam/canobeam130.html which may also work better for you, depending on needs.

Keep in mind that fog and tall buildings can impact performance on laser based systems, but compare this to everyone 's wifi APs as background noise. Just make sure to go to either licenses bands or the 5.8ghz range if you go the radio path.

According to people in the know from both Canon and Toshiba during NAB2006, these are not coming any time soon. 2008 at the earliest is what they said. (That said, the demo of this tech earlier this year was simply amazing.

When SED technology comes out, take a look at that. It should have better picture, use less electricity, and will have a similar slim size that makes LCD and Plasma attractive, and after a few years, it could be as cheap as a CRT, because it might be able to take advantage of print manufacturing similar to OLED.

I have one of these: http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDMod elDetailAct&fcategoryid=2204&modelid=11365
which works great. It's small and fast, and almost never jams. Creates PDF files with both the scanned image and an overlayed OCR version, so you can search for text in the document and then view the scanned page.

Only problem is that the software only runs on under Windows. But, since it's an odd-numbered day, I'm convinced that Microsoft will distroy any and all other OSes so I might as well get used to it.

CDW has it for 666.99 USD.

Want to save an image losslessly? Digital SLRs (and some point in shoots) let you save in RAW. Not only is the image saved losslessly, but you can adjust white balance, exposure (within reason), sharpness, and more all after taking the photo!

Want decent optical zooms? SLR lenseshave been available for decades now that range from 8mm to a whopping 1200mm. That's over 100x for you guys used to talking about lenses in terms of "how much zoom" they have. Canon's lens selection.

Want 13MP? The Canon 5D does 12.8. The Canon 1Ds Mark II does 16.8.

Want storage? You can get CF/SD cards as large as 8 gb, and portable hard drives such as the Epson P-2000 made for offloading photos out in the field.

Want to wirelessly transmit photos? The 1Ds Mark II can do it with the WFT-E1A.

Current batteries can let you shoot 2500 shots on a single charge. Spare batteries are cheap and keeping spares in your bag is no big deal.

The thing is that all this technology is already available, but be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for it. If you're looking for all this technology crammed into an everyday point & shoot, give it a few more years.

Instead of more MP, how about better high ISO capabilities? No shutter lag from when you press the button to when the camera takes the picture? How about taking photos at 8fps? Instant-on when you power up your camera? Quicker autofocus? These features are very important, but these too are available on DSLRs, and for a price. Considering how little money you're spending on a point & shoot, they do quite a bit as it is and they'll only get better. The technology is already there and it will eventually find its way down to lower end cameras.

Want to save an image losslessly? Digital SLRs (and some point in shoots) let you save in RAW. Not only is the image saved losslessly, but you can adjust white balance, exposure (within reason), sharpness, and more all after taking the photo!

Want decent optical zooms? SLR lenseshave been available for decades now that range from 8mm to a whopping 1200mm. That's over 100x for you guys used to talking about lenses in terms of "how much zoom" they have. Canon's lens selection.

Want 13MP? The Canon 5D does 12.8. The Canon 1Ds Mark II does 16.8.

Want storage? You can get CF/SD cards as large as 8 gb, and portable hard drives such as the Epson P-2000 made for offloading photos out in the field.

Want to wirelessly transmit photos? The 1Ds Mark II can do it with the WFT-E1A.

Current batteries can let you shoot 2500 shots on a single charge. Spare batteries are cheap and keeping spares in your bag is no big deal.

The thing is that all this technology is already available, but be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for it. If you're looking for all this technology crammed into an everyday point & shoot, give it a few more years.

Instead of more MP, how about better high ISO capabilities? No shutter lag from when you press the button to when the camera takes the picture? How about taking photos at 8fps? Instant-on when you power up your camera? Quicker autofocus? These features are very important, but these too are available on DSLRs, and for a price. Considering how little money you're spending on a point & shoot, they do quite a bit as it is and they'll only get better. The technology is already there and it will eventually find its way down to lower end cameras.

Want to save an image losslessly? Digital SLRs (and some point in shoots) let you save in RAW. Not only is the image saved losslessly, but you can adjust white balance, exposure (within reason), sharpness, and more all after taking the photo!

Want decent optical zooms? SLR lenseshave been available for decades now that range from 8mm to a whopping 1200mm. That's over 100x for you guys used to talking about lenses in terms of "how much zoom" they have. Canon's lens selection.

Want 13MP? The Canon 5D does 12.8. The Canon 1Ds Mark II does 16.8.

Want storage? You can get CF/SD cards as large as 8 gb, and portable hard drives such as the Epson P-2000 made for offloading photos out in the field.

Want to wirelessly transmit photos? The 1Ds Mark II can do it with the WFT-E1A.

Current batteries can let you shoot 2500 shots on a single charge. Spare batteries are cheap and keeping spares in your bag is no big deal.

The thing is that all this technology is already available, but be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for it. If you're looking for all this technology crammed into an everyday point & shoot, give it a few more years.

Instead of more MP, how about better high ISO capabilities? No shutter lag from when you press the button to when the camera takes the picture? How about taking photos at 8fps? Instant-on when you power up your camera? Quicker autofocus? These features are very important, but these too are available on DSLRs, and for a price. Considering how little money you're spending on a point & shoot, they do quite a bit as it is and they'll only get better. The technology is already there and it will eventually find its way down to lower end cameras.

Canon has had this out for a couple months... They modified a 20D specifically for astrophotography. One of the main features is to use the LCD as the viewfinder with zoom (for framing stars). It costs about as much as the 20D did when it was new. Link

As a DSLR owner, I have to ask why this feature would be desired? When shooting, especially when the subject is moving fast, the easiest way to capture an image is by using the optics. Delays and ghosting on an LCD would just kill the shot composition. Also, how would this camera acknowledge the auto-focus points? Would it have a grid pattern similar to what is seen in the traditional viewfinder, or could you choose from several arrays from which the camera could choose to focus (which would be kind of neat).

I still won't buy this or anything Sony for that matter.

All these posts, and nobody has mentioned the latest TV technology: SED.
http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_ display/

IMHO this will blow away all other flat-panel technologies (assuming nobody sells a triple-MEMS version of the DLP design, thus eliminating the color wheel). SED has low profile and uses the same phosphor screen as CRTs. Aside from price and having to wait a year or two for the USA rollout, SED is perfect. :-)

Don't give up hope. Toshiba and some Korean companies have started to produce SED screens. All the benifits of a CRT without the problems that LCDs and plasmas have in a nice flat screen. The blacks are very black too.

I too am a CRT guy who likes the qualities it offers, and I am finding many large CRTs dropping in price, esp. in the used market in my area. My CRTs should last for another year when SEDs are supposed to arrive.

You can make the edits directly with the "levels" tool to adjust the white and black points. Save it, and the changes are permanent, and irreversible (well, unless you go back to the unedited original... you DID do "save as..." correct?).

Ok, first I don't recall having heard of layers in this way, then when I used to edit photographs I always edited a copy and kept the original as a backup. Actually when I turn in film for development I also order a cd, so I don't edit originals. The few tymes I've edited something that wasn't mine I'd either make a copy and edit the copy or I'd do a "save as" as soon as I opened it.

Layers are VERY powerful, and pro users make very extensive use of them. They're probably the single most important tool for the professional user, and were really the turning point in PHotoshop when they were introduced way back in version 2 or 3.

Though not a pro I would like to get into photography professionally, well get paid for it, which is why I'd like to get Photoshop. Something I hadn't thought of before I'd like to do, when taking my photography classes and in the photo labs on campus at the college I was attending, I'd heard of others who were printing books of their photos and I've come across some articles in photo magazines about how to do this using a computer system. I'd also like to get a full frame DSLR as well as a 645 medium format camera with both film and digital backs. When it came out I wanted to get Canon's 16.7 Megapixel EOS 1DS Mark II but was no where near being able to afford it's $8000 price tag. They've got a new full frame DSLR, EOS 5D with 12.8 MP for less than half. If I weren't planning on getting a new Powerbook I could manage that. So for now I'll just have to get by with my film based EOS Rebel. When I do get a DSLR though I want to be able to use the lenses I have now.

The one real stinky thing about them is they are full bitmaps. If you start with a 9 MB RAW file (say from a 20D)

Obviously I prefer the bigger sensors, higher pixel count, with a full frame. Like the EOS 1Ds Mark II. Mamiya has a new digital medium format, the Mamiya ZD with 22 MP. Boy am I drooling over it, but I'd really rather have a "regular" camera with both film and digital backs. Mind you, while to most people the larger pixel counts won't really make a difference, I love to make big enlargements, and would love to make some posters from photos of mine.

You can make the edits directly with the "levels" tool to adjust the white and black points. Save it, and the changes are permanent, and irreversible (well, unless you go back to the unedited original... you DID do "save as..." correct?).

Ok, first I don't recall having heard of layers in this way, then when I used to edit photographs I always edited a copy and kept the original as a backup. Actually when I turn in film for development I also order a cd, so I don't edit originals. The few tymes I've edited something that wasn't mine I'd either make a copy and edit the copy or I'd do a "save as" as soon as I opened it.

Layers are VERY powerful, and pro users make very extensive use of them. They're probably the single most important tool for the professional user, and were really the turning point in PHotoshop when they were introduced way back in version 2 or 3.

Though not a pro I would like to get into photography professionally, well get paid for it, which is why I'd like to get Photoshop. Something I hadn't thought of before I'd like to do, when taking my photography classes and in the photo labs on campus at the college I was attending, I'd heard of others who were printing books of their photos and I've come across some articles in photo magazines about how to do this using a computer system. I'd also like to get a full frame DSLR as well as a 645 medium format camera with both film and digital backs. When it came out I wanted to get Canon's 16.7 Megapixel EOS 1DS Mark II but was no where near being able to afford it's $8000 price tag. They've got a new full frame DSLR, EOS 5D with 12.8 MP for less than half. If I weren't planning on getting a new Powerbook I could manage that. So for now I'll just have to get by with my film based EOS Rebel. When I do get a DSLR though I want to be able to use the lenses I have now.

The one real stinky thing about them is they are full bitmaps. If you start with a 9 MB RAW file (say from a 20D)

Obviously I prefer the bigger sensors, higher pixel count, with a full frame. Like the EOS 1Ds Mark II. Mamiya has a new digital medium format, the Mamiya ZD with 22 MP. Boy am I drooling over it, but I'd really rather have a "regular" camera with both film and digital backs. Mind you, while to most people the larger pixel counts won't really make a difference, I love to make big enlargements, and would love to make some posters from photos of mine.

It has recently come to our attention that the vendor-supplied CCD image sensor used in this Canon digital camera may cause the following malfunction: When the product is used in recording or playback mode, the LCD screen and/or electronic viewfinder may exhibit either a distorted image or no image at all. While reports of this malfunction have been rare in the United States, we have determined that it may occur if the product is exposed to hot and humid environments.

Effective immediately, and regardless of warranty status, Canon will repair, free of charge, products exhibiting the above-mentioned malfunction if the malfunction is caused by the CCD image sensor. Canon will also cover the cost of shipping and handling in connection with this repair.

U.S. residents are kindly directed to contact the Canon Customer Support Center for further assistance at 1-800-828-4040. Support hours are Monday thru Friday - 8:00 AM to 12:00 midnight; and Saturday 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM (all times EST). Alternatively, if electronic support is preferred, please send your email to carecenter@cits.canon.com

This information is for residents of the United States of America and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue, and appreciate your understanding in this matter. Thank you for your support and patronage of Canon products

found here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Pg ComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&mo delid=9828act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fc ategoryid=221&modelid=9828

I can understand that, man. The huge benefit there is that you have the originals to work from. I like my stuff digital, but as an artist I can understand wanting the highest quality one around. :)

Though I'm not now, I want to be a pro photographer, er make money from photography. Though I only have a film 35mm I've been wanting to get a digital camera. When it came out I was drooling over Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. I like that it's full frame. I'd also like to get a good 645 medium format with both film and digital backs. Actually what I'd really like to get is a back that was both film and digital, capturing both digital and film at the same tyme would be awesome.

This system is similar to the Xerox while offering what you want. You combine the Canon with this desktop software to manage the scanning and this makes it all searchable and stuff. Talk to your Canon rep about a card reader for access control and you're done.

Good luck.

Actually, you'll find that most paparazzi will use
digital SLRs, like the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II or Nikon D2x in order to get their shots to a magazine/paper/outlet, quickly. The Canon's 16.7 / Nikon's 12.7 megapixels is good enough for even fine art magazine shooting.

The problems with flatbeds are that they are often slow & the ADF jams quite a bit. A nice scanner dedicated to documents is what you want.

I am extremely happy with my Canon DR-2080C. Note: It is the only piece of hardware I've bought, knowing that it won't work with Linux. I ran windows SPECIFICALLY to use this document scanner. It looks like it has been discontinued & the DR-2050C is the model to get now. Looks like it does larger documents, which is nice. These do duplex scans in one pass, so you can get about 40 sides (so 20 2-sided pages) per minute. These will probably set you back ~$650 new.

If you have more money to spend, there are even better document scanners available.

The problems with flatbeds are that they are often slow & the ADF jams quite a bit. A nice scanner dedicated to documents is what you want.

I am extremely happy with my Canon DR-2080C. Note: It is the only piece of hardware I've bought, knowing that it won't work with Linux. I ran windows SPECIFICALLY to use this document scanner. It looks like it has been discontinued & the DR-2050C is the model to get now. Looks like it does larger documents, which is nice. These do duplex scans in one pass, so you can get about 40 sides (so 20 2-sided pages) per minute. These will probably set you back ~$650 new.

If you have more money to spend, there are even better document scanners available.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/conCprProductDetail. jsp?modelid=6623&item=6633&section=10217?

$49.99

USB+power in one cable

Pretty good quality. Very small size.

I've had only excellent luck with the LED-based Canon scanners. I'm not a fan of their flourescent ones however. I had one and the bulb died (edges darkened significantly) in just over a year. LEDs have much longer lives (granted I probably just got a dud flourescent). My old N650U is a workhorse. As an added bonus, the LED-based units don't need a power cord.

This one is only $49.99 and should do very well for you.

Not that I don't like the idea of an iPod this tiny, but am I the only one who thinks they could make it a little thicker and include a simple point & click camera? Even if it had no optical zoom and very little in the way of manual controls, if it was good quality, a decent flash, and 3 megapixels, I'd buy it.

Is the paper/plastic industry putting up any sort of a battle against these media giants who wish to move away from the use of paper/plastic? Unless these paper/plastic companies successfully transition themselves into manufacturers of these devices meant to replace paper/plastic, they may take a significant financial hit.

Some companies are already making transitions. Lat year Kodak annouced they were fazing out thier film cameras and increasing their digital capabilities. There's a debate in the photo industry on whether film be compleatly replaced with digital cameras or not. There are diehards are both sides, with ditigal proponents saying technology is getting better and better and will soon surpass the quality and resolution of film while some film proponents love to work in darkrooms and don't want to do digital. Me, while I love working in darkrooms developing film and making enlargements I'm getting ichy waiting to get a digital camera. I'll have to wait at least one or two more years though, the closest that a camera comes I'm looking for is Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II which is listed at $8,000.

Well, analog camera has one big advantage over digital camera: independent of power. I'm European, and if I leave this continent (heck, I only need to go to swiss or italy) I will be confronted with numerous different plugs and/or voltages and/or frequencies.

For now at least, film offers other advantages over ditigal cameras. One is resolution. Though digital cameras are catching up film cameras like SLRs and mediuum formats still have better resolution than digital cameras. And except for expensive ones SLRs have bigger frame sizes. Currently the digital camera that comes the closest to a good SLR is Canon's 16.7 MP EOS 1Ds Mark II with a price of $8000. A digital back for a medium format camera can cost more than that. And if you're going to be taking a lot of photos you're going to be needing it to be tethered to a computer, a laptop if you're in the field. To get the quality of a film camera in a digital setup a photographer may be required to take out a second mortgage on their house to afford it.