Slashdot Mirror

I love the F-5!

No it's NOT new. it's a standard USB connection used on some devices already... NIKON uses it on cameras
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nik...

And apple is using it simply because the companies making accessories are asking for it. It's going to be on the accessory end NOT the phone.

I want 35mm film-quality stills from the lenses and bodies currently residing in my basement

Depending on how old your gear is, buy a DSLR of the same make and use your lenses. Back in the day the camera body was just there to hold the film and the lens, you won't be able to reuse that.

My Nikon DSLR can happily use lenses I had on my film SLR. Not all lenses will work. Heck, some models should cover lenses going back to 1959. I assume other companies have done similar.

I ought to be able to get a 35mm "consumer" version for a few hundred bucks. As long as it had 1080p resolution or better

I think a Nikon D3200 is currently under around $400 ... and it's a freakin' 24 megapixel camera.

The main thing you need to remember is the focal length changes ... a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is an objective lens which sees the world like you do. The same 50mm lens on a DSLR ends up being a moderate telephoto, and is equivalent to an 80mm lens.

You may find you can still get a camera body which has all the modern features, but still works with your lenses that you spent a small fortune on.

In fact, depending on the specific brand and lenses, there's a really good chance of it.

> with interchangeable telephoto lenses?

don't forget fisheyes, tilt shifts, macros and wide angle lenses. Nikon does make an android device though it lacks interchangeable lenses.

If a manufacturer were to release an interchangeable lens camera with a good API, it might make a huge splash. Imagine: an entry level camera with 9 shot bracketing or sophisti0cated timelapse features.

In the D3 manual, Nikon has it as Programmed Auto

Camera automatically adjusts shutter speed and aperture for optimal exposure in most situations.

On my camera, which is not a D3, the only difference between P and Auto is that "Auto" prevents you from changing the shutter speed/aperture. I shoot using "M" mode. The lenses are cheaper.

Even at 10-12MP you're fine for poster resolutions. This is the resolution current DSLRs operate at (even most full frame ones), simply because it's where you're going to get decent levels of sensitivity in the pixels and not too much noise.

More so, because the lenses, even on DSLRs can't actually resolve that resolution except in absolutely perfect conditions.

I dunno. I"m excited to see the new Canon 5D Mark III come out!!

I've been wanting to get a nice, high end DSLR for some time now, and have been saving and hearing this new version would be out soon.

This looks to be about 22MP....smaller than the recent Nikon D800 offering, which I believe was 36MP.

I'm going with the Canon...seems to have the right size sensor, MPs....quality for shooting HD Video (and yes, I plan to use off camera sound recording, etc).

But there is apparently a good reason to have greater than 10-12MP. From what I hear, people use it a lot to help let them be more free with shooting the shots, and then cropping as needed in post?

I'm looking, however, to also save and get some decent glass.

I'm hoping the new 5D will come with something similar to the last one, with a L zoom lens that was decent to start with...but I will save and get a couple of good primes too.

I'm trying to study and figure out what I want to get for primes...as that they can get pretty $$$$$, and I want to spend my money wisely.

But that many MP in a phone? I would have to agree on that...why would you need that many on a freakin' cell phone?

A low end DSLR can beat 35mm film today. high end dslr's utterly kicks the crud out of 35mm in resolution.

The getting old Canon 5d Mark II is 21.5 megapixels which is 1.5 megapixels greater than the absolute best 35mm film+best camera+best lens can do. Honestly 90% of all 35mm film shots are less than 12megapixel in resolution due to low end glass and cameras as well as being processed less than perfect. And that's just the mid level stuff from Canon. high end digitals that reach the 60 megapixel mark utterly destroy 35mm film even when used with the best of everything.

That just goes to show how much you know, Canon's highest res pro camera is the 21.1 MP EOS-1Ds Mark III. Even Nikon's D3x only has a 24.5 MP sensor. If you want bigger ones you have to step up to medium format cameras such as Hasselblad or Mamiya.

Meanwhile in pro photographer Ken Rockwell's article Why We Love Film he writes:

"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."

"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."

"Not only that, but the film I shot in a Canon EOS Rebel G film camera, worth about $20 today, was sharper as scanned at NCPS than the file I made with the same lens on a Canon 5D, which is sharper still than anything on earth from Nikon digital."

"How about that? A $20 camera with a $5 roll of film and $20 to process and scan the entire roll is sharper than a $5,000 camera. (The Contax cost more, but still loads less than anything in full-frame digital.)"

Falcon

If you are going to do something like that, then do it all the way -- http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR/Views/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR_FRONT.png .

Sure, Hasselblad might have been used for the US space program... but Nikon inherited that mantle.

There's a Nikon camera on the moon *right now* - because one of the lunar astronauts accidentally left it behind.

Although that's not the only Nikon in space: NASA has used Nikon cameras on the Space Shuttle for 30 years (yes, it is that old) - and currently uses the D3s on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. According to the press release, there are 35 lenses in orbit right now.

Nope, they've switched to Nikon D2x and Nikon D3s cameras(at least for the shuttle and the ISS). I really doubt that NASA would try to space qualify the hassy back. Might as well qualify the newer H3 system.

For the total costs involved in qualifying the cameras, the actual camera costs aren't so very important.

It saves to an SD card.

Great! Except when you want to shoot tethered. Then you discover their Control Pro software doesn't work.

So... you were saying?

Specs here.

A demo video (at the bottom).

This camera seems targeted at those who store all their pics in the memory card.

Both Canon and Nikon still make 35mm film SLRs. Canon only makes an autofocus film body for about $900, but Nikon sells a student manual focus camera, the FM10. Amazon's selling it (through a third party vendor) for $290 with a kit zoom lens (35-70mm, f/3.5-4.8, not very good for a film student). They even still sell a decent selection of manual focus lenses for it (and you can still use the Nikon non-G autofocus lenses on those cameras, so the selection is even wider).

Still, you'd be silly to buy this kind of camera new. There's a big glut of comparable used manual focus bodies out there that will make perfectly good cameras. I can wholly recommend Minolta SRT (which I've used), and the other systems (Olympus, Canon FD, Pentax K, etc.) are also good.

Both Canon and Nikon still make 35mm film SLRs. Canon only makes an autofocus film body for about $900, but Nikon sells a student manual focus camera, the FM10. Amazon's selling it (through a third party vendor) for $290 with a kit zoom lens (35-70mm, f/3.5-4.8, not very good for a film student). They even still sell a decent selection of manual focus lenses for it (and you can still use the Nikon non-G autofocus lenses on those cameras, so the selection is even wider).

Still, you'd be silly to buy this kind of camera new. There's a big glut of comparable used manual focus bodies out there that will make perfectly good cameras. I can wholly recommend Minolta SRT (which I've used), and the other systems (Olympus, Canon FD, Pentax K, etc.) are also good.

I shoot semi-pro photography. I do studio shots and 'tethering' is a PITA. a wireless (a good one!) solution is needed.

Dude. Get a Nikon.

Their wireless remote solution is ridiculously expensive (as is everything with Nikon's name on it) but I've seen it in action and it works very well.

If the image quality is sufficient, Nikon point and shoot cameras offer about 2/3 of what you are asking for (quiet, AA batteries):

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Digital-Camera/index.page

Good luck on getting them to change the filename standards (the arguments about what is correct could go on forever). Exiftool makes it straightforward to rename a bunch of pictures based on time and date and so forth (but probably not easy):

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

Oh, and of course, I was also thinking that the place to do this is on REAL CAMERAS, not crappy cell phone cameras. Have a touch screen on the back of your DSLR and write with a stylus. That would actually be useful. This is a complete and utter waste of the patent office's time and energy.

But that's already been done on real cameras, so you would have to be really sleazy to try to get a patent on that. Now, doing this on cell phone cameras, that's clearly a new invention.

Nikon has Image Authentication software that can detect whether an image has been processed or altered after having been taken. I would expect to see this used in cases where digital photographs are used as evidence in a trial.

Nikon has had a program out for a while now that can tell if a picture has been photoshopped. However, it only works on Nikon SLRs.

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/25738/Image%20Authentication%20Software.html

I wonder how the accuracy of the technique in the article is with a point-and-shoot?

Of course, EXIF is a pretty open standard and there exist numerous utilities to strip the data out when desired. You very well might not want everyone on Flikr to know the serial number of your camera. There is also a "Maker's section" where the camera manufacturers can place non standard, obfuscated and / or encrypted data.

Both Canon and Nikon use these features to create a system to prove that a given camera actually took a given picture. So it can go both ways depending on how you have your tin foil situated.

My Nikon S6 has done this for this last year... SD & WiFi & 3" LCD - I can even control it from the computer.

What are you shooting that pays $5000/day? I want in on that gig. With that kind of bill rate I could buy really, really big lenses to compensate for my ...err... standard issue 18-70.

I second the Nikon scanner. I've used the smaller one for my film negatives, and it's produced some amazing stuff. The Nikon software also does a damn fine job of removing dust/scratches (if you want it to). With 35mm stuff, you can get a scan and postprocessing done in around a minute per slide, so you won't be spending all year doing this. This is what the parent is talking about. It's around $1700, but when you're done scanning those photos, you can just as easily scan in all 35mm negatives you've got. If you want, shoot me an e-mail (marcinjb [at] gmail) and I'll send you a few of the pictures I've scanned in so you can judge quality.

Fab 36 is ALREADY online, albeit if at only 50% capacity, and using 300mm wafers.

Fab 30 is currenty running at full capacity, but next year it will drop to 40% capacity as it switches to 300mm wafers & gets echristened Fab 38 in 2008.

AMD is/will be outsourcing production to Chartered even though they just brought their new fab 36 online.

I think Nikkon is also a big semiconductor equipment manufacturer. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=3&grp=79

Not built in, but the Nikon D200 can be hooked up to a GPS reciever and let the images be tagged with GPS data.

The Nikon Coolscan line appears well reviewed. The best of the line, the 9000, runs ~$1700 on eBay, or ~$1900 new. If you don't need to do any medium format film scanning, consider the 5000, which operates faster. Once you've scanned everything you have, resell it on eBay. With luck, the only thing you'll lose is your time.

I'm planning on doing this in a couple of months.

Nikon's D2X, the holy grail of cameras, can upload wirelessly via ftp when in range. All I'm seeing in the article is that the camera forces you to use some service that they offer, something more annoying than straight up FTP. Nothing to see here. What am I missing?

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.

What would be nicer [...] is if they had included the actual name of the camera(s). [...] if I would have known that it was a point & shoot rather than a DSLR, I wouldn't have bothered even reading this. Honestly, this submission was as well thought-out as "Sony Releases Wi-Fi Computer" and then a description about how nifty Wi-Fi computers are (without bothering to list any specs), and how wonderful Sony is.

Right on. I'm not completely against "slashvertising" but c'mon, give us the meat. I might not mind the hypothetical Sony cheerleading story if also included "such and such specs with $x price-tag." This 'story' could have been more meaningful if all it said was "Nikon's got a new 8mp point-and-shoot with built-in WiFi. Comes out in October for around $550. Read some glowing marketing/press-release info here: Blah."

Sigh.

The $4999 Nikon D2X has wifi:

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&p roductNr=25215

Ever hear of this thing called Google?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nikon+wifi&bt nG=Google+Search

Nikon was the first to come out with a camera that was WiFi-capable. Nikon's D2H, which came out in Q3 2003, was also introduced with the Nikon WT-1 (and WT-1A in America), which attached to the camera and provided 802.11b transmission right from the camera. Nikon's latest offerings, the D2Hs and the D2x, are compatible with the new WT-2 and WT-2A, which support 802.11g and some new features. While the camera itself does not have internal WiFi support, it was designed with that function in mind and the optional accessory enabled that. Canon also offers the WFT-E1 transmitter for the EOS-1Dmk2 cameras as well as the EOS-20D. This was introduced after Nikon, however it supports WiFi as well as Ethernet. Mike Isler

Isn't it great that nikon SDK info is in adobe's pdf ?
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request. pdf

There is a group dedicated to hacking the nikon d70.

Nikon has had a wireless transmitter for their D2H (high end $2k+ SLR digital camera) for about a year or more. It's nice to see this filtering down into the consumer area.
Nikon WT-1 Wireless Transmitter

Consumer camera yes, but Kodak is hardly the first to wifi in a digital camera.

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV, which is specifically a negative scanner, and I get GREAT results, every time. The Nikon Coolscan V is even better, and reasonably priced, cheap enough for anyone who's an amateur photographer to consider for purchase. Of course, the best alternative in my opinion is to invest in a decent digital SLR that's got a 6.1 megapixel or better resolution.

Is that a camera phone in your pocket, or are you glad to see me?

OK, I wasn't familiar with the Cool Walker before I read your post, and it seems nifty. But does it play mp3s? The tech specs mention only support for wav files.

Because TIFF doesn't do the job. This isn't another direct display format. It's a raw format. For example, the raw files from my Nikon equipment require processing before they can be displayed (FWIW, Photoshop CS already supports the nikon raw format - .NEF). Raw format files are nothing more than the the CCD saw....it doesn't take into account the dot screen or any filtering that is integral to the CCD...your processing software (whether it's in the camera or 3rd party like Nikon View, Bibble, or something else) needs to apply color correction and actually interpolate the sensors on the CCD into the correct colors.

Don't really need it for static stuff such as my christmas lights but if you do something like climb Longs Peak it would be really nice to know exactly where you shot the pictures ... plus with the GPS feed, you have exact timestamping.

Don't really need it for static stuff such as my christmas lights but if you do something like climb Longs Peak it would be really nice to know exactly where you shot the pictures ... plus with the GPS feed, you have exact timestamping.

Buy one of the latest prosumer camera's like the Coolpix 8700
then attach a Panoramic Optic from 0-360.com
and you have and 8-Megapixel panoramic solution for about $1500.

If you're like me (lazy, cheap), get the Nikon Coolpix 2200. I have mine setup to take continuous shots and keep the best image out of the batch (it's an option called the Best Shot Selector).

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

And I for one welcome our new electronic overlords.

seriously, i have my eyes on the pixelicious (yet still affordable :) Nikon d70 and have been wishing for a device that i can carry around that can hold both my music AND be a backup for my images. (i haven't been too keen on spending the bucks for a high capacity CF card)

(random desperate shout): where can i get these 2.9 billion forms of electronic media?!

(equally desperate answer): maybe they're in this truck!

Nikon has a ton of products for this very purpose and in fact many if not all major vendors carry and sell them. If you want a webcam ready microscope you are going to have to buy one I would bet. But even a quick look at Amazon will yield interesting results. We have the Nikon setup in the lab and it is a wonderful beast.

Sera

You're wrong. All Nikon cameras, right down to the entry-level Coolpix 2100, use Compactflash. Every last one of them.

CoolPix 3200 - Media: Internal memory: approx 14.5MB; SD memory card (not included)
CoolPix 2200 - Media : Internal memory: approx 14.5MB; SD memory card (not included)

I looked at Nikon before I purchased my Canon. Once I saw the SD media, I moved on. We can only pray that Canon does not sell out to the dark side.