Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Leaf Unveils World’s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

Reply
Thread Tools

Leaf Unveils World’s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2010
It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.

"Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
priced at $31,995/€23,995."

http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
On Sep 20, 2:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.
>
> "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
> digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
> They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
> 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
> internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
> portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
> backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
> priced at $31,995/€23,995."
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp


Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
medium format film is. I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sep 20, 2:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.
>>
>> "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
>> digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
>> They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
>> 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
>> internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
>> portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
>> backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
>> priced at $31,995/€23,995."
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp

>
>Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
>medium format film is. I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
>larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.



You're wrong again, Rich.

This digital back is purpose designed to fit 645 bodies. It has an
image area of 53.7mm x 40.3mm. The 645 format on 120 film yields an
image area of is 56mm x 41.5mm.

So the long side of the digital image area is 97% of that of film, and
the short side 96%. The overall image area is 93% of that of film.
The dreaded "crop factor" is only 1.035.

Considerably smaller? The difference is negligible.

You're wrong again, Rich.

 
Reply With Quote
 
shiva das
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 20, 2:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.
> >>
> >> "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
> >> digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
> >> They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
> >> 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
> >> internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
> >> portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
> >> backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
> >> priced at $31,995/€23,995."
> >>
> >> http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp

> >
> >Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
> >medium format film is. I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
> >larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.

>
>
> You're wrong again, Rich.
>
> This digital back is purpose designed to fit 645 bodies. It has an
> image area of 53.7mm x 40.3mm. The 645 format on 120 film yields an
> image area of is 56mm x 41.5mm.
>
> So the long side of the digital image area is 97% of that of film, and
> the short side 96%. The overall image area is 93% of that of film.
> The dreaded "crop factor" is only 1.035.
>
> Considerably smaller? The difference is negligible.
>
> You're wrong again, Rich.


Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.

Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
"crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.

Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.

Shiv
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
shiva das <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 2:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.
>> >>
>> >> "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
>> >> digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
>> >> They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
>> >> 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
>> >> internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
>> >> portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
>> >> backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
>> >> priced at $31,995/€23,995."
>> >>
>> >> http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp
>> >
>> >Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
>> >medium format film is. I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
>> >larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.

>>
>>
>> You're wrong again, Rich.
>>
>> This digital back is purpose designed to fit 645 bodies. It has an
>> image area of 53.7mm x 40.3mm. The 645 format on 120 film yields an
>> image area of is 56mm x 41.5mm.
>>
>> So the long side of the digital image area is 97% of that of film, and
>> the short side 96%. The overall image area is 93% of that of film.
>> The dreaded "crop factor" is only 1.035.
>>
>> Considerably smaller? The difference is negligible.
>>
>> You're wrong again, Rich.

>
>Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
>the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
>On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.
>
>Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
>systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
>"crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.
>
>Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
>the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
>that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
>the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
>requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.



Indeed. What I find most surprising about this 80 MP back is the
relatively low price. I wonder what is going through the minds of the
board of directors at Hasselblad ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On Sep 20, 11:14*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.

>
> > "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
> > digital backs with the world’s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
> > They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
> > 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
> > internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
> > portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
> > backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
> > priced at $31,995/€23,995."

>
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp

>
> Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
> medium format film is. *I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
> larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> You've got a funny definition of "considerably" there. The Aptus-II 12 is
> for use on 645 cameras. A 645 frame is 56 x 42 mm, but by the time you've
> scanned it and gotten the edge crud trimmed, you get less than 55x41. The
> Aptus is 53.7 x 40.3 mm of real, usable pixel area.
>
> So this thing is, for all practical purposes, a full-frame 645 back.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


645 is small. I was talking about 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9
 
Reply With Quote
 
shiva das
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:14*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > It has 80 MP, a step up from the previous best 60 MP.

> >
> > > "Leaf has announced the Aptus-II 12 and Aptus-II 12R medium format
> > > digital backs with the world¹s highest resolution in a one-shot back.
> > > They offer 80MP 53.7 x 40.3mm CCD sensors, 3.5" touch screen LCDs,
> > > 12-stop dynamic range and 80-800 ISO range. The Aptus-II 12R adds an
> > > internal rotating sensor system which allows users to change from
> > > portrait to landscape orientation without removing the back. Both
> > > backs are compatible with most medium and large format cameras and are
> > > priced at $31,995/¤23,995."

> >
> > >http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1009...faptusII12.asp

> >
> > Funny thing, medium format sensors are still considerably smaller than
> > medium format film is. *I guess the wafer yields are just too poor at
> > larger sizes to keep the price reasonable.
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > You've got a funny definition of "considerably" there. The Aptus-II 12 is
> > for use on 645 cameras. A 645 frame is 56 x 42 mm, but by the time you've
> > scanned it and gotten the edge crud trimmed, you get less than 55x41. The
> > Aptus is 53.7 x 40.3 mm of real, usable pixel area.
> >
> > So this thing is, for all practical purposes, a full-frame 645 back.
> >
> > --
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan

>
> 645 is small. I was talking about 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9


OK, your exact words were "Funny thing, medium format sensors are still
considerably smaller than medium format film is." If you meant that only
larger sizes deserve the name "medium format" then ... well ... that's
your opinion.

645 is a valid medium-format size -- quite popular, in fact -- and it's
shot on 120 or 220 rollfilm, like all other medium format. The Leaf back
is as close to "full frame" 645 as there is, currently.
 
Reply With Quote
 
shiva das
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> shiva das wrote:
> > the image mask on 645 cameras

>
> What is that?
> Genuinely curious.


Well, the answer is in the part of my post you left out:

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
shiva das <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
> the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
> On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.
>
> Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
> systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
> "crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.
>
> Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
> that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
> the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
> requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.


645 is approximately 56 mm x 41-43 mm, depending on the manufacturer and
model.

The Mamiya 645DF image size is 56 mm x 41.5 mm
Pentax 645M is 41.5 mm x 56 mm
Hasselblad (Fuji) H1 is 56 mm x 41.5 mm

These are all digital- or digital-capable cameras, and their image sizes
may reflect the available sizes of image sensors. There was more
variability in the film-only era, such as the original Mamiya 645, the
Bronica ETRSI, and the Hasselblad A-16 645 back for the 500-series
cameras.

There was even a Rollei 645 TLR which one of my photo professors used
almost exclusively because he could get 16 shots on a roll of 120.

Similar variability exists in 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17 cameras and
film backs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
shiva das
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> shiva das wrote:
> > In article<zradnTqCGqRF0CjRnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews. com>,
> > Paul Furman<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> shiva das wrote:
> >>> the image mask on 645 cameras
> >>
> >> What is that?
> >> Genuinely curious.

> >
> > Well, the answer is in the part of my post you left out:

>
> OK, this part:
> film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> > the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This
> > means that in the long dimension there is very little clearance
> > needed between the film and the edge of the back shell.

>
>
> > In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > shiva das<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
> >> the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
> >> On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.
> >>
> >> Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
> >> systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
> >> "crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.
> >>
> >> Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> >> the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
> >> that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
> >> the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
> >> requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.

> >
> > 645 is approximately 56 mm x 41-43 mm, depending on the manufacturer and
> > model.
> >
> > The Mamiya 645DF image size is 56 mm x 41.5 mm
> > Pentax 645M is 41.5 mm x 56 mm
> > Hasselblad (Fuji) H1 is 56 mm x 41.5 mm
> >
> > These are all digital- or digital-capable cameras, and their image sizes
> > may reflect the available sizes of image sensors. There was more
> > variability in the film-only era, such as the original Mamiya 645, the
> > Bronica ETRSI, and the Hasselblad A-16 645 back for the 500-series
> > cameras.
> >
> > There was even a Rollei 645 TLR which one of my photo professors used
> > almost exclusively because he could get 16 shots on a roll of 120.
> >
> > Similar variability exists in 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17 cameras and
> > film backs.


Not at all sure what you are asking.

Here is a picture of a complete Mamiya 645 Super system with lenses,
film backs, finders, winders, etc.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mamiya_645_Super_system.svg>
 
Reply With Quote
 
shiva das
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> shiva das wrote:
> > In article<u5udnbYEpfBOvyvRnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews. com>,
> > Paul Furman<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> shiva das wrote:
> >>> In article<zradnTqCGqRF0CjRnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews. com>,
> >>> Paul Furman<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> shiva das wrote:
> >>>>> the image mask on 645 cameras
> >>>>
> >>>> What is that?
> >>>> Genuinely curious.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the answer is in the part of my post you left out:
> >>
> >> OK, this part:
> >> film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> >> > the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This
> >> > means that in the long dimension there is very little clearance
> >> > needed between the film and the edge of the back shell.
> >>
> >>
> >>> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >>> shiva das<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
> >>>> the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
> >>>> On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
> >>>> systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
> >>>> "crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> >>>> the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
> >>>> that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
> >>>> the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
> >>>> requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.
> >>>
> >>> 645 is approximately 56 mm x 41-43 mm, depending on the manufacturer and
> >>> model.
> >>>
> >>> The Mamiya 645DF image size is 56 mm x 41.5 mm
> >>> Pentax 645M is 41.5 mm x 56 mm
> >>> Hasselblad (Fuji) H1 is 56 mm x 41.5 mm
> >>>
> >>> These are all digital- or digital-capable cameras, and their image sizes
> >>> may reflect the available sizes of image sensors. There was more
> >>> variability in the film-only era, such as the original Mamiya 645, the
> >>> Bronica ETRSI, and the Hasselblad A-16 645 back for the 500-series
> >>> cameras.
> >>>
> >>> There was even a Rollei 645 TLR which one of my photo professors used
> >>> almost exclusively because he could get 16 shots on a roll of 120.
> >>>
> >>> Similar variability exists in 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17 cameras and
> >>> film backs.

> >
> > Not at all sure what you are asking.
> >
> > Here is a picture of a complete Mamiya 645 Super system with lenses,
> > film backs, finders, winders, etc.
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mamiya_645_Super_system.svg>

>
> I wasn't sure what the "image mask" referred to. Sounds like some extra
> crop applied to the film so that the edges of the film were wasted.
> Presumably this is to match the lens performance or maybe just to fit a
> more compact body? I have no idea and am probably asking a dumb question
>
> from the original message:
>
> > Besides, the image mask on 645 cameras varies by manufacturer (as does
> > the mask on all medium format cameras). 60 x 45 mm is the nominal size.
> > On Hasselblad 60 x 60 mm backs the image size is 57 x 57mm.
> >
> > Since the Leaf is designed to attach to Mamiya, Contax, and other 645
> > systems, as well as 6x9 cm up to 8" x 10" view cameras, the so-called
> > "crop factor" is negligible to non-existent.
> >
> > Besides, film backs for the 645 camera systems were designed to support
> > the film through a pressure plate and the film's own tension. This means
> > that in the long dimension there is very little clearance needed between
> > the film and the edge of the back shell. Supporting a rotating sensor
> > requires a lot of tight tolerances to fit in the same exact area.
> >
> > Shiv


There are no dumb questions. I'm referring to the physical size of the
opening in the film back which lets light hit the film. No medium format
camera's image on the negative/transparency is exactly the size of the
format. In other words, a 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" (60 mm x 60 mm) camera
produces an image slightly smaller than the nominal size -- in the case
of Hasselblad the image is 57mm x 57mm. A Plaubel-Brooks Veriwide 6 x 9
camera produces an image 57mm x 88mm. It is only a few millimeters
smaller than the nominal size, and some brands produce different actual
sizes. 645 cameras from several manufacturers noted above -- nominally
60 mm x 45 mm -- produce images 56 mm x 41.5 mm.

The Leaf back has a rotating sensor, nominally "645" size but actually a
bit smaller (I forget the exact size). It is within a few millimeters of
56 mm x 41.5 mm, but since it rotates within the back for portrait or
landscape shots without having to rotate the camera, it needs a little
extra room than a roll of film.

For what it's worth, 35mm film doesn't produce a 35mm negative -- it is
24mm x 36mm. 35mm is the width of the entire film including sprocket
holes.

None of this is for nefarious purposes, and the difference between the
nominal size and the actual size is negligible. Rollfilm has no sprocket
holes so it relies on tension and a large pressure plate to remain flat.
In the Hasselblad system when you load film there is a small clamp which
locks one edge of the film to the pressure plate to hold it in place
while you put the insert into the back. That clamp is outside the image
area.

The other reason is that there has to be somewhere for the
edge-numbering to go. Remember 35mm film was originally movie film and
when editing it you need to refer to frame numbers. Edge-numbering,
barcoding, manufacturer's name, even in some cases (Contax 645 for
example) exposure information is imprinted on the edge of the film
outside of the image area.

Large-format film is no exception. Sheet film is held in holders by a
thin metal strip along three sides and a folding gate on the fourth. If
you have ever seen a full-frame enlargement of a 4 x 5 negative you will
see that the image mask is asymmetrical, flaring out on one of the
narrow ends. That's because when loading the film holder there has to be
room for your fingers to get that last fraction of an inch of film under
the mask before folding the gate closed.

Here's a picture of someone loading a 4 x 5 sheet of film into a holder
- the mask is the part holding the film in place (normally this is done
in complete darkness):
<http://digitaljournalist.org/issue07...LM-IN-HOLDER.j
pg>

Here's a picture of a strip of 645 Fuji color negative film, showing
three images, the image mask, edge-numbering, other imprinted data, and
what looks like barcoding:
<http://www.bisonphoto.com/images/120_film_strip.jpg>

And finally here is a picture of the Hasselblad film loading sequence,
from an instruction manual. Figure 35 shows the film clamp. The white
area on Figure 39 is the darkslide seen through the image mask:
<http://www.mattneedham.com/images/hassy500load.jpg>

I hope I haven't confused things too much.

--Shiv
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: New Leaf Credo camera back series for the Mamiya 645DF to ship in June RichA Digital Photography 1 05-06-2012 10:48 AM
Canon unveils the fastesh digital SLR camera rishil Digital Photography 2 02-23-2007 11:32 AM
eBay: Leaf Catchlight Digital Back now at $53.00 Patrick Digital Photography 11 11-14-2004 09:11 PM
eBay: Leaf Scitex CatchLight Digital Back Patrick Digital Photography 1 09-23-2004 10:47 PM
highest resolution cell phone digital camera pda hybrid? Mad Scientist Digital Photography 3 08-26-2003 06:40 PM



Advertisments