compact vs slr

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Denis, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. Denis

    Denis Guest

    Can you get a compact as good as a SLR
    Denis, Aug 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Denis

    Matt Ion Guest

    Denis wrote:
    > Can you get a compact as good as a SLR


    Define "good".
    Matt Ion, Aug 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <> wrote:

    >Can you get a compact as good as a SLR


    I presume you meant dSLR? If not, then you'll have to go back several years to
    revisit the digital vs. 35mm-film wars. Suffice to say that most digital cameras
    more than 5 megapixels today are capable of putting out images every bit as good
    as 35mm film, if not better.

    Now if you meant to say dSLR, then:

    Go to dpreview.com and check out their technical data of resolution test charts
    between P&S compacts and dSLR cameras of equivalent megapixels.

    The answer to your question is an easy yes.

    Most of them also have extra features that no dSLR can ever have, features which
    more than makes up for any high-ISO quality that they might lack from smaller
    sensor sizes. Some of the Fuji P&S cameras excel in high-ISO settings rivaling
    many dSLR's only claims to superiority in that department.

    The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice of
    prohibitively expensive lenses.

    (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use to cost
    1/10th or less of what they do today. They charge whatever price that fools are
    willing to pay for them. Those are the same kind of people that think if two
    lenses are sold at $300 and another at $1500, the $1500 one *must* be the better
    lens. Little do they know. They're the same kind of people who think that
    spending $700 on a graphic editor means it must be better than a $70 editor.
    Again, living proof of "Fools and their money are soon parted.")

    Super-zoom P&S = no need to change any lenses. (dSLR score 0)

    Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score 0)

    The multitude of drawbacks to a dSLR are too long to list here.

    The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in the cost of a dSLR
    and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless of course.
    A.Neuman, Aug 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Denis

    Populares Guest

    There is one thing. Frame size. You can not take picture with narrow
    depth of field with compact. With DSLR you can try.
    Populares, Aug 25, 2007
    #4
  5. A.Neuman wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Can you get a compact as good as a SLR


    [Gazillionth rehash of age-old religious war snipped]

    > The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in the cost
    > of a dSLR and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless
    > of course.


    Pround to be a brainless

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:28:34 +0200, Populares <> wrote:

    >
    >There is one thing. Frame size. You can not take picture with narrow
    >depth of field with compact. With DSLR you can try.


    Au contraire, mon fraire. Shallow DOF is directly proportional to true lens
    focal-length vs. true imaging media size and has nothing at all to do with what
    kind of camera they are built into. On smaller sensors one only needs to
    increase the focal-length of their lens (using long zoom settings or telextender
    lenses) while using equivalent f/stop settings to achieve identical bokeh
    between the two. Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify
    why they wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with their
    red-herring run-arounds.

    Now on the other hand, since dSLRs cannot use f/stops over f/32 on any lens no
    matter how expensive, they can't achieve the amazingly deep DOF effects of
    smaller sensor cameras, which are capable of using all f/stops well under any
    diffraction limitations. A much sought after quality for anyone doing the least
    bit of macro-photography. The P&S can duplicate the shallow DOF of a dSLR, but
    the dSLR can't duplicate the deep DOF of a P&S. Yet again, the dSLR scores a
    huge fat honkin' ZERO on this one. I'd even give dSLRs a minus 2 on this aspect
    due to their macro-photography limitations that they can't overcome in any
    manner, no matter what expensive custom-design optics that they want to put on
    their cameras.

    Keep trying, keep losing.
    A.Neuman, Aug 25, 2007
    #6
  7. Denis

    Populares Guest

    Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
    Populares, Aug 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <> wrote:

    >
    >Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.


    Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
    much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
    have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
    either party.
    A.Neuman, Aug 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Denis

    frederick Guest

    A.Neuman wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <> wrote:
    >
    >> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.

    >
    > Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
    > much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
    > have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
    > either party.
    >

    You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
    from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
    finding another source of reliable information and studying
    it. You are 100% wrong.
    frederick, Aug 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <> wrote:

    >A.Neuman wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.

    >>
    >> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
    >> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
    >> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
    >> either party.
    >>

    >You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
    >from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
    >finding another source of reliable information and studying
    >it. You are 100% wrong.


    I refer you to this comment:

    > Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
    > wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
    > their red-herring run-arounds.


    If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
    believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.

    It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
    ranks.
    A.Neuman, Aug 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Denis

    frederick Guest

    A.Neuman wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <> wrote:
    >
    >> A.Neuman wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
    >>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
    >>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
    >>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
    >>> either party.
    >>>

    >> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
    >>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
    >> finding another source of reliable information and studying
    >> it. You are 100% wrong.

    >
    > I refer you to this comment:
    >
    >> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
    >> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
    >> their red-herring run-arounds.

    >
    > If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
    > believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.
    >
    > It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
    > ranks.



    You do realise that such a strong belief that you are right
    and everyone else is wrong is symptomatic of a mental disorder?
    See a psychiatrist - but do it quick before scientologists
    and others from tin hat brigades pounce on you.
    frederick, Aug 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:27:49 +1200, frederick <> wrote:

    >A.Neuman wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> A.Neuman wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
    >>>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
    >>>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
    >>>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
    >>>> either party.
    >>>>
    >>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
    >>>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
    >>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
    >>> it. You are 100% wrong.

    >>
    >> I refer you to this comment:
    >>
    >>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
    >>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
    >>> their red-herring run-arounds.

    >>
    >> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
    >> believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.
    >>
    >> It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
    >> ranks.

    >
    >
    >You do realise that such a strong belief that you are right
    >and everyone else is wrong is symptomatic of a mental disorder?
    >See a psychiatrist - but do it quick before scientologists
    >and others from tin hat brigades pounce on you.


    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/295239958_ff00e38976_o.jpg

    OH NO! Shallow DOF from an inexpensive P&S camera?!? EEEK!!! It must be broken!
    Quick! Get it repaired or the dSLR crowd will think you are insane!!

    frederick, you now go in the fucked-up-moron-filter.
    A.Neuman, Aug 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Denis

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:11:53 GMT, A.Neuman wrote:

    >> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
    > > from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
    >> finding another source of reliable information and studying
    >> it. You are 100% wrong.

    >
    > I refer you to this comment:
    >
    >> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
    >> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
    >> their red-herring run-arounds.

    >
    > If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads
    > cut off believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it
    > REMAINS a foolish thing.


    And that's also true if a single idiot runs around telling others
    foolish things. You may not be an idiot, but you do a serviceable
    job of playing one.


    > The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice
    > of prohibitively expensive lenses.
    >
    > (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use
    > to cost 1/10th or less of what they do today.


    I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
    DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
    Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
    or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
    idiot, I suppose.


    > Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score 0)


    If by that you mean that the recent P&S cameras with the best high
    ISO performance do as well as the recent DSLRs with the worst high
    ISO performance, you're probably wrong. And the P&S with the best
    high ISO performance has many limitations, such as no viewfinder
    other than its LCD display. Score: DSLR 1, Idiot 0. :)


    > The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in
    > the cost of a dSLR and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for
    > the brainless of course.


    Except that my DSLR cost less than many P&S cameras. Cheaper than
    some even if you include a lens. And of course it used all of my
    old lenses. The WA and TELE lens adapters bought for my P&S cameras
    are unlikely to work properly with most new P&S cameras. They also
    interfere with using the flash. Score: DSLR 2, Idiot 0. But of
    course we can't really hold this against a lame, brainless sock
    puppet. Especially one that's so clueless that he's immediately
    recognized by his favorite motto "What, me worry?". :) And he
    really has little to worry about, since he has earned a niche in :

    the all new . . .

    > **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
    >
    > A.Neuman, Allan D., Baumbadier, BigBrother, Brad M, Bucky,
    > CharleiD, CoffeeTalk, CoolGuy, Craig Stevens, D. Farmington,
    > Dartagnon, DaveB, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, Danny V., EdBancroft,
    > DSLRs SUCK!, , FeastForThought, Fed-Up-With-Corel,
    > FixItMan, FrankLM, Gaile S., GilfordBrimly, Glen Bankwood,
    > GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, GreggAkin, GregoryH., Henry Hank, HatTrick,
    > HokusPokus, IdiotDetector, ImpressMe, Jack Johnson, JoeBS, Lurk,
    > John Kaiber, M. Goode, MoronDetector, NameHere, NameThere,
    > New2_S3, , OptionsRus, OTPolice, RealityCheck,
    > ReplyingToStupid, Rob Akins, RockyZ, SayWhat, SelfImporantName,
    > SelfImportantName, Siskel, SmartGuy, Soujourner, spamless, SpamAlert!,
    > TryinToHelp, Wayne J.L., WillyWonka, X-Man and Yeti.
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:59:58 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

    <desperate attention-seeking moronic drivel snipped>

    Just another one for the "useless & mindless club" asswipe-filter.
    A.Neuman, Aug 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Denis

    Matalog Guest

    "A.Neuman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <> wrote:
    >
    >>Can you get a compact as good as a SLR

    >
    > I presume you meant dSLR? If not, then you'll have to go back several
    > years to
    > revisit the digital vs. 35mm-film wars. Suffice to say that most digital
    > cameras
    > more than 5 megapixels today are capable of putting out images every bit
    > as good
    > as 35mm film, if not better.
    >
    > Now if you meant to say dSLR, then:
    >
    > Go to dpreview.com and check out their technical data of resolution test
    > charts
    > between P&S compacts and dSLR cameras of equivalent megapixels.
    >
    > The answer to your question is an easy yes.
    >
    > Most of them also have extra features that no dSLR can ever have,


    Which?



    features which
    > more than makes up for any high-ISO quality that they might lack from
    > smaller
    > sensor sizes. Some of the Fuji P&S cameras excel in high-ISO settings
    > rivaling
    > many dSLR's only claims to superiority in that department


    No they don't, not atall.


    >
    > The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice of
    > prohibitively expensive lenses.


    You seem to have forgot speed at which the camera processes the images, my
    old fuji could manage a RAW file every 18 seconds (and it was a good fuji
    cam) now my new DSLR manages 3 RAW's per second for 9 or 10 images in a row
    (and it is the lowest of Canon's line). Also, not all lenses are expensive,
    but most are better than super-zoom lenses of compact fame (and the fact
    that you can get a lens to do what you want for anything you want goes a
    long way). DSLR's also generally have a much bigger sensor, meaning that
    you can take images at a higher ISO without as much noise as a compact and
    you can acquire better images. Faster Frames Per Second, much longer
    battery life, much more apertures available, an inconsiderable amount of
    viewfinder quality difference (simply amazing on a DSLR), better menu
    control and customisability all make DLSR's a mcuh better choice, for those
    who can afford to take the step UP.


    >
    > (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use to
    > cost
    > 1/10th or less of what they do today.


    And so do houses, but what relevance dodes this have? (but 1/10th must be
    going back at least 50 years, as far as lenses are concerned)

    They charge whatever price that fools are
    > willing to pay for them. Those are the same kind of people that think if
    > two
    > lenses are sold at $300 and another at $1500, the $1500 one *must* be the
    > better
    > lens.


    Stupid, stupid.

    Little do they know. They're the same kind of people who think that
    > spending $700 on a graphic editor means it must be better than a $70
    > editor.
    > Again, living proof of "Fools and their money are soon parted.")


    Quoting famous quotes doesn't that you know what you are talking about. Here
    is definite proof of that!

    >
    > Super-zoom P&S = no need to change any lenses. (dSLR score balls)


    and no good lenses


    >
    > Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score balls)


    some? Name "some" of them.


    >
    > The multitude of drawbacks to a dSLR are too long to list here.


    The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.


    >
    > The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed.


    Stupid.

    Add in the cost of a dSLR
    > and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless of course.



    That would be YOU. Don't bother wasting your time and the time of others
    that may read your stupid comments and you should accept the fact that
    DSLR's are better, even if you can't afford one.
    Matalog, Aug 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Denis

    A.Neuman Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:29:34 GMT, "Matalog" <> wrote:

    >The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.


    You forgot some of them (but then clueless idiots are like that).

    Noisy shutter and mirror that scares wildlife and alerts others
    Slow flash sync at last century speeds
    Dust on the sensor and mirror requiring servicing and extreme care
    Ungainly weight and equipment needed to use one
    Huge size making candid photography impossible
    Focal-plane shutter symmetry distortions of anything that moves
    No programmable exposure sequences
    Overpriced lenses with less resolution than most P&S camera lenses
    Needing 3 to 5 overpriced lenses to match just one P&S super-zoom
    Exorbitant costs
    Being denied access to events because of appearances
    Outlandish repair costs and equipment downtimes
    Huge shooting delays when changing lenses to find the right one
    Condensation on the sensor and mirror when temps change
    Easily scratched mirror
    Short shutter and mirror mechanism life-span
    No internal EVF so any live-preview LCD is washed out by lights
    Inaccurate framing in the OVF
    No DOF and Hyperfocal readings in OVF
    No exact focal-length readings relayed to the user when using zoom
    The wrong exposure readings if you don't block the OVF from stray light
    Limited length burst modes with HUGE delays when writing to media
    Black-bodies-only ensuring excess thermal absorption to increase noise
    No video and audio recording capabilities

    This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on .....
    A.Neuman, Aug 26, 2007
    #16
  17. On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:59:58 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

    > I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
    >DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
    >Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
    >or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
    >idiot, I suppose.
    >


    You bought your first DSLR in the 1950's? Wow! I bet you even own a time-machine
    to go with that tinfoil-cap of yours.

    What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim with idiots
    and morons? Sure seems that way. What a pity that someone had enough sympathy
    and patience of the gods to show them how to use a computer and keyboard at one
    time. Now we all suffer for it.
    Idiot Detector, Aug 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Denis

    Matalog Guest

    "A.Neuman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:29:34 GMT, "Matalog" <> wrote:
    >
    >>The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.

    >
    > You forgot some of them (but then clueless idiots are like that)


    Oh, wait, you seem to have just copied this from so many DSLR hating posts I
    have read in the past.


    ..
    >
    > Noisy shutter and mirror that scares wildlife and alerts others


    Do you really shoot wildlife shots? It doesn't scare them, more, grabs
    their attention.

    > Slow flash sync at last century speed


    As I stated before.


    > Dust on the sensor and mirror requiring servicing and extreme care


    Extreme? Not quite.

    > Ungainly weight and equipment needed to use one


    No, unless you have a forearm deficiency

    > Huge size making candid photography impossible


    Don't be stupid, maybe you mean Hidden candid hotography or Voyeur?

    > Focal-plane shutter symmetry distortions of anything that moves


    Accepted since cavemen had DSLR's

    > No programmable exposure sequences


    Serious?

    > Overpriced lenses with less resolution than most P&S camera lenses


    Not true, by any means.

    > Needing 3 to 5 overpriced lenses to match just one P&S super-zoom


    Again, not true. You just haven't done any research, have you.

    > Exorbitant costs


    Which country do you live? And do you really know the meaning of
    exorbitant?

    > Being denied access to events because of appearances


    Your definitely crazy, right? No, you may have just jumped on the band
    wagon? Wait, I don't care.

    > Outlandish repair costs and equipment downtimes


    Outlandish? Who made this original list that you creeps keep copying?

    > Huge shooting delays when changing lenses to find the right one


    Yes, HUGE. Maybe if you happen to lose all dexterity.

    > Condensation on the sensor and mirror when temps change


    Possible. But then, how quick can you drive to the north pole?

    > Easily scratched mirror


    If you are stupid enough to probe inside with hard objects.

    > Short shutter and mirror mechanism life-span


    Short? How do you know this? If you happen to believe this, why do you
    mystifingly fail to believe what any DSLR user will telll you, that DSLR's
    are much better.

    > No internal EVF so any live-preview LCD is washed out by lights


    What lights are you talking about?

    > Inaccurate framing in the OVF


    After one photo you can tell the difference, if any.

    > No DOF and Hyperfocal readings in OVF


    What does the depth of field preview button do then?

    > No exact focal-length readings relayed to the user when using zoom


    For non 35mm CCD cameras only, easily worked out if you have the WIT to do
    so.


    > The wrong exposure readings if you don't block the OVF from stray light


    Do you know what stray light means?

    > Limited length burst modes with HUGE delays when writing to media


    Are you trying to tell me that compacts have better writing times with the
    same file sizes?


    > Black-bodies-only ensuring excess thermal absorption to increase noise


    So, there only exists black DSLR's?

    > No video and audio recording capabilities


    And it's such a shame. No, wait, we are talking about a still camera, not a
    video camera or a dictaphone.


    >
    > This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on .....



    No, it doesn't, the list didn't even go...








    >
    Matalog, Aug 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Denis

    acl Guest

    On Aug 26, 5:45 am, Idiot Detector <> wrote:

    > What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim with idiots
    > and morons?


    Yep: like the rest of the world :)
    acl, Aug 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Denis

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:45:53 GMT, Idiot Detector wrote:

    >> I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
    >> DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
    >> Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
    >> or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
    >> idiot, I suppose.

    >
    > You bought your first DSLR in the 1950's? Wow! I bet you even own a
    > time-machine to go with that tinfoil-cap of yours.


    Nope. Seems like the challenged sock puppets don't know much
    about prices over the years. The "DSLR" was a typo. It was
    actually a Nikon F SLR bought in the early 60's. Less than 10 years
    later I found a gas station in Pittsburgh selling gasoline for 22.9
    cents/gallon, but most prices were several cents higher, up to the
    mid 30's.


    > What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim
    > with idiots and morons? Sure seems that way.


    You're right for a change, but it only seems that way. There's
    really not a lot of idiots and morons, since it only takes an idiot
    or two to create the many of sock puppets.

    Q. How many sock puppets does it take to create a reply?
    A. None. It's the pathetic anonymous troll invisibly pulling the
    strings that's responsible for the mounds of drivel.
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,590
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    715
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    394
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. SLR and SLR like cameras

    , Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    390
    Prometheus
    Aug 31, 2005
  5. Jul

    SLR and not SLR

    Jul, Jan 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    525
Loading...

Share This Page