Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Oct 30, 2006.

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    At the request of Roger Clark, I just did some time tests with the new
    P-5000 unit and my P-2000 unit.
    The results are impressive:

    2GB SanDisk Extreme III CF (completely filled with RAW+Large JPEGs from
    Canon 5D)
    -Full copy to each device:

    P-2000 time: 12:49
    P-5000 time: 4:35 (!!) -A second copy test rendered the EXACT same time

    4GB SanDisk Extreme III CF (completely filled with RAW+Large JPEGs from
    Canon 5D)
    -Full copy to each device:

    P-2000 time: 26:34
    P-5000 time: 9:27

    *These numbers actually EXCEED the claims by Epson (of 250% copy-speed
    increase).
    This speed means not only less time, but also more battery life.

    Now view image viewing times:
    Scrolling and view times are even more impressive:

    Rendering the standard screen of 12 thumbnails:

    P-2000: 10.5 seconds
    P-5000: 1.2 seconds (approximate)

    Rendering 64 small thumbnails:

    P-2000: N/A
    P-2000: 3.2 seconds (and you do NOT have to wait for the screen to
    populate...you can keep scrolling quickly to subsequent pages.

    *Note: The 64-Thumbnail view is surisingly useful due the amazing
    high-definition 4" screen running a full 24bit color scheme.

    Rendering full-screen individual images:

    RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):

    P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

    Rendering full-screen JPEG images were the same as above.

    *Epson claimed a 500% improvement in rendering speed, but again...they've
    EXCEEDED their promise in my tests.

    *********************
    The bottom line:
    After viewing with the new model, you'll be at pains to ever want to browse
    with the old one.
    It's simply a TOTALLY different experience.

    That alone may be reason enough for many to upgrade, but the looong list of
    other improvements are extremely significant as well. The timing figures
    speak for themselves. No ocmparison. Battery issues...customization...and
    on and on.

    If anyone was on the fence, take my word for it: You won't be disappointed.

    -Mark²

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    > Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >
    > RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >
    > P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    > P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)


    ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000, displaying an
    image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second). ???

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    > displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    > ???


    LOL! Maybe Mark is just fudging the numbers? I know my transfer rates are
    much faster. Admittedly the new P-5000 has a "slightly" faster internal HD,
    but it's not going to make that dramatic of a difference. I call BULLSHIT
    on this one.






    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>
    >> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>
    >> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

    >
    > ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    > displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    > ???


    If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
    images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent on the 2000/4000,
    but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly view newly-shot images in
    the field.. I'm clicking on a newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D
    jpeg or RAW image for the *first* time.

    My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed by
    Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).

    -Mark

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Mark²

    just bob Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:5uc1h.72$...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>>
    >>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>>
    >>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

    >>
    >> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    >> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    >> ???

    >
    > If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    > assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.


    I'm interested to know what Epson claimed for this operation on P-2000. I
    doubt you will find "8 seconds" anywhere on their literature and I would be
    pissed if I had bought one.

    Thanks for your work on this.
    just bob, Oct 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Mark²

    ernie clyma Guest

    While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
    ESP 100GB at Costco.com
    Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??
    ernie clyma, Oct 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    just bob wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:5uc1h.72$...
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>>>
    >>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>>>
    >>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
    >>>
    >>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    >>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    >>> ???

    >>
    >> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    >> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.

    >
    > I'm interested to know what Epson claimed for this operation on
    > P-2000. I doubt you will find "8 seconds" anywhere on their
    > literature and I would be pissed if I had bought one.
    >
    > Thanks for your work on this.


    According to dpreview.com's review data, a 7MP image-to-image display time
    was 3.2 seconds.
    When you nearly double that to my 12.8MP 5D images, (adding the possibility
    of the resulting decrease in operating memory "head-room" left for system
    operations when the image itself eats memory)...it isn't too hard to believe
    a time of 6-8 seconds for shot-to-shot views based on dpreview's times. My
    P-2000 *could* be a bit slower due to many cycles of use due to Epson's lack
    of defragmentation functions...but my numbers are too far off of the
    extrapolated guess for a 12.8MP image compared with their tested 7MP image
    sample.

    See here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp

    As they note...once images have been cached, the view-time is much faster.
    But again, this is of little assistance when your purpose is making an
    initial assessment in the field.

    On the same chart, their card-copy time for a 1GB Sandisk CF card (Ultra II)
    is 469 seconds (7 minutes 49 seconds). My P-2000 times for **2GB was
    12:49...which is a bit better over-all, but my card was Ultra III.

    -Mark²
    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    ernie clyma wrote:
    > While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a
    > Wolverine ESP 100GB at Costco.com
    > Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??


    See Bill Hilton's comments within my other thread, "Epson P-5000 a winner!"
    on this forum.
    He's happily used one in addition to his P-4000 (which is the P-2000, but
    with 80GB instead of 40).

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>>
    >>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>>
    >>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

    >>
    >> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    >> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    >> ???

    >
    > If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    > assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
    > images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
    > on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
    > view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
    > newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
    > the *first* time.
    > My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
    > by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).
    >
    > -Mark


    Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?

    See my other post about dpreview's numbers regarding pre-cached
    image-to-image viewing.
    Here's a link:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>>>
    >>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>>>
    >>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
    >>>
    >>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    >>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    >>> ???

    >>
    >> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    >> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.
    >> RE-viewing images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
    >> on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
    >> view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
    >> newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
    >> the *first* time.
    >> My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
    >> by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).
    >>
    >> -Mark

    >
    > Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?
    >
    > See my other post about dpreview's numbers regarding pre-cached
    > image-to-image viewing.
    > Here's a link:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp


    Also notice that my times for thumbnail page creation are right on par with
    dpreview's cited number (They cite 11 seconds for initial render...mine was
    10.5 seconds)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #10
  11. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
    >>>>
    >>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
    >>>>
    >>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
    >>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
    >>>
    >>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
    >>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
    >>> ???

    >>
    >> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
    >> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
    >> images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
    >> on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
    >> view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
    >> newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
    >> the *first* time.
    >> My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
    >> by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).

    >
    > Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?


    I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
    through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed in
    under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
    cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
    were 150 images in the directory.

    My P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may be different from overseas models.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
    > through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed in
    > under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
    > cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
    > were 150 images in the directory.


    If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
    might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
    powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
    possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
    presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
    if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.
    Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
    the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
    they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
    this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
    if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
    door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
    created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
    longer first display time you noticed.
    ASAAR, Oct 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Mark²

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > ernie clyma wrote:
    >
    > While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
    > ESP 100GB at Costco.com
    > Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??


    I have a year-old Wolverine, don't know the model # (not sure if ESP is
    the newer one with a preview screen) but it's 100 GB and cost about 1/3
    as much as the Epson P-4000 but had more storage space. It was on sale
    recently at Fry's for $99. We also have the older P-4000.

    If the one you mention has the preview screen to view images it's
    different than mine as mine just has an LCD for instructions ... the
    advantages of this over the Epson are lower cost, less bulk, more
    storage space, can download via USB from a laptop without AC power,
    more downloads per battery charge, and I *think* it downloaded from the
    CF card faster than the Epson P-4000, but may need to check my notes on
    that.

    The advantages of the Epson P-4000 are the viewing screen and it's
    faster to move files via USB to the desktop computer ... it also plays
    slide shows and music etc, but it's more bulky and more expensive.

    We take a laptop, the P-4000 and the Wolverine on long trips, like to
    Africa, downloading to the laptop and deleting about 1/3 pretty quick,
    then making backups on both the Epson and Wolverine before reformatting
    the CF cards ... if we can't take the laptop due to space or other
    reasons the P-4000 is more adequate as a backup than the Wolverine, but
    really nothing I've used thus far is as good as a laptop. The download
    speeds Mark mentions, while a great improvement over the P-4000, are
    still less than half as fast as we get on an old laptop with multiple
    readers, for example.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 30, 2006
    #13
  14. "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >> I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and went
    >> through them one at a time. The first time through, each image displayed
    >> in
    >> under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem to be a
    >> cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per image if there
    >> were 150 images in the directory.

    >
    > If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
    > might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
    > powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
    > possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
    > presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
    > if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.


    I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an image.
    (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded in the RAW,
    which it won't zoom.)

    The thing my P-2000 is painful for is displaying the thumbnails. It shows 12
    per screenful, and does seem to cache them, but the cache size is limited,
    and as soon as it gets to the next page, it gets glacial.

    > Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
    > the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
    > they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
    > this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
    > if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
    > door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
    > created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
    > longer first display time you noticed.


    Again, there seems to be a cache, and they may be caching the first page of
    thumbnails for each directory, but by the time you get to the second page,
    it gets slow. But displaying an image full screen isn't bad at all, even if
    you ask it to display an image it hasn't displayed the thumbnail for.

    Again, this P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may act different from those
    purchased outside Japan.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 30, 2006
    #14
  15. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >>> I just snapped off five shots, dowloaded them to the P-2000, and
    >>> went through them one at a time. The first time through, each image
    >>> displayed in
    >>> under 2 seconds, the second time a bit faster. So there does seem
    >>> to be a cache phenomenon. And who knows how long it would take per
    >>> image if there were 150 images in the directory.

    >>
    >> If the P-2000 can fully power off (instead of just faking it), you
    >> might try sending another set of five shots to it, powering off,
    >> powering on and then displaying them to try to eliminate any
    >> possible caching. I don't know how much memory the P-2000 has, but
    >> presumably it wouldn't have enough to effectively cache copied files
    >> if you tried displaying them after copying 100 files to the P-2000.

    >
    > I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
    > image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded in
    > the RAW, which it won't zoom.)
    >
    > The thing my P-2000 is painful for is displaying the thumbnails. It
    > shows 12 per screenful, and does seem to cache them, but the cache
    > size is limited, and as soon as it gets to the next page, it gets
    > glacial.
    >> Another thought. If the P-2000 creates any kind of thumbnails on
    >> the fly, are they created as the files are being downloaded, or as
    >> they're being displayed for the first time? I wouldn't think that
    >> this would take very much time per shot, but it might be noticeable
    >> if the goal of the P-2000's designers was to first get it out the
    >> door and then optimize the code for future versions. If they're
    >> created prior to first display, that could also explain the slightly
    >> longer first display time you noticed.

    >
    > Again, there seems to be a cache, and they may be caching the first
    > page of thumbnails for each directory, but by the time you get to the
    > second page, it gets slow. But displaying an image full screen isn't
    > bad at all, even if you ask it to display an image it hasn't
    > displayed the thumbnail for.
    > Again, this P-2000 was purchased in Japan, and may act different from
    > those purchased outside Japan.


    Perhaps that's true, though I can't imagine Japan would use two different
    processors.
    If what you're saying is correct, then you're also differing greatly from
    dpreview's unit.
    Hmmm...

    In any event...the 5000 is miles ahead of *my* 2000.
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Oct 30, 2006
    #15
  16. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:ei3r5l$rpc$...
    SNIP
    > I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
    > image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded
    > in the RAW, which it won't zoom.)


    Maybe Raw+JPEG is different (perhaps it could try to downsample the
    JPEG instead of extracting the Raw thumbnail)?

    --
    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Mark²

    Guest

    "Bart van der Wolf" <> writes:

    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:ei3r5l$rpc$...
    > SNIP
    >> I don't ever remember my P-2000 being painful to actually display an
    >> image. (I only save RAW, so it's displaying the tiny jpeg embedded
    >> in the RAW, which it won't zoom.)


    > Maybe Raw+JPEG is different (perhaps it could try to downsample the
    > JPEG instead of extracting the Raw thumbnail)?


    Canon RAW images have 2 jpegs in them already. One is a thumb, the other is
    larger. Are you sure it is *CONVERTING* the raw and not just showing the
    larger preview jpg?

    Note, this is with JUST raw files, not with raw+jpg.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    , Nov 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Mark²

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >> ernie clyma wrote:
    >>
    >> While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
    >> ESP 100GB at Costco.com
    >> Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??

    -
    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    > I have a year-old Wolverine, don't know the model # (not sure if ESP is
    > the newer one with a preview screen) but it's 100 GB and cost about 1/3
    > as much as the Epson P-4000 but had more storage space. It was on sale
    > recently at Fry's for $99. We also have the older P-4000.
    > ...
    > advantages of (Wooly) over the Epson are lower cost, less bulk, more
    > storage space, can download via USB from a laptop without AC power,
    > more downloads per battery charge, and I *think* it downloaded from the
    > CF card faster than the Epson P-4000, but may need to check my notes on
    > that.


    Ernie, if you're still out there and haven't bought a Wolverine yet
    here are some actual speed tests numbers ... the Wolverine I have
    (about 16 months old now) is very slow compared to the Epson P-4000 and
    even slower compared to the new P-3000/5000 models, per Mark's tests.

    Here are three different tests, downloading CF cards, xfering from
    Epson or Wolverine to computer, xfering from computer to Epson or
    Wolverine.

    Downloading CF card tests ...
    Wolverine
    Extreme IV 4 GB card (3.79 GB or 4,072,034,913 bytes)
    * 45 minutes, 10 sec (wow, that's slow)
    * 1.4 MB/sec

    Slower CF card was slightly slower but not much, implying the reader is
    the weak link.

    P-4000 downloading the same Extreme IV card ...
    * 26:32 or 2.4 MB/sec

    My P-4000 times agree with what Mark saw for his P-2000 (26:34), so not
    quite twice as fast.

    So the P-5000 test Mark ran, taking 9:27, indicates the P-5000 is
    almost 500% faster than the Wolverine for downloading CF cards.

    Reading files from external drive to computer:
    Wolverine 7.0 MB/sec
    P-4000 13.0 MB/sec

    Writing files from computer to external drive:
    Wolverine 7.4 MB/sec
    P-4000 12.3 MB/sec

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2006
    #18
    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. Silverstrand

    GeForce 7800 GTX Head-to-Head @ TrustedReviews

    Silverstrand, Sep 13, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    725
    Silverstrand
    Sep 13, 2005
  2. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    892
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  3. Richard Alexander

    Looking for a Multi-Head, Detachable-Head Camera

    Richard Alexander, Apr 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    577
    Richard Alexander
    May 26, 2004
  4. measekite

    Is This a True Head to Head Comparison

    measekite, Jul 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
  5. CertExpert..!!!
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,164
    CertExpert..!!!
    Feb 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page