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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 20, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.asp
     
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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.
     
    Rich, Sep 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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.
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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
     
    shiva das, Sep 21, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    shiva das <> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    > Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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 ...
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 20, 11:14 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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
     
    RichA, Sep 22, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    shiva das Guest

    Re: Leaf Unveils World¹s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > On Sep 20, 11:14 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > news:...
    > > On Sep 20, 2:54 pm, Bruce <> 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/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.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.
     
    shiva das, Sep 22, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    shiva das Guest

    Re: Leaf Unveils World¹s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

    In article <>,
    Paul Furman <> 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 <>,
    shiva das <> 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.
     
    shiva das, Oct 13, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    shiva das Guest

    Re: Leaf Unveils World¹s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

    In article <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > shiva das wrote:
    > > In article<>,
    > > Paul Furman<> 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<>,
    > > shiva das<> 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>
     
    shiva das, Oct 14, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    shiva das Guest

    Re: Leaf Unveils World¹s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com

    In article <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > shiva das wrote:
    > > In article<>,
    > > Paul Furman<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> shiva das wrote:
    > >>> In article<>,
    > >>> Paul Furman<> 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<>,
    > >>> shiva das<> 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/issue0708/assign/images/dk-FILM-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
     
    shiva das, Oct 15, 2010
    #10
    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. Mad Scientist

    highest resolution cell phone digital camera pda hybrid?

    Mad Scientist, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,027
    Ron Hunter
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    515
    RichA
    Feb 17, 2005
  3. Patrick

    eBay: Leaf Catchlight Digital Back now at $53.00

    Patrick, Nov 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    543
    WebKatz
    Nov 14, 2004
  4. rishil

    Canon unveils the fastesh digital SLR camera

    rishil, Feb 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    307
    John Ortt
    Feb 23, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    550
Loading...

Share This Page