More Panasonic P&S perfection

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by agro D-Mac, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. agro D-Mac

    agro D-Mac Guest

    The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    outfit.
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm

    Douglas
    agro D-Mac, Nov 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. agro D-Mac

    Pete D Guest

    "agro D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    news:w6y_i.12372$...
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    > people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    > taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    > such an outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >


    Sorry but you don't seem to exist!










    Server not found













    Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.








    * Check the address for typing errors such as
    ww.example.com instead of
    www.example.com
    Pete D, Nov 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. agro D-Mac wrote:
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    > people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    > taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation
    > with such an outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >
    > Douglas


    I share your enthuiasm for Panasonic "bridge" cameras, having an FZ20 that I
    regularly take with me in preference to my Nikon D70s with it's various
    lenses.

    Dennis.
    Dennis Pogson, Nov 14, 2007
    #3
  4. agro D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    agro D-Mac wrote:
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    > will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    > nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    > outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    >

    You should change your nick to "Showbags" - things look ok
    at first, but ultimately you discover that it's just the
    same old shit.
    Doug Jewell, Nov 14, 2007
    #4
  5. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100, Pete D wrote:

    > "agro D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    > news:w6y_i.12372$...
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    >> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    >> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    >> such an outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >>
    >> Douglas
    >>
    >>

    > Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Server not found
    >
    > Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.
    >


    Works for me. It's your ISP's DNS that's not updating.


    --
    If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!
    Douglas, Nov 14, 2007
    #5
  6. On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >"agro D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    >news:w6y_i.12372$...
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    >> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    >> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    >> such an outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >>
    >> Douglas
    >>

    >
    >Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
    >
    >Server not found
    >
    >Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.
    >


    Sounds like your DNS (domain name server) is working about as well as any DSLR
    at the moment. But unlike a DSLR, a DNS will be restored to full usefulness
    eventually. :)

    Page loaded up just fine here.

    Nice use of a flash diffuser.
    HowardEdwards, Nov 14, 2007
    #6
  7. agro D-Mac

    Guest

    On Nov 14, 7:34 pm, HowardEdwards <> wrote:
    >
    > Sounds like your DNS (domain name server) is working about as well as any DSLR
    > at the moment. But unlike a DSLR, a DNS will be restored to full usefulness
    > eventually. :)
    >
    > Page loaded up just fine here.
    >
    > Nice use of a flash diffuser.


    G'day Howard - new to Usenet, I see!! Excellent first post.

    (grin)

    As for the photo, macros leave me cold unless very, very good. Roses
    images leave me colder, unless... And use of flash, even when
    (largely ineffectively) diffused by a highly professional paper bag,
    for such images ...?

    ...well, you get the picture.

    But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure Douglas will sell this one
    for the same sort of profit levels he has received for his other
    recently auctioned (in New York and London, doncha know) images.

    Jolly well done, I say!!
    , Nov 14, 2007
    #7
  8. agro D-Mac

    Bob Williams Guest

    agro D-Mac wrote:
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    > will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    > nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    > outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    >

    Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
    Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
    Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.
    Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
    other auxiliary equipment.
    Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
    P/S cameras but it is a hassle, an added expense and does expose the
    DSLR sensor to potentially troublesome dust particles.
    Let the flames begin... :)
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Nov 14, 2007
    #8
  9. Doug Jewell wrote:
    > agro D-Mac wrote:
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    >> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    >> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    >> such an outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >>
    >> Douglas
    >>

    > You should change your nick to "Showbags" -


    He must have missed that one he has gone back to A and adding an old
    name to it.

    Tomorrow it will be Agro..Julian


    things look ok at first, but
    > ultimately you discover that it's just the same old shit.
    Harold Hughes - Activity Director, Nov 14, 2007
    #9
  10. agro D-Mac

    -hh Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > G'day Howard - new to Usenet, I see!! Excellent first post.



    Sorry "Mark", but this "Howard" is a resident troll who nameshifts.


    > But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure Douglas will...


    It is quite amazing how you just happen to be posting from Melborne
    and constantly posting nice things about Douglas so frequently.

    But that's just my opinion that it would seem that you also already
    know what a "sockpuppet" is, and how to troll with them. In the old
    days, this was called a "shill" when such seemingly third parties were
    used to promote a business

    Considering how unethical it is to use shills, it unfortunately casts
    a negative light on "Photography by Douglas St James". Perhaps its
    reflected in his business and he's struggling financially? Any idea
    what Douglas's real day job is?

    Of course, with the arrogance that he has in print on his own website,
    it is hardly surprising that his attitude wouldn't scare away some
    potential customers.

    And the promotional shot in question ... if one examines it closely
    (hint: left side) ... it has particular topical irony.



    -hh
    -hh, Nov 14, 2007
    #10
  11. agro D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Nov 14, 3:13 am, "agro D-Mac" <> wrote:
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    > will ever need.


    Was that the combo used to take this masterpiece?

    http://www.pbase.com/helens/image/87826789
    Annika1980, Nov 14, 2007
    #11
  12. agro D-Mac

    Sosumi Guest

    "agro D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    news:w6y_i.12372$...
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    > people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    > taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    > such an outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm



    What a butt ugly thing. Looks like some alien cartoon stuff...

    Here´s a real white rose. Nikon D40x + built in flash. About the same price
    as your Panasonic + Metz.
    http://photos-of-portugal.com/Whiterose8.jpg

    Here´s a red rose:
    http://photos-of-portugal.com/Redrose.jpg

    Here´s a red flower, done with your "fantastic" FZ50:
    http://photos-of-portugal.com/Redblur.jpg

    It´s a piece of crap. try anything with red and it all blends together. Try
    a red rose like the one above, NO WAY!
    Even better: try some bright red and yellow flowers, close together; the red
    will just "poor" into the yellow.

    Don´t try to bullshit a bullshitter.
    If your happy with your crappy, by all means, but don´t bore us with this
    crap.

    --
    "I don´t need a camera,
    I have a photographic memory..."
    Sosumi
    Sosumi, Nov 14, 2007
    #12
  13. agro D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Nov 14, 9:00 am, "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >
    > Don´t try to bullshit a bullshitter.
    > If your happy with your crappy, by all means, but don´t bore us with this
    > crap.


    ROFL! That should be Douggie's new motto:
    "I'm happy with my crappy!"

    Can't wait to see more of his happy crappy snaps.
    Annika1980, Nov 14, 2007
    #13
  14. agro D-Mac wrote:
    > The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    > will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    > nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    > outfit.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm


    No such site.
    =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?=, Nov 14, 2007
    #14
  15. On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:21:22 -0800, Bob Williams <> wrote:

    >agro D-Mac wrote:
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    >> will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    >> nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    >> outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >>
    >> Douglas
    >>
    >>

    >Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
    >Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
    >Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.
    >Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
    >other auxiliary equipment.
    >Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
    > P/S cameras



    Quite to the contrary. Due to the larger sensor size and useless shallow DOF it
    causes, they require: the use of f/stops so small that it creates blurring due
    to diffraction effects (totally negating any potential benefit to that expensive
    macro-glass), slow shutters speeds requiring non-moving subjects, and high ISOs
    that are beyond the capabilities of even the larger sensor. Always requiring use
    of flash or other artificial light changes to the subject, rendering the final
    photograph aesthetically unappealing and/or useless for any documentation
    purposes.

    This is why I eventually rejected the whole idea of ever needing or struggling
    with a DSLR for my preferred photography. It doesn't matter how good of a lens
    you put on that larger sensor DSLR to get the DOF required, they are worthless
    for any meaningful macro-photography.
    taylor_n_grant, Nov 14, 2007
    #15
  16. agro D-Mac

    Bob Williams Guest

    Sosumi wrote:
    > "agro D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    > news:w6y_i.12372$...
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    >> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    >> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    >> such an outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm

    >
    >
    > What a butt ugly thing. Looks like some alien cartoon stuff...
    >
    > Here´s a real white rose. Nikon D40x + built in flash. About the same price
    > as your Panasonic + Metz.
    > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Whiterose8.jpg
    >
    > Here´s a red rose:
    > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Redrose.jpg
    >
    > Here´s a red flower, done with your "fantastic" FZ50:
    > http://photos-of-portugal.com/Redblur.jpg
    >
    > It´s a piece of crap. try anything with red and it all blends together. Try
    > a red rose like the one above, NO WAY!
    > Even better: try some bright red and yellow flowers, close together; the red
    > will just "poor" into the yellow.
    >
    > Don´t try to bullshit a bullshitter.
    > If your happy with your crappy, by all means, but don´t bore us with this
    > crap.
    >

    With all due respect, IMHO, your roses are not nearly as sharp, crisp
    and detailed as Doug's.
    Perhaps it is a focusing problem or a DOF issue.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Nov 14, 2007
    #16
  17. agro D-Mac

    PixelPix Guest

    On Nov 15, 4:38 am, taylor_n_grant <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:21:22 -0800, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    > >agro D-Mac wrote:
    > >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    > >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    > >> will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    > >> nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    > >> outfit.
    > >>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm

    >
    > >> Douglas

    >
    > >Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
    > >Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
    > >Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.
    > >Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
    > >other auxiliary equipment.
    > >Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
    > > P/S cameras

    >
    > Quite to the contrary. Due to the larger sensor size and useless shallow DOF it
    > causes, they require: the use of f/stops so small that it creates blurring due
    > to diffraction effects (totally negating any potential benefit to that expensive
    > macro-glass), slow shutters speeds requiring non-moving subjects, and high ISOs
    > that are beyond the capabilities of even the larger sensor. Always requiring use
    > of flash or other artificial light changes to the subject, rendering the final
    > photograph aesthetically unappealing and/or useless for any documentation
    > purposes.
    >
    > This is why I eventually rejected the whole idea of ever needing or struggling
    > with a DSLR for my preferred photography. It doesn't matter how good of a lens
    > you put on that larger sensor DSLR to get the DOF required, they are worthless
    > for any meaningful macro-photography.


    > "Due to the larger sensor size and useless shallow DOF"


    The ability to create shallow DOF is for many, one of the most
    attractive features of the DSLR. For me, the steroidal DOF of P&S is
    OK for happy snapping, but a real PITA when trying to create an more
    artistic image.

    The thing thing is, most - if not all of us DSLR owners have a compact
    digital as well and we understand that there are times when the
    advantage pendulum swings from system to system.

    Cheers

    Rusty
    PixelPix, Nov 14, 2007
    #17
  18. agro D-Mac

    Peter Irwin Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm taylor_n_grant <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:21:22 -0800, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Quite to the contrary. Due to the larger sensor size and useless
    > shallow DOF it causes, they require: the use of f/stops so small
    > it creates blurring due to diffraction effects


    This may sound intuitive to some people, but it is wrong.

    Large format macro work does not give less resolution
    for a given depth of field. (This assumes that the
    area being photographed is the same and the two prints
    being compared are enlarged to the same size.)

    Very good macro work can be done with a 4x5 camera, and
    apart from the longer exposure times, can be at least
    as good as that from a small format camera.

    Peter.
    --
    Peter Irwin, Nov 14, 2007
    #18
  19. agro D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Bob Williams wrote:
    > agro D-Mac wrote:
    >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
    >> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
    >> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
    >> such an outfit.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
    >>
    >> Douglas
    >>

    > Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
    > Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
    > Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.

    You do know what "1:1 Macro" is don't you? 1:1 macro doesn't
    mean "the lens is really close to the subject", and Doug's
    photo isn't remotely close to 1:1.

    Classically, 1:1 macro means that the image cast on the
    recording medium is the same size as the subject. For true
    1:1 on a P&S then, that would mean a subject only a few mm
    in size would fill the frame. Nothing comes remotely close
    to this type of magnification, but digital usually gets
    compared to 35mm film. So for the purposes of macro, lets
    assume that 1:1 macro means "the equivalent of 1:1 on 35mm
    film", or a subject size of 36x24mm fills the frame completely.

    Not many P&S come anything close to 35mm equiv 1:1, and if
    they do it is severely limited. If you want to see how close
    a given camera is to 1:1 take the closest shot you can of a
    ruler - if the width is 36mm and the height is 24mm (or
    similar, depending on aspect ratio), then you have the
    equivalent of 1:1 macro on 35mm film.

    For example, the Canon S2IS->S5IS series have a super-macro
    mode, which makes them one of the few cameras which will
    actually deliver better than 35mm 1:1 macro. To get it
    though, the subject has to be touching the lens, in which
    case you have a frame width of just under 30mm. Obviously
    the subject touching the lens is hopeless unless it is a
    semi-transparent object that is backlit. Move the subject
    back a mere 2cm so that you can at least get some light on
    the subject, and the frame width falls to around 50mm.
    Bear in mind also that the super-macro mode works only at
    maximum wide angle, therefore you get distortions, and no
    ability to control selective DOF blur.

    This series also has a standard macro option - In standard
    macro, at wideangle the lens is 8cm from the subject with a
    frame width of 110mm or 1:3 macro. With the maximum amount
    of zoom allowable in macro mode (about 3x) the working
    distance is increased to 14cm from the front lens, and the
    frame size is 90mm or 1:2.5 macro. This standard macro mode
    is more usable than super-macro, because the greater working
    distances mean less lighting issues (camera doesn't shade
    the subject, enough room to get even artificial lighting if
    necessary), but we are a long way off 1:1 macro.
    > Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
    > other auxiliary equipment.

    The ability of an SLR is totally dependent on the lens that
    is fitted to it - that is one of the key strengths of SLR.
    If you want a general purpose, 10X zoom, all-in-one lens
    just like you'd get on a P&S, you can buy it. You can also
    buy a flat-field, fast aperture, telephoto prime macro lens
    if you wish. If photographing ant's eyes is your thing, you
    can even buy micro lenses that deliver 5x magnification. The
    lens you use on a DSLR is a compromise between versatility,
    size, weight, performance, price, and most systems have
    enough lens choice that it is up to the buyer to decide
    which compromises he will make. With a P&S, the compromise
    choices have been made in the factory.

    Just for the record though, the 18-55 kit lens that came
    with my K10D (which is NOT a macro lens) has a minimum focus
    distance of 250mm (measured from the image plane, not the
    front of the lens). At this distance the front element is
    about 10cm from the subject, and frame width is 60mm - which
    is equivalent to a 1:1.6 macro on 35mm. It does this at 55mm
    focal length so I get minimal distortion, and with a decent
    gap between the camera and the subject I can use additional
    lighting if necessary, or if relying on natural lighting I
    don't have to worry so much about the camera shading the
    subject. To get the equivalent magnification from the S2IS,
    I would need to be about 25mm from the subject, and would be
    getting wide-angle distortions, plus having all sorts of
    problems getting even lighting on the subject.
    > Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
    > P/S cameras but it is a hassle, an added expense and does expose the
    > DSLR sensor to potentially troublesome dust particles.
    > Let the flames begin... :)
    > Bob Williams
    Doug Jewell, Nov 14, 2007
    #19
  20. On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:19:22 -0800, PixelPix <> wrote:

    >On Nov 15, 4:38 am, taylor_n_grant <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:21:22 -0800, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    >> >agro D-Mac wrote:
    >> >> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
    >> >> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most people
    >> >> will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be taken by
    >> >> nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with such an
    >> >> outfit.
    >> >>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm

    >>
    >> >> Douglas

    >>
    >> >Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
    >> >Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
    >> >Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.
    >> >Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
    >> >other auxiliary equipment.
    >> >Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
    >> > P/S cameras

    >>
    >> Quite to the contrary. Due to the larger sensor size and useless shallow DOF it
    >> causes, they require: the use of f/stops so small that it creates blurring due
    >> to diffraction effects (totally negating any potential benefit to that expensive
    >> macro-glass), slow shutters speeds requiring non-moving subjects, and high ISOs
    >> that are beyond the capabilities of even the larger sensor. Always requiring use
    >> of flash or other artificial light changes to the subject, rendering the final
    >> photograph aesthetically unappealing and/or useless for any documentation
    >> purposes.
    >>
    >> This is why I eventually rejected the whole idea of ever needing or struggling
    >> with a DSLR for my preferred photography. It doesn't matter how good of a lens
    >> you put on that larger sensor DSLR to get the DOF required, they are worthless
    >> for any meaningful macro-photography.

    >
    >> "Due to the larger sensor size and useless shallow DOF"

    >
    >The ability to create shallow DOF is for many, one of the most
    >attractive features of the DSLR. For me, the steroidal DOF of P&S is
    >OK for happy snapping, but a real PITA when trying to create an more
    >artistic image.
    >
    >The thing thing is, most - if not all of us DSLR owners have a compact
    >digital as well and we understand that there are times when the
    >advantage pendulum swings from system to system.
    >
    >Cheers
    >
    >Rusty


    That's why I just use tele-macro or tele-converter setups to attain the very
    same DOF as available on a DSLR when needed. The added benefit is that I don't
    have to limit my zoom range nor f/stops available in doing so. (How's that f/2.4
    320 mm setting on your 36-320mm DSLR's zoom lens working out for you?) Note:
    alleviating any need to haul around a garbage-bag full of expensive glass to try
    and get near that zoom and aperture range. Nor will my images suffer from
    deterioration by using lenses at anything but an optimal f/stop for each
    particular lens or zoom setting on them. That's an inherent defect in any larger
    optics needed for that larger sensor because they can't be configured as
    precisely during manufacture.

    You can keep your DSLR. I have found zero benefits in owning one and hundreds of
    reasons to never want one ever again. I could have had the added benefit of
    keeping my DSLRs but the only added "benefit" was as a DSLR dust-collector on
    the shelf.
    randy hayworth, Nov 14, 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. Chris & Ara Duke

    Dump of perfection Test

    Chris & Ara Duke, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    754
    Rowdy Yates
    Nov 5, 2003
  2. Chris & Ara Duke

    Dump of perfection Test

    Chris & Ara Duke, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    ceedee
    Nov 5, 2003
  3. Idris Alooma
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    815
    Idris Alooma
    Sep 1, 2003
  4. Sligo

    epson perfection 1200U scanner

    Sligo, Sep 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    657
    Patrick
    Sep 26, 2003
  5. Richard Wright

    Can't scan slides with Epson Perfection 2400

    Richard Wright, Feb 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    485
    Richard Wright
    Feb 1, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page