nope, it is the paper used for digital images.
really easy for me to discern. after all, i have to know what i'm getting.

ah, equipment. i had always hoped there would be one lens and one camera which would do it all. and there isn't.
looking at what i currently have.
2 rangefinders, leica and nikon
3 slrs, nikon leicaflex, minolta
3 medium format cameras, bronica, hasselblad, mamiya
1 medium format technical camera, linhof
1 5x4 technica camera, linhof
3 light meters, gossen, pentax
5 tripods
and god only knows how many lenses.

the point of all this is each one does something the others do not, and i've had need of these over the years, and still do. if i figured out all i have currently it would be somewhere south of 25-30k. a lot of money, but the photos provide a lot more memories.
so, if you use it then buy if. if you don't then sell it.

i do wish you luck with that.
for future reference, should anything like that happen again, do not, and i repeat, do not try to operate it. don't wait for it to dry. stuff it in a plastic bag and box and get it to the repair facility asap, and that may mean overnight shipping.
as lenses and cameras are electronic, you stand a good chance of frying the circuits by attempting to operate it.

hope everything turns out well for you.
cody

indeed. prior to digital, camera and lens manufacturers were driven to make the very best instruments and make them to last - most of you know i still use my 1959 nikon f. it was a source of pride. even e leitz (leica) has not made a camera as good as their M3, introduced in 1954. the same went for lenses and glass. only the very best - not that it always resulted in a stunning lens. but each line had one or two which were real stand outs.

today, image making industries are primarily electronics industries. and products are driven from the top down. so the manufacturer dictates to the market. that would be you. and so every 3 months or 2 years, for the more expensive models, another "improved" model shows up. you know, smile recognition, face recognition (for all who have forgotten what these look like) and of course, video. that's a real joke. wanna take videos, then buy a video camera - that's what they are built for. it costs about $0.50 to slap another burr brown chip in a dslr and call it improved.

manufacturers do not want you to keep your camera for the next 5-10 years - they want you to continuously buy the new model which promises to be better than the last one. for instance, a 6 mega pixel camera is perfectly sufficient for an 8x12 print. so why would most folks need more mega pixels? because they are sold on "it's better" and of course like hell it is.

now most of you know i do not use digital imaging devices, but i will say this: i've tested a lot of them from leica to nikon to fuji to canon. but if i ever were going to buy a "dslr" it would be the Contax N digital at 6 megapixels. it would be more than i would ever need, even making exhibition size images.

so, there you have it. the electronics industry wants you to keep buying the latest and greatest. just remember the more this item does, the more knowledge and ability you lose, and this is what we call "technological progress"

have a happy day, all!

i'm a little late in coming to this, but here goes.
firstly, the elements in the lens are corrected to provide best results at close focusing distances. secondly, the elements are so designed to provide "flat field" results at the close focusing distance. this means that edge to edge of the exposure will not show barrel distortion. thirdly, the lens barrel will indicate the ratio of magnification. this will affect your exposure times. in macro work, the need for very small apertures, to enhance depth of field (the depth of your subject matter which is in focus). this is necessary as the greater the magnification ratio, the less depth of field you have. usually results in slow shutter speeds. if using digital, you can increase your iso but you will loose defination. so, fourthly, a really good tripod and taking your time to closely observe your subject, before making an exposure, will ensure the best results. if using such a lens indoors, artificial lighting will also be of assistance.
kodak has an excellent primer on magnification ratios and close order photography. you can probably fine it on ebay, as it does show up from time to time.
hope this is of assistance to you.

perhaps you are unable to, but i can determine a digital print from a film based print on photo paper, any dimension. as the digital print image is sprayed onto the paper, whereas the film print is impregnated with the image providing a 3 dimensional view. and no matter how you cut it, and no matter if film is not being sold in previous volumes, neither agfa, fuji, adox or ilford have any plans on cutting back film availability.
as far as digital is concerned, it is an image making process and inferior to film. technology is not progress, it is merely change, and not always for the better.

ixnay, a 39 mega pixel will provide only 200 dots per inch

this is where quality diverges. there is simply nothing which can compare with film. a 50x75 inch print, with a 16.6 mega pixel camera will bgive you an image comprised of 66 dots per inch. a 35mm transparency will provide 94 dots per inch.

so sad that technology usually does not improve, but merely changes...

bingo!!!

think of something with enough peat in it to have the consistancy of crank-case oil - it takes a tad getting used to.

yup, the advent of digital and the throw-away society are conjunctive. digital, by its very nature is throw-away.

ahhh - here we go again. print quality is measured in dots per inch. at 16.6 mp on an exhibition size print, let's say 24x36, you will have 138 dots per inch.
with a 35mm negative you will have 196 dots per inch.
with my hasselblad you will have 314 dots per inch
with my 4x5 linhof you will have 329 dots per inch
and...yup with my 8x10 you will have 461 dots per inch.
this is why film photographers use film. it is the end result which counts, and that is a print, not a histogram.
ta-ta, all.
let's see, a digital imaging device

i agree, as long as it's laphroig!

hi there - nice images. in re: the canon/nikon thing, just go with the camera which you feel best working with. rent a couple of bodies and see what they can do for you. all the best in your search!

if ya gotta do (yuch) digital, Pentax is really the best of the lot. and this is from a (alpabetical) hasselblad, leica, nikon owner. oh yes, all film, of course.