Hi Calgry, Well on to the CUP, the west WILL WIN!

Hey Lorne, How is Galgry? your team caught the Lions on one of their bad days which are not very many.

Hello, It would seem that going digital is akin to being in a darkroom for hours at a time but only in front of a monitor.
What we really have done is trade the forethought that Ansel Adams used decades before for computer savy.

There are so many places in the U.K. that I would love to see but I have been to Cardiff,Scottland(Edinborough,Loch Ness) .My daughter lives in Cardiff with her husband who she met in Moulin House in London.That Ünderground ïs really something.

At the moment I am watching "Carry up the Khyber"on my other computer.

Yes, I would agree that having high iso speeds are handy alright, it is probably cheaper to invest in a body with high iso capability than buying a super fast lens with only so so
abilities used wide open, especialy if trying to record museum images.Myself I just have a T3i canon,18-55 and a 100mm macro.I used to have an SL Leicaflex with a 35mm,a 60mm macro,a 135mm and a 400mm all Leica lenses but thought it time to upgrade out of film.

Roger That , I guess you are used to instrument panels alright,by the way what altitude does that thing achieve
and are you I.F.R. or just visual

Thank you very much, this is quite complex compared to the old film days.

Sir, I meant that I found Canon lens more than adequate, also have used different leica glass I really thought I might be dissapointed but no I am not although it is quite possible it is the digital sensors etc. that now it seems surpass that of film.As far NOISE is concerned I would have to say that the two, noise or grain is not a desirable thing
either way.As Leicas top range is only 1250 iso(S2 Leica)they have decided not togo that route, they dont take 10frames a secound either.

Hi to you too,I am in N.Delta,B.C. I use Canon myself,bought july 2011 my daughter was urging me to dump my leica film stuff and go digital so I went to Canon why I dont really know except that my uncle who was working for the Globe and Mail used one.

I myself am just realizing that if I want to actualy see any difference in the"ZoomBrowser"s sharpening it needs to be shot RAW in the camera then it will work.Is this resoning correct or what?

Why indeed do some people feel they have to protect themslves against copying, if the have ANY pride at all in their work why compliment someone else by giving them
any satisfaction.Is this hobby like speaker manufacturing
the result of simplr pride in their product.

I was finally able with the help of an upgrade from Canon
to get my zoombrowser working with win 7 (64)I use the T3i with 18-55 latest one and the 100mm macro(no "L")
lenses.I used a Leica before switching and am quite impressed with Canon equip.If you have to contend with noise then why shoot iso 12000 or even 1000.