Canon EOS 300D

ste © said:

Quoted message said:

Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it out, but I have other things
to do first.

Excellent, how is it?

Still in the box. Like I said, I have other things to do first.

Quoted message said:

Is the quality as you hoped,

It better be!

Quoted message said:

and is it adding a new lease of life to your old images?

It's bound to.

Quoted message said:

By the way, do your old images deteriorate over time, or are they as good as if they were taken
yesterday?

I haven't had any colour fading. Most are just as good, but some of my old slides from 86-87
have got a bit of fungus growing on them. It will be interesting to see how the digital ICE
copes with that.

Probably best for me to scan and archive the best of my oldest shots first, before they get
any worse.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

ste © said:

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters?

No.

Quoted message said:

Then what do they have instead?

Nothing, they don't need anything. You can see the picture on the LCD when you aren't taking a
photo, can't you? That's because light is entering the lens and hitting the sensor. This doesn't
happen with a film camera because there's a shutter to prevent the light reaching the film. Only
when you take a photograph does the shutter open to allow light through.

With digital the light is constantly hitting the sensor. When you take a photograph the light
received over a certain period of time is somehow recorded by the camera, processed and stored in
the memory card. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but there's no shutter.

Quoted message said:

I can see something closing behind the aperture when I take a photo,

That's the iris in the lens, that's what controls the f-stop. It opens and closes to different
degrees to give you the aperture.

Quoted message said:

and I have a shutter speed!

That's what they call it, but it's not a "shutter" speed really, it's just the length of time that
the camera records the light received by the sensor. All these traditional terms are simply being
used to help conventional photographers make the transition to digital. If appropriate digital
terminology were used it would probably confuse a lot of people.

Quoted message said:

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the numbers mean, except
that they are small holes with high depths of field! Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or
something? Or does the scale start at f1.0?

When light passes through a lens, some of it is lost. If no light were lost then it would be an f1
lens. f1 means that all the light is passing through (I'm not sure if anyone's ever managed to make
an f1 lens). f2 means that only half the light is passing through, f4 only a quarter of the light,
and so on. The brighter the lens the more clearly you can see through it, which is an advantage in
dull light. Also, bright lenses tend to be better quality than not so bright lenses. So an f1.2 lens
would be very bright, very good quality and very expensive. An f2 lens is relatively cheap to make.
But that's fixed lenses. Zooms by their nature tend to be darker, so many zooms are only f4. The G3
zoom is f2, which is really very good for a zoom lens.

Quoted message said:

I've just looked on his website, but I wasn't sure which ones were taken with the 17mm lens.

Mike? Are you out there?

Quoted message said:

Yes, I've noticed that. Even normal shots, and especially portrait format shots, have curved
horizons. Remember that Worms Head shot you put photosig?

Yep. This is due to the cheap lenses used in compacts. Another good reason to get a DSLR with good
quality corrected lenses.

Quoted message said:

That's typical from what I've seen (with my shots and other shots too). Best to avoid straight
horizons I think! :o) (nahh, not a chance!)

Best to put the horizon dead centre if you want it straight, or use correcting software later.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(did you read the link I posted to you about the fisheye for the G3?)

No, I must have missed that.

forums.dpreview.comread.aspOpen ↗

Oh, interesting. But to be honest fisheyes have never appealed to me. The only good use I can think
of would be to photograph the entire sky laying on your back, which could be very interesting if the
clouds were.

Quoted message said:

So is it basically the same effect as you get from cropping the top and bottom off?

Yes, although it may use some very wide angle lenses. One problem with such ultra ultra wides is
that the edges of the lens are much darker than the centre, so you have to use a correcting filter
to darken the centre. Since the shape of the picture is very narrow, the camera designers can get
closer to the edges of the lens than you could with a normal shaped photograph.

Quoted message said:

I seen photos taken with an XPan 2 and they were great. I'm guessing that this is a true
panorama camera?

Is that the Hasselblad? No, that's not a true pano either, just a very wide angle lens. Another
difference is that these types of cameras have conventional lens distortion at the edges, whereas
swing lens cameras don't.

Quoted message said:

Early?! Seriously? Ouch! I have been getting up at 6:05am this week, and it's horriffic! Mainly
because I've been going to bed at 2am... :-o zzzzzZZZZZ How come you woke up so early then?

I just went to sleep during the evening.

Quoted message said:

I know what you mean about chatting on newsgroups all day! That's why I'm slow at replying to that
Jpegs post below! It takes so long to reply to (as it's such a long post), that I keep putting it
off. I'll reply to your email (with the improved images) at the same time I reply to that post, I
haven't forgotten...

Oh? I had... ;-)

Actually I've wondered about the psychology of this and I think the problem is answering posts in
such a way that requires or encourages a response. Too much of this and the threads grow endlessly.
Better to answer posts without asking new questions or encouraging new comments, if you want to kill
a thread off, or at least reduce the number of posts you have to answer.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

* ste © <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the numbers mean, except
that they are small holes with high depths of field! Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or
something? Or does the scale start at
f1.?

The 'f number' is the ratio of the effective diameter of the lens to the focal length. This is why
you need a big bit of glass on the front of a 200mm lens to get only an f4 aperture, but the same
size on a 50mm lens might get you f1.2. Note, the effective diameter is not necessarily the actual
physical diameter. You can find the effective diameter of the lens by putting a piece of
photographic paper in the lens cap and exposing it with a pinhole light source at the focal plane.
You can then develop the paper and measure the diameter of the darkened disk, which will be
significantly smaller than the physical diameter of the lens front element.

Concerning 'depth of field':

A point of light will only be brought to focus at _one_particular_focal_point. Anything either side
of that point _will_ be out of focus (by definition). However, our eyes cannot distinguish out of
focus points within a certain range, as long as their diameters are within this 'circle of
confusion'. This range is called 'the depth of field' (of focus). Within this range, the image may
still be technically out of focus, but our eyes can't detect it.

Hope this clears things up!

Regards: Jim Ford

--
Spam poison - don't use! ---> [email hidden] <---

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| >> Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it out, but I have other things
| >> to do first.
| >
| > Excellent, how is it?
|
| Still in the box. Like I said, I have other things to do first.

If I'd paid that much for it, it would have been overheating by now! ;o)

| > Is the quality as you hoped,
|
| It better be!
|
| > and is it adding a new lease of life to your old images?
|
| It's bound to.
|
| > By the way, do your old images deteriorate over time, or are they as good as if they were taken
| > yesterday?
|
| I haven't had any colour fading. Most are just as good, but some of my old slides from 86-87
| have got a bit of fungus growing on them. It will be interesting to see how the digital ICE
| copes with that.
|
| Probably best for me to scan and archive the best of my oldest shots first, before they get
| any worse.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Get the classics archived first, that's where the money is... I hope
the software does a good job of getting rid of the scratches and stuff. ...and fungus too!

| Paul

Ste

Paul Saunders said:

ste © said:

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters?

No.

Quoted message said:

Then what do they have instead?

Nothing, they don't need anything. You can see the picture on the LCD when you aren't taking a
photo, can't you? That's because light is entering the lens and hitting the sensor. This doesn't
happen with a film camera because there's a shutter to prevent the light reaching the film. Only
when you take a photograph does the shutter open to allow light through.

Erm I think you should bone up on the facts rather than just spouting off Mr. Saunders.

Digital cameras do have a mechanical shutter. As you press the shutter release the shutter closes
the sensor is swept of information and then the shutter opens for a brief moment to make the
exposure then closes again (just as it would in a film camera) the sensor is then written to buffer
and the shutter opens again to resume the preview function. Notice how the preview goes off when you
press the shutter (at least it does in my A40) and comes on again once the "click" has happened.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Paul Saunders said:

With digital the light is constantly hitting the sensor. When you take a photograph the light
received over a certain period of time is somehow recorded by the camera, processed and stored in
the memory card. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but there's no shutter.

Quoted message said:

I can see something closing behind the aperture when I take a photo,

That's the iris in the lens, that's what controls the f-stop. It opens and closes to different
degrees to give you the aperture.

Have you looked more closely at what goes on around the front ? I don't possess a digital SLR, so
they may well be quite different, but my Olympus zoom digicam appears to have an iris that functions
as a mechanical shutter. Obviously you can only really tell with longish exposure times, but
basically the sequence is:
1. Iris is fully open in standby mode.
2. Shutter button is pressed.
3. Small delay (probably as focus and exposure calculated).
4. Iris closes completely for very short time and first shutter sound effect is heard (I would
guess the sensor is electronically zeroed at this point).
5. Iris opens up to selected aperture and remains open for selected exposure time.
6. Iris closes completely for a noticeably longer time and second shutter sound effect is heard
(now the sensor array is being read).

In preview mode, I imagine an electronic "shutter" is constantly zeroing the sensor array to provide
a real-time image. (Shooting video will do the same.) The array is a charge device and if not
continuously read and zeroed will end up bright white, like an overexposed film.

I think :-)

Perhaps early digicams had no mechanical "shutter", but it seems that most now have both that and a
necessary electrical shutter. While the camera is reading several megapixels of data at whatever
resolution the CCD can provide, it is probably best to have no further light reaching it (and
likewise it is best zeroed "in the dark" as well).

--
John Mail john rather than nospam...

Paul Saunders said:

ste © said:

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters?

No.

Er, they do - otherwise how do you get blurry motion shots etc?

The CCD/CMOS sensors require a certain amount of energy in the form of light to record an image -
this is done by varying both the f-ratio of the lens and the time that the incoming light is used to
initate charge on the sensor. The shutter may be something like a Pockels cell instead of a focal
plane or leaf shutter but it will certainly have a light blocking system. If it is showing on the
LCD then it's just taking a continuous feed from the sensor - it will sample quicker if the image is
brighter that's all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then what do they have instead?

Nothing, they don't need anything. You can see the picture on the LCD when you aren't taking a
photo, can't you? That's because light is entering the lens and hitting the sensor. This doesn't
happen with a film camera because there's a shutter to prevent the light reaching the film. Only
when you take a photograph does the shutter open to allow light through.

With digital the light is constantly hitting the sensor. When you take a photograph the light
received over a certain period of time is somehow recorded by the camera, processed and stored in
the memory card. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but there's no shutter.

Quoted message said:

I can see something closing behind the aperture when I take a photo,

That's the iris in the lens, that's what controls the f-stop. It opens and closes to different
degrees to give you the aperture.

Quoted message said:

and I have a shutter speed!

That's what they call it, but it's not a "shutter" speed really, it's just the length of time that
the camera records the light received by the sensor. All these traditional terms are simply being
used to help conventional photographers make the transition to digital. If appropriate digital
terminology were used it would probably confuse a lot of people.

Quoted message said:

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the numbers mean, except
that they are small holes with high depths of field! Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or
something? Or does the scale start at f1.0?

When light passes through a lens, some of it is lost. If no light were lost then it would be an f1
lens. f1 means that all the light is passing through (I'm not sure if anyone's ever managed to
make an f1 lens). f2 means that only half the light is passing through, f4 only a quarter of the
light, and so on. The brighter the lens the more clearly you can see through it, which is an
advantage in dull light. Also, bright lenses tend to be better quality than not so bright lenses.
So an f1.2 lens would be very bright, very good quality and very expensive. An f2 lens is
relatively cheap to make. But that's fixed lenses. Zooms by their nature tend to be darker, so
many zooms are only f4. The G3 zoom is f2, which is really very good for a zoom lens.

Er, yes. Focal ratio is the ration between the objective lens diameter and the focal length.

Take an f1 50mm canon lens - this will have an objective diamete of 50mm and a focal length (not
necessarily physical length) of 50mm.

Take my f 1.7 lens - focal length of 50mm and a glass diameter of about 39mm.

Canon used to make a 50mm f0.7 lens but the quality was not as good as some slower lenses - f1.7 is
about the best quality/speed ratio it seems. You can get my 1.7 lens in a 1.4 version, but it
doubles the price for a half stop speed gain and the image quality is slightly poorer.

Also if you go from f1 to f2 then the light falls off by a factor of 4 - not by 2! Each f stop is
a halving/doubling of light levels so you lose half the light levels from f1 to f1.4 then f2,
f2.8, f4 etc.

This is because f ration is a linear length, and the incoming light is a function of area - if you
look at the f stop numbers they are all linked with square root of 2.

Jim Ford said:

* ste © <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the numbers mean, except
that they are small holes with high depths of field! Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or
something? Or does the scale start at
f1.?

The 'f number' is the ratio of the effective diameter of the lens to the focal length. This is why
you need a big bit of glass on the front of a 200mm lens to get only an f4 aperture, but the same
size on a 50mm lens might get you f1.2. Note, the effective diameter is not necessarily the actual
physical diameter. You can find the effective diameter of the lens by putting a piece of
photographic paper in the lens cap and exposing it with a pinhole light source at the focal plane.
You can then develop the paper and measure the diameter of the darkened disk, which will be
significantly smaller than the physical diameter of the lens front element.

Concerning 'depth of field':

A point of light will only be brought to focus at _one_particular_focal_point. Anything either
side of that point _will_ be out of focus (by definition). However, our eyes cannot distinguish
out of focus points within a certain range, as long as their diameters are within this 'circle of
confusion'. This range is called 'the depth of field' (of focus). Within this range, the image may
still be technically out of focus, but our eyes can't detect it.

And just to finish off the good circle of confusion description above while we are here....

Different colours (ie different wavelengths of light) are refracted more or less than the standard
(which is 550nm yellow light) Hence red light is focused behind the film plane, and blue light in
front of it. This is the cause of colour fringing on cheap lenses and is chromatic aberration.

Good lenses have many different types of glass, fluorite and ELD in them to solve this problem - at
great cost in manufacture though.

Quoted message said:

Hope this clears things up!

Regards: Jim Ford

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:

I've read all your post, thanks. But as other have already responded to it, I didn't feel the need
to reply. I'm just reading and learning, as you'll understand, but it's all appreciated.

| Actually I've wondered about the psychology of this and I think the problem is answering posts in
| such a way that requires or encourages a response. Too much of this and the threads grow
| endlessly. Better to answer posts without asking new questions or encouraging new comments, if you
| want to kill a thread off, or at least reduce the number of posts you have to answer.

I have a bad habit of trying to respond to every post that is sent to me. I will try and cool it
down a bit, or stop asking questions all the time! I have noticed that I've spent a lot of time on
this group recently, too much! I even went to your website and on the poll, I clicked the option to
say "I spend more time talking about walking than walking." I must get out more... :o)

| Paul

I'm still waiting for your October Project to be updated for the past two days. This isn't good
enough Paul, I pay good money to watch the uk.rec.walking version of Big Brother! :o)

Have a good weekend,

Ste

"Jim Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| * ste © <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
| * with their presence by declaiming:
|
| > Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what
the
| > numbers mean, except that they are small holes with high depths of
field!
| > Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or something? Or does the scale start
at
| > f1.?
|
| The 'f number' is the ratio of the effective diameter of the lens to the focal length. This is why
| you need a big bit of glass on the front of a 200mm lens to get only an f4 aperture, but the same
| size on a 50mm lens
might
| get you f1.2. Note, the effective diameter is not necessarily the actual physical diameter. You
| can find the effective diameter of the lens
by
| putting a piece of photographic paper in the lens cap and exposing it with
a
| pinhole light source at the focal plane. You can then develop the paper
and
| measure the diameter of the darkened disk, which will be significantly smaller than the physical
| diameter of the lens front element.
|
| Concerning 'depth of field':
|
| A point of light will only be brought to focus at _one_particular_focal_point. Anything either
| side of that point _will_ be out of focus (by definition). However, our eyes cannot distinguish
| out of focus points within a certain range, as long as their diameters are within this 'circle of
| confusion'. This range is called 'the depth of field' (of focus). Within this range, the image may
| still be technically out of
focus,
| but our eyes can't detect it.
|
| Hope this clears things up!
|
| Regards: Jim Ford

Thanks Jim, I'm learning plenty about photography on this newsgroup!

Regards,

Stephen

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters?

No.

Quoted message said:

Then what do they have instead?

Nothing, they don't need anything. You can see the picture on the LCD when you aren't taking a
photo, can't you?

The EOS300D does have a shutter Paul - and as far as I can work out you can't use the LCD for
composing shots.

I am the proud owner of one. Very nice too ... just got to work out how it all works now as the
manual is brief to the point of minimalism, and I haven't had enough spare time to play (what with
work and exam revision)!

Carol Haynes

ste © said:

Quoted message said:

Still in the box. Like I said, I have other things to do first.

If I'd paid that much for it, it would have been overheating by now! ;o)

Patience grasshopper! This scanner is going to get a lot of use, and I really do have some important
things to do first. The important thing is that I've got it. I might hook it up and do a few quick
tests later today though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Probably best for me to scan and archive the best of my oldest shots first, before they get
any worse.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Get the classics archived first,

And even the good ones too! It seems strang to talk about my 1986 slides as old. I remember when I
bought my "new" camera at Christmas 1985 and started using slide film for the first time. I remember
how impressed I was at the colour and quality of my "new" photos of Threecliff Bay in January 1986.
I never imagined that some of them would end up in such a state (and I never imagined that one day
I'd have the technology to convert them to a completely different medium and fix them).

I suppose it's comparable to the "new" photographs that you're currently taking with your "new"
digital camera. Time marches on...

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

ste © said:

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters?

No.

Quoted message said:

Then what do they have instead?

Nothing, they don't need anything. You can see the picture on the LCD when you aren't taking a
photo, can't you? That's because light is entering the lens and hitting the sensor. This doesn't
happen with a film camera because there's a shutter to prevent the light reaching the film. Only
when you take a photograph does the shutter open to allow light through.

Erm I think you should bone up on the facts rather than just spouting off

Mr.

Quoted message said:

Saunders.

Digital cameras do have a mechanical shutter.

Boys, boys, you're both wrong (or right) so stop arguing! Some have only electronic some have a
combination of mechanical and electronic.

See:

electronics.howstuffworks.comdigital camera8.htmOpen ↗

It is of some interest to me as I am considering which camera to buy!
--
Bob Mannix (anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Phil Cook said:

Erm I think you should bone up on the facts rather than just spouting off Mr. Saunders.

Actually I did read this somewhere Phil.

Quoted message said:

Digital cameras do have a mechanical shutter.

As Bob pointed out, some do and some don't, so I'm only half right. I stand corrected.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Chris Street said:

Also if you go from f1 to f2 then the light falls off by a factor of 4 - not by 2! Each f stop is
a halving/doubling of light levels so you lose half the light levels from f1 to f1.4 then f2,
f2.8, f4 etc.

Oops! Yes of course! Sorry, I must have been half asleep when I wrote that.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

W. D. Grey said:

Seeing as the original slides were properly "fixed" it should be possible to wash them again,
carefully dry them in a dust free environment and thus get rid of the fungus.

I plan to try that, but with some the fungus is on the emulsion side.

Quoted message said:

The main problem will be de-mounting them and re-mounting them !

That's no problem, I have plenty of slide mounts.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

* Chris Street <[email hidden]> deigned to grace uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

Different colours (ie different wavelengths of light) are refracted more or less than the standard
(which is 550nm yellow light) Hence red light is focused behind the film plane, and blue light in
front of it. This is the cause of colour fringing on cheap lenses and is chromatic aberration.

Good point!

Digital camera owners (I'm one) have a colour fringing problem that manifests itself as a blueish
fringe in areas of high contrast. I see it most often on my Nikon Coolpix 995 on shots of tree
branches against a bright sky. Apparently this is caused by the electric charge 'bleeding' between
the pixels on the cameras charge coupled device (CCD).

Whilst on digital cameras, I trust all users are familiar with the excellent site
dpreview.comdpreview.comOpen ↗ ?

Regards: Jim Ford

--
Spam poison - don't use! ---> [email hidden] <---

ste © said:

I have a bad habit of trying to respond to every post that is sent to me.

Same here, which is why these posts are proliferating exponentially!

Quoted message said:

I will try and cool it down a bit, or stop asking questions all the time! I have noticed that
I've spent a lot of time on this group recently, too much! I even went to your website and on the
poll, I clicked the option to say "I spend more time talking about walking than walking." I must
get out more...

Quoted message said:

o)

:-)

Quoted message said:

I'm still waiting for your October Project to be updated for the past two days.

Sorry, I got really knackered over the last few days, not just because of the walking but because of
other stuff too. Got very little sleep too, only four hours one night. That's probably why I slept
13 hours yesterday!

Quoted message said:

This isn't good enough Paul, I pay good money to watch the uk.rec.walking version of Big
Brother! :o)

Much as I hate to be compared with such mindless [censored], I must admit that my project is probably more
interesting... ;-)

Quoted message said:

Have a good weekend,

I already have. Or isn't it over yet? Damn, you don't mean I have to go out *again* tomorrow!!!

When will this end... :-(

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Carol Haynes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
|
| I am the proud owner of one. Very nice too ... just got to work out how it all works now as the
| manual is brief to the point of minimalism, and I haven't had enough spare time to play (what with
| work and exam revision)!
|
| Carol Haynes

Hi Carol,

Be sure to post links to any nice photos that you take with your lovely new camera. I'd love to see
what the images are like with this much talked about camera, especially as I can't afford a DSLR
myself at the moment! :o)

Thanks,

Stephen

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

The EOS300D does have a shutter Paul - and as far as I can work out you can't use the LCD for
composing shots.

Hello Carol! Where've you been hiding? Are you OK?
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.