Reading mode: Light Dark

I want camera with wide dynamic range

Go to last post
I am confused. You can't order from the US. Do they impose duties or something to bring up price. I am just curious why you can't get it from the US?
Newbie-Man said:
The 740 is priced at 530 Euros.

The C4000 costs 450 Euros, but Dimitrios says it doesn't have
focus assist light; I didn't know this. its a surprise for me, and
if this is true, I will go for the 740.

About the need of long zoom, well, I don't know because this will
be my first camera. But I think, when you go outside, you never
have enough. :)
Stinson said:
Newbie-Man said:
Yes, might be interesting to play with the Adobe RAW converter.

But sadly, my camera won't be RAW-capable. My budget doesn't allow it.

Well, at least I will be able to get a C4000 or a 740UZ. Not bad
for my first camera :)
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
C2100,C-2020, D-40, PS6
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
D-40, PS6
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


 
Just realized that you would not have a warranty, so maybe that's it. Good luck.
Stinson said:
Newbie-Man said:
The 740 is priced at 530 Euros.

The C4000 costs 450 Euros, but Dimitrios says it doesn't have
focus assist light; I didn't know this. its a surprise for me, and
if this is true, I will go for the 740.

About the need of long zoom, well, I don't know because this will
be my first camera. But I think, when you go outside, you never
have enough. :)
Stinson said:
Newbie-Man said:
Yes, might be interesting to play with the Adobe RAW converter.

But sadly, my camera won't be RAW-capable. My budget doesn't allow it.

Well, at least I will be able to get a C4000 or a 740UZ. Not bad
for my first camera :)
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
C2100,C-2020, D-40, PS6
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
D-40, PS6
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
--
Stinson
D-40, PS6
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


 
Stinson:
I think the Olympus cameras are manufactured in Asia.

Then, the European retailers and distributors buy the cameras from Asia, not from the US.
I think it is not a matter of duties. I think the problem is just that there
is no hard competition here, and the shops get too high margins.

About me buying, the camera directly to the US:

I have thought about it many times before, with other products, not cameras. I finally forgot about that idea. Too many interrogants, too many risks.

-First of all, the shipping from the US is expensive.

-The customs may charge me with some unpredictable duty, or even block my package.

-They will surely charge me the VAT tax (european sales tax, 16%). Well, this is the same if I buy it from a european shop: I will pay the VAT anyway. But imagine if the camera is faulty and I return it, and I ask my money back... how will I get my VAT back?
  • 99% of the US shops simply don't ship abroad. Don't even ship to Canada.
We must think that, if they don't do it, it is probably because they have very negative experience with selling abroad.

Moreover, German shops are also very reluctant to ship to France, Spain, etc. The European market is a joke yet. The multiple languages is a big problem.
Stinson said:
Stinson said:
Newbie-Man said:
The 740 is priced at 530 Euros.

The C4000 costs 450 Euros, but Dimitrios says it doesn't have
focus assist light; I didn't know this. its a surprise for me, and
if this is true, I will go for the 740.

About the need of long zoom, well, I don't know because this will
be my first camera. But I think, when you go outside, you never
have enough. :)
Stinson said:
Newbie-Man said:
Yes, might be interesting to play with the Adobe RAW converter.

But sadly, my camera won't be RAW-capable. My budget doesn't allow it.

Well, at least I will be able to get a C4000 or a 740UZ. Not bad
for my first camera :)
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
C2100,C-2020, D-40, PS6
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Stinson
D-40, PS6
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
--
Stinson
D-40, PS6
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
http://www.pbase.com/stinson


Click to expand...
 
Dimitrios said:
I think I was the "someone" :-)
Click to expand...
ah, sorry my memory is very bad :)
Dimitrios said:
More precisely, digicams have ADCs, not DACs.
Click to expand...
yes, sorry, my fault again.
Dimitrios said:
Anyway, advantages of raw are well known. It's a powerful
feature but, imo, not for everyday usage and, definitely, not for
point and shoot people or small memory cards.
Click to expand...
yes, I better forget about RAW. This is my first camera, so TIFF is more than enough for me.

Jumping to other subject:

specifically, the Focus assist light on the C4000, I have checked it, and you are right! the C4000 doesn't have it.

But the truth is that noone is complaining about the C4000's focusing hability in low light. We must assume that it works well.
Then, why the 740 behaved so bad in the tests done by Hollie?

http://www.pbase.com/hollie/olympus_740_test_photos&page=4
 
A number of the images that didn't "focus" in low light were actually due to camera shake like this one:

http://www.pbase.com/image/15137044

Note the very slow shutter speed (1/4s) and high zoom factor (54.1mm before converting to 35mm equiv) and you've got a shooting situation I don't think even Daniella could hand-hold with. :-)
Newbie-Man said:
are you sure about it?
I never worried to check, because I was 100% sure the C4000
had focus assist light!

Also, Hollie posted some photos she made with the 740.
She returned it because of the inhability to focus in low light:
http://www.pbase.com/hollie/olympus_740_test_photos&page=4

do you think the C4000 will have the same problem? oh dear, then I
will buy the 740!!
Click to expand...
 
Inigo!
Its true!

That was very silly of Hollie (Daniela?) to blame the camera!!
How did she do that? It seems that she is quite experienced with cameras.
I don't understand!

Indeed, the duck photos are taken at almost 10X telezoom,
and the autofocus won't lock if the image is shaking!

well, I will post a new thread to call Hollie's attention.
Inigo Montoya said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15137044

Note the very slow shutter speed (1/4s) and high zoom factor
(54.1mm before converting to 35mm equiv) and you've got a
shooting situation I don't think even Daniella could hand-hold
with. :-)
Newbie-Man said:
are you sure about it?
I never worried to check, because I was 100% sure the C4000
had focus assist light!

Also, Hollie posted some photos she made with the 740.
She returned it because of the inhability to focus in low light:
http://www.pbase.com/hollie/olympus_740_test_photos&page=4

do you think the C4000 will have the same problem? oh dear, then I
will buy the 740!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Heya Newbie-Man. I am thinking dynamic range is just inversly proportional to contrast. Seems like the 8-bit jpeg format, the 8-bit display and printers, all place the limit squarely on the 8-bit-ness of everything!

The way it seems to me, a picture needs a certain contrast value to look natural. I have tried "scrunching" more of the histogram into a jpeg with the Adobe Raw converter with my 5050 by using the contrast slider on the Adobe Camera Raw plugin. The result was that I DID get more of the highlights and more of the shadow detail, but the picture just looked totally unnatural because of the extremely low contrast.

What I have been wondering though, and this might be slightly off topic for your thread, is, if you take a picture (jpeg) at really low contrast (high dynamic range) then you have that picture printed at a photo lab, will it appear to have all the dynamic range one could ever expect? It would contain all the highlights and all the shadow detail, and look mushy and soft on your computer screen, but would this compacted dynamic range be "expanded" back out when it hits the "real world" of printed paper in real light?

Hope you get a camera someday! We all want to see some pictures of Spain! haha :-)
Newbie-Man said:
I want as wide dynamic range as possible without merging techniques
or add-on lenses.

which camera should I get?

C40000, C740, C750, Canon A70, or C5050 (this one gets out of my
budget, though)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
 
Sorry to confuse you with the reference to Daniella. She's a long time forum member who has taken some amazing hand held shots with her C-700, demonstrating that some people don't need the IS system of the Uzi (but mere mortals like me need all the help we can get. :-) )

Take a look:

http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Newbie-Man said:
That was very silly of Hollie (Daniela?) to blame the camera!!
How did she do that? It seems that she is quite experienced with
cameras.
I don't understand!

Indeed, the duck photos are taken at almost 10X telezoom,
and the autofocus won't lock if the image is shaking!

well, I will post a new thread to call Hollie's attention.
Inigo Montoya said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15137044

Note the very slow shutter speed (1/4s) and high zoom factor
(54.1mm before converting to 35mm equiv) and you've got a
shooting situation I don't think even Daniella could hand-hold
with. :-)
Newbie-Man said:
are you sure about it?
I never worried to check, because I was 100% sure the C4000
had focus assist light!

Also, Hollie posted some photos she made with the 740.
She returned it because of the inhability to focus in low light:
http://www.pbase.com/hollie/olympus_740_test_photos&page=4

do you think the C4000 will have the same problem? oh dear, then I
will buy the 740!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Andy!

Yes, it seems that people is very happy with the 5050's RAW images and
the Adobe plugin:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=4795776

Also, another thread for you (I guess you have already checked, but here it is anyway):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=4941078

it seems that 3MP images from the 5050 have very low noise compared with the 5MP. Also, Dimitrios says that according to Olympus promos, the camera uses all 5MPixels, even if you take a lower resolution shot (e.g 3MP).

We speculated about this subject in the past. Then, the 5050 takes a full 5MP photo, and resamples it down to 3MP.

And about dynamic range and contrast, yes, wide dynamic range means low contrast because the number of levels of quantization are always 256.

So, if you stretch the quantization scale to cover a wider dynamic range, you will be quantizing with grosser intervals, less precise, and, thus, you will be losing detail. This is the price to pay. If you want detail in the extremes, you have to lose detail in the middle levels.

No, I don't think you will recover the lost contrast when you print, even if the printing device can have more than 256 levels of color. Your photo will still have 256.
Andy Landfather said:
The way it seems to me, a picture needs a certain contrast value to
look natural.
Click to expand...
Yes, it depends on what you want. If you are on the beach on a sunny day, the low contrast photos look superb and pleasant.
Look at this camera:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/f717_samples.html

But in foggy days, of course you need to amplify contrast or you will get a very plain photo.

But even in sunny days, you might want to have a big contrast to increase the violence of the shot.

This is the beauty of Olympus cameras: you can adjust the contrast.

The Canons have low contrast: this is good for sunny days, but bad for gray days. And you can't adjust (well, not true: in the more expensive models, you have a small adjustment).

I think I will get the C4000 or the C740. There are some issues with the 740 I want to sort out...
 
Wow, that's good news that my camera resamples internally, I find more and more to like every day. But as you say we already suspected this. In fact I wonder if the 4000 doesn't do it also, one of the IR pictures you linked to earlier in this thread was of a 1600x1200 image from the 4000, and I immediately was struck with it's detail and clarity.

Yes I guess that is right about the grosser quantization steps in a low contrast pic. I guess all we can hope for is new generation printers to accept raw or maybe 16-bit tiff. I know my tiff out of the 5050 is 8-bit, but I could take a raw file and import it as 16-bit tiff. That will be nice if I ever find a printing service that will (a.) take 16-bit tiff and (b.) set the upper and lower bounds of the histogram as the extremes in the printed image automatically.
Newbie-Man said:
Yes, it seems that people is very happy with the 5050's RAW images and
the Adobe plugin:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=4795776

Also, another thread for you (I guess you have already checked, but
here it is anyway):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=4941078

it seems that 3MP images from the 5050 have very low noise compared
with the 5MP. Also, Dimitrios says that according to Olympus
promos, the camera uses all 5MPixels, even if you take a lower
resolution shot (e.g 3MP).
We speculated about this subject in the past. Then, the 5050 takes
a full 5MP photo, and resamples it down to 3MP.

And about dynamic range and contrast, yes, wide dynamic range means
low contrast because the number of levels of quantization are
always 256.
So, if you stretch the quantization scale to cover a wider dynamic
range, you will be quantizing with grosser intervals, less precise,
and, thus, you will be losing detail. This is the price to pay. If
you want detail in the extremes, you have to lose detail in the
middle levels.

No, I don't think you will recover the lost contrast when you
print, even if the printing device can have more than 256 levels of
color. Your photo will still have 256.
Newbie-Man said:
The way it seems to me, a picture needs a certain contrast value to
look natural.
Click to expand...
Yes, it depends on what you want. If you are on the beach on a
sunny day, the low contrast photos look superb and pleasant.
Look at this camera:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/f717_samples.html

But in foggy days, of course you need to amplify contrast or you
will get a very plain photo.

But even in sunny days, you might want to have a big contrast to
increase the violence of the shot.

This is the beauty of Olympus cameras: you can adjust the contrast.
The Canons have low contrast: this is good for sunny days, but bad
for gray days. And you can't adjust (well, not true: in the more
expensive models, you have a small adjustment).

I think I will get the C4000 or the C740. There are some issues
with the 740 I want to sort out...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
 
Andy Landfather said:
Wow, that's good news that my camera resamples internally, I find
more and more to like every day. But as you say we already
suspected this.
Click to expand...
well, we didn't know for sure. I think the A40 had jaggies when shot at lower resolution. Then, maybe the A40 didn't re-sample, but just skipped lines.
Andy Landfather said:
In fact I wonder if the 4000 doesn't do it also,
one of the IR pictures you linked to earlier in this thread was of
a 1600x1200 image from the 4000, and I immediately was struck with
it's detail and clarity.
Click to expand...
well, I think the C4000 has better image quality than the 740. But I am able to sacrifice some image quality (not much) for a 10X zoom
Andy Landfather said:
Yes I guess that is right about the grosser quantization steps in a
low contrast pic. I guess all we can hope for is new generation
printers to accept raw or maybe 16-bit tiff. I know my tiff out of
the 5050 is 8-bit, but I could take a raw file and import it as
16-bit tiff. That will be nice if I ever find a printing service
that will (a.) take 16-bit tiff and (b.) set the upper and lower
bounds of the histogram as the extremes in the printed image
automatically.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you can get 16 bit per channel out of your 5050???
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Take a look:

http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Newbie-Man said:
That was very silly of Hollie (Daniela?) to blame the camera!!
How did she do that? It seems that she is quite experienced with
cameras.
I don't understand!

Indeed, the duck photos are taken at almost 10X telezoom,
and the autofocus won't lock if the image is shaking!

well, I will post a new thread to call Hollie's attention.
Inigo Montoya said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15137044

Note the very slow shutter speed (1/4s) and high zoom factor
(54.1mm before converting to 35mm equiv) and you've got a
shooting situation I don't think even Daniella could hand-hold
with. :-)
Newbie-Man said:
are you sure about it?
I never worried to check, because I was 100% sure the C4000
had focus assist light!

Also, Hollie posted some photos she made with the 740.
She returned it because of the inhability to focus in low light:
http://www.pbase.com/hollie/olympus_740_test_photos&page=4

do you think the C4000 will have the same problem? oh dear, then I
will buy the 740!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Newbie-Man said:
Andy Landfather said:
Wow, that's good news that my camera resamples internally, I find
more and more to like every day. But as you say we already
suspected this.
Click to expand...
well, we didn't know for sure. I think the A40 had jaggies when
shot at lower resolution. Then, maybe the A40 didn't re-sample, but
just skipped lines.
Newbie-Man said:
In fact I wonder if the 4000 doesn't do it also,
one of the IR pictures you linked to earlier in this thread was of
a 1600x1200 image from the 4000, and I immediately was struck with
it's detail and clarity.
Click to expand...
well, I think the C4000 has better image quality than the 740. But
I am able to sacrifice some image quality (not much) for a 10X zoom
Click to expand...
That was my opinion too when I looked at the full-tele shot of the house at IR for the 740. Looked a little (just a very little) washed out looking. Maybe a bump UP in contrast would solve this, if those models have the contrast control.
Newbie-Man said:
Newbie-Man said:
Yes I guess that is right about the grosser quantization steps in a
low contrast pic. I guess all we can hope for is new generation
printers to accept raw or maybe 16-bit tiff. I know my tiff out of
the 5050 is 8-bit, but I could take a raw file and import it as
16-bit tiff. That will be nice if I ever find a printing service
that will (a.) take 16-bit tiff and (b.) set the upper and lower
bounds of the histogram as the extremes in the printed image
automatically.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you can get 16 bit per channel out of your 5050???
Click to expand...
Yes! I couldn't believe it but the Olympus Raw plugin imports into photoshop at 16-bit. So this might enable me to extract the shadow detail better without getting quantization artifacts as I did when trying to bring shadow detail up from a jpeg in the A40. And as pointed out there is noise in the shadow region, but if you overexpose, the highs seem to get clipped even in RAW!? I've had blown highlights at 0 exposure compensation even with the latitude the RAW mode gives!? Anybody know what's going on here? Unfortunately the tiff that the camera saves internally when tiff is selected is 8-bit, so I would imagine it is 8-bit on the 4000 too, as well as the 740.

--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
 
My appologies to anyone about the blown highs in RAW. I have that problem a lot with the Adobe Raw converter but the Camedia does not have it at all! I get to play with overexposure now!!! Should get less noise in the shadows! Sorry Newbie-Man for taking your post off-topic! But you might give raw some thought, although I don't think it's an option on the UZ models.
Andy Landfather said:
Newbie-Man said:
Andy Landfather said:
Wow, that's good news that my camera resamples internally, I find
more and more to like every day. But as you say we already
suspected this.
Click to expand...
well, we didn't know for sure. I think the A40 had jaggies when
shot at lower resolution. Then, maybe the A40 didn't re-sample, but
just skipped lines.
Andy Landfather said:
In fact I wonder if the 4000 doesn't do it also,
one of the IR pictures you linked to earlier in this thread was of
a 1600x1200 image from the 4000, and I immediately was struck with
it's detail and clarity.
Click to expand...
well, I think the C4000 has better image quality than the 740. But
I am able to sacrifice some image quality (not much) for a 10X zoom
Click to expand...
That was my opinion too when I looked at the full-tele shot of the
house at IR for the 740. Looked a little (just a very little)
washed out looking. Maybe a bump UP in contrast would solve this,
if those models have the contrast control.
Andy Landfather said:
Andy Landfather said:
Yes I guess that is right about the grosser quantization steps in a
low contrast pic. I guess all we can hope for is new generation
printers to accept raw or maybe 16-bit tiff. I know my tiff out of
the 5050 is 8-bit, but I could take a raw file and import it as
16-bit tiff. That will be nice if I ever find a printing service
that will (a.) take 16-bit tiff and (b.) set the upper and lower
bounds of the histogram as the extremes in the printed image
automatically.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you can get 16 bit per channel out of your 5050???
Click to expand...
Yes! I couldn't believe it but the Olympus Raw plugin imports into
photoshop at 16-bit. So this might enable me to extract the shadow
detail better without getting quantization artifacts as I did when
trying to bring shadow detail up from a jpeg in the A40. And as
pointed out there is noise in the shadow region, but if you
overexpose, the highs seem to get clipped even in RAW!? I've had
blown highlights at 0 exposure compensation even with the latitude
the RAW mode gives!? Anybody know what's going on here?
Unfortunately the tiff that the camera saves internally when tiff
is selected is 8-bit, so I would imagine it is 8-bit on the 4000
too, as well as the 740.

--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
 
And my appologies again! I don't know what exactly is going on. I just tried a series of exposures with flash indoors here tonight. And when I import them I get the same thing with the +2 overexposure as the 0 exp comp,,, the left half of the histogram is filled with the picture information and I have to slide down the right slider to bring the levels to look correct. The shadows are never clipped at the left side. But the noise on black objects is the same between shots. I even tried one 0 exp comp, and +2 flash intensity adjustment, thinking this would surely have the effect of overexposing. But it was the same as the rest!

So, sorry, I don't know what's going on here. Have to study it more...
Andy Landfather said:
Andy Landfather said:
Newbie-Man said:
Andy Landfather said:
Wow, that's good news that my camera resamples internally, I find
more and more to like every day. But as you say we already
suspected this.
Click to expand...
well, we didn't know for sure. I think the A40 had jaggies when
shot at lower resolution. Then, maybe the A40 didn't re-sample, but
just skipped lines.
Andy Landfather said:
In fact I wonder if the 4000 doesn't do it also,
one of the IR pictures you linked to earlier in this thread was of
a 1600x1200 image from the 4000, and I immediately was struck with
it's detail and clarity.
Click to expand...
well, I think the C4000 has better image quality than the 740. But
I am able to sacrifice some image quality (not much) for a 10X zoom
Click to expand...
That was my opinion too when I looked at the full-tele shot of the
house at IR for the 740. Looked a little (just a very little)
washed out looking. Maybe a bump UP in contrast would solve this,
if those models have the contrast control.
Andy Landfather said:
Andy Landfather said:
Yes I guess that is right about the grosser quantization steps in a
low contrast pic. I guess all we can hope for is new generation
printers to accept raw or maybe 16-bit tiff. I know my tiff out of
the 5050 is 8-bit, but I could take a raw file and import it as
16-bit tiff. That will be nice if I ever find a printing service
that will (a.) take 16-bit tiff and (b.) set the upper and lower
bounds of the histogram as the extremes in the printed image
automatically.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you can get 16 bit per channel out of your 5050???
Click to expand...
Yes! I couldn't believe it but the Olympus Raw plugin imports into
photoshop at 16-bit. So this might enable me to extract the shadow
detail better without getting quantization artifacts as I did when
trying to bring shadow detail up from a jpeg in the A40. And as
pointed out there is noise in the shadow region, but if you
overexpose, the highs seem to get clipped even in RAW!? I've had
blown highlights at 0 exposure compensation even with the latitude
the RAW mode gives!? Anybody know what's going on here?
Unfortunately the tiff that the camera saves internally when tiff
is selected is 8-bit, so I would imagine it is 8-bit on the 4000
too, as well as the 740.

--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/andylandfather
 
Newbie-Man said:
it seems that 3MP images from the 5050 have very low noise compared
with the 5MP. Also, Dimitrios says that according to Olympus
promos, the camera uses all 5MPixels, even if you take a lower
resolution shot (e.g 3MP).
We speculated about this subject in the past. Then, the 5050 takes
a full 5MP photo, and resamples it down to 3MP.
Click to expand...
I found a link with a brochure for the "TruePic technology" that Olympus uses on most of its digicams. It seems to be an interpolation.
http://www.scannerplace.com.au/olympus.htm

As for the on camera vs PS downsampling, my first tests indicate that PS bicubic is slightly better wrt the resolution (noise levels are similar).
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
 
At the address you pointed at, it says:

"TruePic technology creates every image using every pixel for sharp, clear results ".

I don't know if this means that the 3MP is resampled down from 5MP.
Dimitrios said:
Newbie-Man said:
it seems that 3MP images from the 5050 have very low noise compared
with the 5MP. Also, Dimitrios says that according to Olympus
promos, the camera uses all 5MPixels, even if you take a lower
resolution shot (e.g 3MP).
We speculated about this subject in the past. Then, the 5050 takes
a full 5MP photo, and resamples it down to 3MP.
Click to expand...
I found a link with a brochure for the "TruePic technology" that
Olympus uses on most of its digicams. It seems to be an
interpolation.
http://www.scannerplace.com.au/olympus.htm
As for the on camera vs PS downsampling, my first tests indicate
that PS bicubic is slightly better wrt the resolution (noise levels
are similar).
--
Dimitrios
Olympus C-5050 & Minolta 7xi film SLR
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top