On Dec 1, 1:20*pm, Boater wrote:
About $8000 for the body only. (Yikes)

24,5 Megapixel in FX-Format
3D Color Matrix II, Center-Weighted and Spot Metering
1 - 7 fps
1/8000 to 30 seconds shutter
ISO equivalency 100 to 1,600
2 lb 11 oz / 1220 g
Price est. $7,995 USD body

And that's probably cheap compared to what this cost back in the late
50's

http://www.blueangels.org/History/Colorama/Kcamera.jpg

On Dec 1, 2:45*pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:43*pm, Tim wrote:

On Dec 1, 1:27*pm, JohnH wrote:
Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

I'm impressed! You are actually using a fairly modern technology!

Well Loog, that's about as "point 'n shoot" as you can get!

?;^ Q

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:43:42 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 1, 1:27*pm, JohnH wrote:


Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

What's happenin' with the Fuji? Haven't heard from you in a while.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

On Dec 1, 2:59*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:43:42 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:27*pm, JohnH wrote:

Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

What's happenin' with the Fuji? Haven't heard from you in a while.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Oh, weekend got tied up, John. Nothing unpleasant though.

Daughter was headed back to college sunday afternoon and I had loose-
end errands to do with her.

I'll try to resume tonight or so.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 2:59 pm, JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:43:42 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:27 pm, JohnH wrote:

Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less
than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

What's happenin' with the Fuji? Haven't heard from you in a while.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Oh, weekend got tied up, John. Nothing unpleasant though.

Daughter was headed back to college sunday afternoon and I had loose-
end errands to do with her.

I'll try to resume tonight or so.
************************************************** *************************************************

All this talk of older film cameras is making me interested in buying some
120 film and running it through my Yashica D soon
http://mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/yashica_d.html

On Dec 1, 3:19*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 2:59 pm, JohnH wrote:





On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:43:42 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:27 pm, JohnH wrote:

Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less
than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

What's happenin' with the Fuji? Haven't heard from you in a while.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Oh, weekend got tied up, John. Nothing unpleasant though.

Daughter was headed back to college sunday afternoon and I had loose-
end errands to do with her.

I'll try to resume tonight or so.
************************************************** **************************************************

All this talk of older film cameras is making me interested in buying some
120 film and running it through my Yashica D soonhttp://mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/yashica_d.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's my plan too, Don. the 616's and dads roleicords.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
About $8000 for the body only. (Yikes)

24,5 Megapixel in FX-Format
3D Color Matrix II, Center-Weighted and Spot Metering
1 - 7 fps
1/8000 to 30 seconds shutter
ISO equivalency 100 to 1,600
2 lb 11 oz / 1220 g
Price est. $7,995 USD body

Another FX-format camera means that Nikon will jump back with both feet
into the production of full-frame lenses, updating some of the current
ones and introducing new ones.

SW Tom should buy of the new D3X boxes...



I have a friend who would be the one to buy this camera. But he makes
his living as a professional photographer, and lots of his are Corporate
annual reports where they need high quality photos. Most of his pics are
stored on the computer hooked up to the camera and are 200 mbytes or
greater. The rest of us use the $1000 or less Nikon SLR.

Really? Most of the pros I know use larger format cameras for large-page
annual reports and other publications where the highest quality is
required. Hasselblads rule. Nothing wrong with 35mm frame size, of
course, but bigger images are better, quality-wise.


Guy has not shot film in years. All digital.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 1:27 pm, JohnH wrote:


Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

Too expensive. When you figure in the film processing costs.

On Dec 1, 3:51*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 1:27 pm, JohnH wrote:



Luckily, most of us can get by with camera bodies costing much less than
$1000.
--

Yeah, like me. $4.95 Kodak disposables!

?;^ )

Too expensive. *When you figure in the film processing costs.

maybe true, but the subject was for "less than $1000.00". Besides the
initial start up fees are minimal.

?:^ 0

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Boater" wrote in message
...

About $8000 for the body only. (Yikes)

24,5 Megapixel in FX-Format
3D Color Matrix II, Center-Weighted and Spot Metering
1 - 7 fps
1/8000 to 30 seconds shutter
ISO equivalency 100 to 1,600
2 lb 11 oz / 1220 g
Price est. $7,995 USD body

Another FX-format camera means that Nikon will jump back with both feet
into the production of full-frame lenses, updating some of the current
ones and introducing new ones.

SW Tom should buy of the new D3X boxes...



I have a friend who would be the one to buy this camera. But he makes his
living as a professional photographer, and lots of his are Corporate
annual reports where they need high quality photos. Most of his pics are
stored on the computer hooked up to the camera and are 200 mbytes or
greater. The rest of us use the $1000 or less Nikon SLR.


The Navy has a website that I visit once in a while called Navy Newstand,
"Eyes on the Fleet".
The main page has a search field in the upper right that you can put in a
specific ship or command
and get recent photos. They have several levels of quality, including an
option to download a "High Rez"
image of the picture of interest. I've noticed that virtually all the
photos (taken by Navy Photographer's Mates" are done with a Nikon D2X.
Some of them, particularly the ones taken at sea, are spectacular.

I posted an example on my website (link below). It's of the homecoming of
the USS Harry S Truman in Norfolk after their last Persian Gulf deployment.
If it displays the way it does on my computer, the image should show up with
a little magnifying glass with a + sign in it. If you click on the image
with the + sign, it should expand out to full size. If you download it into
a photo viewing program, it's amazing how much you can zoom it before it
starts to get pixulated. Pixilated? Blurry? It's already degraded
somewhat simply by the conversion to a .jpg.

I can't believe the clarity the D2X does, remembering that it's a digital
camera. I wonder how much better the D3X is. Here's the link:

http://www.eisboch.com/Truman1.jpg

Eisboch