On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:00, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: > Le 14.07.2005 11:21:24, A J Stiles a écrit : > > ... [Y]ou can also use > > the > > memory cards in a slot reader; but there's a school of thought that > > this > > removal and reinsertion is inviting damage. > And isertionand removal of this smal usb plug on the camera is also > inviting damages... on the camera
You're right, of course ..... though the USB has fewer contacts, and hence less to go wrong. I guess the best solution for the truly risk-averse would be to use the camera's autofocus system {basically an infrared LED and sensor} for wireless data transfer, but this might prove too slow to be practical. > Of course but you have to take account of the size you want to print > your pictures. With 1.9Mpix, you cannot get something larger than > 10x15cm. My own experience suggests that the limiting point is about four pixels per millimetre, and I have had excellent results taking 1600x1200px. pictures up to 24x18cm. These were printed on a HP Business Inkjet 1100 and do not look "digital". Of course, a less "industrial" printer might give poorer results. Maybe there is something wrong with my eyes {actually there is -- I'm short sighted and so can see more detail at close range}, or maybe some manufacturers are being pessimistic about their products in order to persuade you to buy a more expensive one than you need. Maybe with poorer quality lenses and/or sensors than the ones FujiFilm use, there really are issues with enlargement sizes. {It's possible that some scummy cheap cameras use interpolation -- that is to say, they create an output file which contains more pixels than the image sensor contains, by using software to "guess" what might be in between the "real" pixels.} I haven't tried a wide enough range of cameras and printers to determine which is the case. I do know that I would not spend that sort of money without seeing some test shots -- and nor would I advise anyone else to. -- AJS