Re: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review))

2001-07-25 Thread Jaros³aw Brzeziñski
tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał / wrote: What I am saying is that if you are shooting handheld in dim light, you are forced to use an equivalent of more than ISO 400 to avoid handshake and the noise is really pronounced then. The shutter speeds go up to 30 seconds. > You're saying even at t

Re: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review))

2001-07-24 Thread Jan van Wijk
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:11:54 -0400, tom wrote: > >Anyone know how the Phillips ccd will handle in low light? Also, is it a >ccd? The D30 uses a CMOS chip. If anyone is versed in the differences, >I'd like to hear about them. AFAIK, the 6 mega-pixel Philips is a CMOS design, not ccd. The differe

Re: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review))

2001-07-24 Thread Mark D.
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've seen some prints from a D30. It looks like medium format to me, and > they were taken by Joe Schmoe down at the local chain store. When I can > do that at EI 1600 or 3200, I'm taking the plunge. Amen to that. I've been experimenting with new inks (MIS Quadton

Re: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review))

2001-07-24 Thread Jaros³aw Brzeziñski
Digi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał / wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:11 PM > Subject: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK &g

Re: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review))

2001-07-24 Thread Doctor Digi
- Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:11 PM Subject: Digital (was Re: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review)) > Anyone know how the Phillips ccd will handle in low light? Als