<font color="blue"> Have you noticed any difference in the camera??? </font>
Yeah, it's in better shape than the one I dunked. The other one had been used extensively in my business by 4 or 5 different users and had been pretty beat up. Both of them are/were FD71's. I was tempted to upgrade to a 91; there were several listed, but they were more money, and I figured that I wouldn't miss what I never had. I was satisfied with my 71, the low resolution is perfect for the web stuff I do with it. I have rarely printed a picture, and when I have, I wasn't worried about quality. The 640x400 .jpg pictures from the camera are just the right size to publish on the web. When I take the time, I decolorize them, reduce the size and compress them further - we've gotten them down to about 8K bytes and still look good, and they load fast. The ones I'm posting here are raw, right from the camera, average about 33K, and do the job. There's a time when less is more.
Yeah, it's in better shape than the one I dunked. The other one had been used extensively in my business by 4 or 5 different users and had been pretty beat up. Both of them are/were FD71's. I was tempted to upgrade to a 91; there were several listed, but they were more money, and I figured that I wouldn't miss what I never had. I was satisfied with my 71, the low resolution is perfect for the web stuff I do with it. I have rarely printed a picture, and when I have, I wasn't worried about quality. The 640x400 .jpg pictures from the camera are just the right size to publish on the web. When I take the time, I decolorize them, reduce the size and compress them further - we've gotten them down to about 8K bytes and still look good, and they load fast. The ones I'm posting here are raw, right from the camera, average about 33K, and do the job. There's a time when less is more.