The difference between 6.1 megapixels and 8 megapixels is not enough to even think about. To double the "resolution", you'd need four times the pixels!

Not long ago 4 or 5 megapixel cameras were good enough for double-page spreads in magazines, so why are the six megapixel cameras suddenly not up to snuff?

Kodak has a sensor out that's pretty much full-frame 645, and it has to be that big to squeeze 31 megapixels in withoug turning into a noise factory!

You could always shoot RAW and render the file at 12 or 14 megapixels. But what do you need all those megapixels for? Generally you're eventually outputting to a four color offset press that can't even provide the detail that a four megapixel camera is capable of.

By the time you get to 5 or 6 megapixels, you're at the 35mm film level of quality. What counts is the quality of those megapixels, and the sensor.

Those 8 megapixel digicams with the tiny sensors were a disaster! There's an upper limit to what current tehnology is capable, and the 6 megapixel sensor is pushing the ceiling.

They could squeeze 8 or 10 megapixels into a full-frame sensor (preferrably not with a 2:3 aspect raio but something more like 3:4 or 4:5) but even there you run into a limit. Hence the medium format backs.

Most people, including profesionals, don't even use one tenth of the fearures in Adobe Bridge, it has more power than most people think. So how much will they get out of this new program?

Just learn to use your current software to its greatest potential, then you can go lusting after fancier stuff!

I've had two MX cameras for a zillion years, they were all I used until the world went digital.

They both have winders, have been heavily used, and they still work fine!

I got them on the theory that "if it isn't there, it won't break". So far so good!!

But now the business has gone digital, so I'm really glad all my old lenses work on the *st D just like they did on the MX - take a reading, compose, shoot!

I have a big old squezze bulb, the old fashioned ones that just blast a bit of air over a surface. It's all I've ever needed, hope I don't get sticky dust!

You have two things going on, it seems. One is that you may be seeing the pre-flash for red-eye reductin, see if you can turn it off. But if the on-camera flash is underexposing, make sure you don't have any flash compensation set, then have the camera checked out.

Go into the Control Panel, and open up Administrative Tools and then Computer Management. Look in Disk Management to see if the card is showing up. When a card reader is connected via USB, it shold show up as a local drive.

You may need to assign a drive letter to it.

A laptop is pretty hard to calibrate, but you've got to get as close as you can. Most laptops can support an external CRT, you might want to buy one and use it for photo editing.

I use a LaCie Electron Blue monitor, it's specifically a graphics monitor.

One filter you'll always need to have on hand is the polarizer. To re-create the effect in Photoshop is just too much work!

Besides, you can use a linear polarizer in front of a circular polarizer to make a continuolsy-variable ND filter. The problem is you now have four extra surfaces to keep clean!

Oops, you're right. I guess I'm just bass-ackwards today!

Depending on the quality, you could get one of those slide copiers that attach to the camera, and use a DSLR to copy the slides.

I managed to find a used Polaroid Sprint Scan 120, so I can scan 35mm and 120 film. But if you only have a few slides to digitize, the copier method may be just the ticket!