Kodachrome is not an ideal emulsion for scanning and some scanners have dedicated settings for it. The Nikon Coolscan models do for sure.

Blow dust off the slides, by all means use a dry microfibre cloth carefully and gently, or maybe buy some slide cleaning fluid.

Afterwards, cloning in Photoshop is much easier than spotting prints ever was.

It gets noticed anyway, but any you see that is missed after a reasonable time has gone by, then do please report it.

Even a slight darkening I thinki enhances the image, here's an example:
[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/johnriley1uk/PU-Test-Image-25022011a.jpg[/IMG]

My feeling is that these are all far too light. There is good potential in them if darkened down considerably.

Pleased to welcome you, hope you enjoy the forum!

I think that was a good review for the K-5.

I beg your pardon, the actual focal length is input. That would mean 85mm in this case. Apologies for error.

Not quite Don...the new combination is an 85mm lens. On an APS-C DSLR it has a field of view equivalent to a 127.5mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

As for SR, setting 135mm will be close enough.

No, but the implication of the AP article is that someone might from one to the other if they were the sort of person who had to have the "winning" camera. We think unlikely perhaps, but I can imagine that some might be so influenced. It would be a bit of a fools errand, so what I'm suggesting is that the very premise of the Canon vs Nikon test was flawed from the start.

Now the EPZ 645D vs Full Frame review is valid in that plenty of people might wonder if there was an advantage of going medium format. There an exploration of what the advantages and disadvantages might be is a valid exercise.

But wouldn't it be hopeless if a user constantly switched brands as they leapfrog each other in being Biggest Best Newest. All the current cameras co0uld be used effectively. All we need to do is adapt to the quirks of each individual model.