I know one or two of you use flashtrax as a portable drive to store images on the move, but does anyone know if it will/should read .DNG files? I understand that it will read the Jpg image within a .PEF file but I have settled on .DNG. (I know it saves them - I can do that )

Mine does not, so I suspect the answer is "No" unless there is a software upgrade. I guess I could go back to .PEF files and change to DNG later but that seeems a bit of a waste of time if flashtrax can be persuaded to read .DNG

I tried the Smartdisk site, but apparently they have sold out to Verbatim who just refer you back to Smartdisk.com who just refer you back......

Don't give them ideas

If it is anything like Road Tax, it will not start at 56". It will start at 12" with a dozen different bands and be backdated to WW1.

Not sure if that comment is aimed at my "blanket" reaction, or at the people who raise taxes on the excuse of being green.

If it was at me, then sorry, I have worked dammed hard for what little I have got and I want to keep some of it. That is not envy, more anger at having my pocket picked at every opportunity.

If it was aimed at our esteemed leaders, then I agree.

Of course you are unless you are in a job that insulates you from the realities of life such as the people who make the laws that milk the wealth creators and live off the proceeds.

Look Guys, I have an appointment with the Doc tomorrow to have my BP checked again. The last thing I need right now is to get involved in politics - my head is steaming already. a plague on all their houses

Quote ChrisA "I wouldn't mind being taxed more if I consumed more," -

I object to any taxes until they learn to spend them more fairly like better pensions for real people, single sex wards, lower salaries/pensions/perks for MPs, more sensible policing and justice, no cameras for traffic wardens
Round here they take 4 (yes four) pictures of your car every time they book you

aaargh now see what you have done. I think I will have to cancel that appointment

Basically I do not like Canon (I have a Powershot Pro) but then I do not like Microsoft, Adobe PS, Sony, etc. Sometimes however there is no alternative except to go without.

I have held a G9 in the shop environment and generally liked the feel but another downer apparently is that the viewfinder is pretty useless, (difficult to guage in a few minutes in the shop) and since that is the prime reason for considering this camera I am not totally committed to going down that route.

As regards taking DSLR + lenses + kitchen sink, I thought I had given that up 10 years ago when I got the Minolta bridge. Then I bought the istD (beautiful LITTLE camera) and now I am back in the same old groove I want to relax and enjoy this trip - I shall never do it again and lugging a case load of camera kit half way round the world is not my scene anymore.

Anyway, thanks for the comments - must go and look at pancake lenses but suspect that they are a £ too far

So, Reuben0, how did you get on with the viewfinder in practice?

Thanks for that, but no earthly use

All the reasons for NOT getting a compact - and all correct of course and I could add quite a few more. I have been down this road so many times in my head over the recent weeks and always come to the same conclusion - do not get a compact. I was hoping someone might have come up with an unassailable reason for actually getting one

Last week I dusted of my Minolta AS Bridge and took that for a spin. It is small, light and the quality (at only 8MP) is probably good enough for recording holiday snaps. If only it would fit in my pocket. Then there is the K100D or even the K200D, both small(ish) and lightweight and cost not much more than the G9, but they are hardly pocket size.

I guess what I really want is K20D that folds up to matchbox size, and weight, and then springs back to full size at the touch of a button, plus a selection of matching lenses of course

Thanks anyway for the contribution. I will probably nick back the istD that I gave to my wife

Later on this year I am off to Canada for a few weeks and I do not want to carry around the K10D plus lenses (possibly - I might change my mind)

So I have been looking around at compact cameras that might (just might) produce quality approaching that of the SLR

I must have a view finder, a half decent telephoto, a hot-shoe, the camera must fit in my pocket, and RAW would be an advantage.

The only one to come up to this spec is the Canon G9. I know this might be a dirty word here but does anyone have experience of this camera?

There is no point asking on a Canon forum - they would be biased - but if a Pentax enthusiast has one, then that seems a good recommendation

OK. Here we go (sorry it took so long – could not find the negatives)

Scan 1
15 images @2400dpi and 24 bit giving scanned image of 3300 X 2000 (approx) pixels and file size of 19mp with unsharp mask – 8 minutes

Scan 2
15 images @2400dpi and 48 bit giving scanned image of 3300 X 2000 (approx) pixels and file size of 37mp with unsharp mask – 11 minutes

Scan 3
15 images @2400dpi and 48 bit giving scanned image of 3300 X 2000 (approx) pixels and file size of 37mp with unsharp mask, grain reduction, dust removal – 20 minutes (Based on 5 images and extrapolated)

Scan 4
15 images @2400dpi and 48 bit giving scanned image of 3300 X 2000 (approx) pixels and file size of 37mp with unsharp mask, grain reduction, dust removal – 30 minutes (Based on 5 images and extrapolated) NB the first image took 5 minutes then the rest went through very quickly

Scan 5
I did this because of the strange timings in Scan 4.
As scan 4 but using different 5 negatives – 12 minutes.

I am guessing that the reason for the differing timings is a factor of the amount of correction needed for each image and also the complexity of the image itself


You cannot use ICE and dust removal at the same time

Hope this helps

Sorry Chris impossible to answer, it depends on resolution and how much processing is done during the scan.

I just did a load of straightforward 3300 X 2000 pixel scans for my daughter but the film was cut into lengths of 4 images. The originals were frankly not worth bothering too much so they were straight scans so 4 X 4 strips (16 images) took about 15 minutes. Throw in ICE, some colour correction, contrast etc and you could talking about 45 - 60 minutes but that is a guess.

I will just do a time trial and get back to you