Needs to be in jpeg mode for HDR! A pity they set it up like that.

Why would it only work on film when it's designed for m43 / E mount? I know there's this theory that ultra wide apertures don't have quite the same benefit on digital, but the results from a 1.2 lens versus a 1.8 speak for themselves, so...

I think you're right Bychan. Now I've got it home, I can see it takes the K7 and Tamron 17-50 (without reversing the hood), with space for a clutch of primes or something like the 70-210mm, but the 55-300 would be tight unless you reversed the hood.

I don't understand what you mean about the width - the camera is stored lens down, not sideways.

I think the Q has been in development for ages, on the back burner. It's not the first ICL compact they have produced (in prototype form at least). They probably used their R&D into that model, and the R&D from the 645D/DSLR imaging pipeline, to come up with it.

After being a bit unhappy with the results from SnappySnaps, I gave these guys a go:

http://www.snapsphotoservices.com/page_2170585.html

I am pleased with the results - scans are twice as big as Snappy Snaps and look better. There's no disguising the grain of cheap Kodak print film, but I will definitely be using them again. They kindly provided TIF samples, however there's no appreciable difference in quality.

Here's a full size sample. Standard jpeg scan, cost 5 pounds (plus 2.50 processing and 2.00 delivery).

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6014/5982827886_03f82486f8_o.jpg

De-noised:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6030/5982824360_5a88e1818a_o.jpg

And the resized shot:

Difficult to say anything without looking at the shots. I would tend to double check focus in those circumstances as I don't 100% trust autofocus. If the subject is small in the frame it can easily lock on to something in the background.

That's talking about does the RAW file show more detail after a quick conversion. In the past they did. These days there's nothing in it. But it's not about image quality on well lit pictures, it's more about the enhanced 'editability' of RAW files.

Here are some good tips for jpeg shooters: http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/2011/07/tips-for-jpeg-shooters.ht...

I have nothing but praise for my bank (Lloyds TSB) with its 0.5% interest on savings and nearly 20% interest on overdrafts. Oh and the extra £5 'arranged overdraft' charge which they seem to have snuck in recently. You'd never think they'd been given a huge wodge of our money thanks to the bailout.... which was given to them because they'd been irresponsible and engaged in risky lending!

No, they're flipping brilliant!

But one thing I would say for them, the bank transfer service seems still to be quite instant.

You have to convert to jpeg or tiff ultimately, but it's what you do before that that benefits from having the extra depth of information, which may not be visible in an 'in camera jpeg' but which you can bring out in the final image. The extra information also lets you edit without being so destructive of image quality.

There are many times that the camera jpeg is perfectly fine though, if the image has a no harsh highlights or deep shadows for instance.

Very cute, looks almost penguin like! The PP'ed image is much better, not that the first one was bad.