Film Reviews

This is a 'beautiful' design and takes reasonably good pics. (It IS a point & shoot) but unlike all other APS cameras, it only takes pics in the "C" mode (the traditional size prints) NOT in the "H" mode (slightly wider) or the Panoramic. Why Fuji left this choice off Boggles the mind. The main reason I use APS is for the "H" size prints. I'm dissapointed this feature was left off.
Steve Dirkx
Dallas, tx

This is a 'beautiful' design and takes reasonably good pics. (It IS a point & shoot) but unlike all other APS cameras, it only takes pics in the "C" mode (the traditional size prints) NOT in the "H" mode (slightly wider) or the Panoramic. Why Fuji left this choice off Boggles the mind. The main reason I use APS is for the "H" size prints. I'm dissapointed this feature was left off.
Steve Dirkx
Dallas, tx

I performed extensive tests (about 2 rolls each) of Fuji and Kodak APS films at 100, 200, and 400 ASA, using a Canon ELPH camera (the original aspherical zoom lens model). I shot a variety of outdoor scenes in a variety of lighting conditions (e.g. downtown skyscraper architectural with bright clear blue sunny skies, flowers and trees with both bright sun and shade, rock close-ups in overcast). I shot a few indoor locations, without a flash at ASA 400, with flash for the others. I examined the results for color, range, clarity and grain. Here's what I saw:

For ASA 100, Kodak kicked butt. Clearly better color rendition, and much, much tighter grain and better detail in all the bright lighting situations, especially with panorama print.

For ASA 400, I was pleasantly surprised that Fuji really outperformed the Kodak film. Fuji had vibrant blues and was good all across to the reds. Kodak felt washed out on the blue side, weirdly. Also surprising was that Fuji had tighter grain in bright conditions; they both looked grainy of course in lower light, but the Fuji somehow felt smoother or less chunky in the blown-up panorama prints. It also seemed to have better tonal range in both light and dark settings.

Frankly, neither of the ASA 200 films seemed acceptable to me for outdoor shots; indoors with flash, both were OK and Kodak was maybe better color. Outside, they both felt lower contrast/saturation, subsequently cramped color, didn't have the tight grain of the 100, and didn't work as well in low light and indoors (without flash) as the 400. Just seemed not worth it compared to the two options.

this film is good for bright pictures. still, bright, plain pictures. it is not good for action or low light. if you are bying this just because it is cheaper, i would suggest to get the 400 speed. the 400 is the best film for the money.

My Dad took picutres at my wedding with one of these cameras, and got back the digital photos with his prints. Both were of equal quality as far as that goes. The camera focuses well.

However, we found that even with its built in flash, the pictures that he took inside, during the wedding, were dim and relatively worthless. The exterior pictures were lit fine, but the "mood lighting" was dim, and the flash wasn't able to compensate for that.

*****Final Thoughts*****
The camera is a great one to grab on your way to the zoo or the ball game, but if you're going to your high-school graduation or with some friends to a dinner, you probably want to pass.

This is a brightly-lit-area camera.

The vendor charges ten point seventy "clams" as a shipping fee for all orders equal to or less than two hundred and fifty clams. Of the two main reasons that a photographer-customer would pay for a Prepaid Processing Mailer (convenience and savings), this steep surcharge (for such an intrinsically lightweight, flimsy article) diminishes the return on the retail investment. Unless you intend to order a whole mess of them at one time, I'd say that it doesn't pay to squander your moulah on Shipping for Mailing. The net cost is fair, although YOU pay postage to forward your exposed film to the processing laboratory. For those of you who DO opt to splurge on this very convenient (and quality) product, I recommend that you have the domestic Post Office affix a self-adhesive METER STRIP as postage to the mailer, instead of piecemeal postage stamps. Reason for this recommendation: once the Meter Strip has been affixed, the mailpiece need no longer be re-weighed, nor does it have to be hand-canceled. The downtime (and limited access hours) involved in waiting on line to submit the article for mailing with a Meter Strip might mean that you'll forego the optional advantage of letting the Post Office calculate the weight and applicable postage. Attention, vacationers overseas: yes, you CAN send your precious film to the stateside Kodak lab; do keep in mind that boat mail is too slow, and air mail in certain countries is still prohibitive... On the plus side, when you mail in your films from overseas, you'll have the lab-processed results awaiting your return home (Lord willing). Trivia: when Eastman Kodak divested itself of the labs and farmed the work out to Qualux (a misnomer: lesser quality!), it seems that the central reason was not to eliminate unionized hired help, but rather to "resolve" ?huge? pollution problems that were an issue with the federal EPA. We are blessed with Kodak now back at the helm of the labs, having survived the toxic-waste and quality-nosedive difficulties. Too bad that Amazon & Adorama don't currently carry the color transparency (slide) Prepaid Processing Mailers from Kodak. Perhaps we can persuade them to add slide film mailers. I took one star away because of the requisite shipping fee, and another star away because the maximum number of frames per roll is 24, not 36. Thoughts, anyone?

The title of the review says it all.

Do NOT get this scanner. Get the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite for a little more with Digital Ice. I did quite a bit of research before deciding on this scanner, so I'll sum up for you what took me many hours. I also considered a couple of the lower end Minolta Dimage scanners, as well as the Nikon Coolscan and the HP Photosmart S20.

Essentially, they all promise to scan 35mm film, and with an adapter, it can also do APS. However, promises are just that - empty for most of these scanners.

This one is OK if you dont mind some bad scans b/c of no Digital Ice. If you spend another $100 you can get the Scan Elite which has the Digital Ice. A MUST have.

Although my canon rebel SLR is incredible and we've had great canon's before, this one is very disappointing and inconsistent. I've had the same problems as others with blurry pictures and delays in taking photos after pushing the button. I'd recommend finding another camera or upgrading to a SLR from Canon (though pricey).

i was using a canon sure shot 85 zoom for about 4 years and decided i wanted to "move up" to something newer and "better". i was sadly disappointed with this canon z155 camera. the 85 takes better or equally good pictures as the z155! the zoom is longer BUT the quality greatly diminishes when using that long zoom so basicly it defeats the purpose in my opinion... clear pictures are important to me! and especially if im going to pay $... for a point and shoot camera it especially better take goooooood pictures ya know? well, the close up pictures taken with little zoom came out nice and clear- as wil most any camera... but as i mentioned earlier when the zoom was used most of the way the quality was sad... the night shot mode was nice but that is included in a lot of cameras these days... i took a picture of a dollhouse lit only by a night light and the picture came out clear and lit. there were glares on my daughters eyes and other little things that all but ruin a good picture :( basicly i would NOT recommend this camera..(especially for as much as it costs!) if you really want more than about 80 mm zoom i would recommend going SLR. maybe canon will come out with abetter long zoom soon.. ...

I was surprised to read all the negative reviews about the canon z155. My own experience with this camera has been basically positive. Since purchasing the camera 7 months ago, the majority of my prints have been sharp, clear, colors bright and true to life. The only drawback i can think of is the pictures do tend to blur when using full zoom without a tripod. I dont think this is specifically Canon's problem, though, because photography books all recommend using a tripod when using a high zoom. At 155mm, one needs a very steady hand or the pictures blur. When I do use a tripod, even my pictures at the highest zoom come out crystal clear. I'd recommend this camera anytime!

I bought the 2400 FS Film Scaner( Tamarack) two months ago, since very begining it hasn't work properly. I use DocuMan 2.07 and I'm searching for a version 3.0. I have scenned 300 slides with quite good result but negatives are unacceptable! Maybe version 3.0 will help? Where can I find it? I would be pleased with any help. Is the problem of dark edges tipical ?

I bought mine from Amazon for about three weeks ago for justunder $200. Considering that ProLab here in Seattle charges $3 perpicture scanned, it seemed like a good deal in the long run.

Myexperience with it so far: the scanner does a great job with photostaken in bright, even sunlight but has a tougher time withhigh-contrast pics -- especially those with big patches of black. Trueblack on a color slide often comes out filled with rainbow splotcheson the scan. (I haven't scanned any color negatives yet.)

On theupside, the scanner comes with Adobe PhotoDeluxe, which is a choppedversion of Photoshop. It's pretty good for fixing defects like theabove. A guy I talked to at Prolab said even the high-end scanner theyuse doesn't render slides/negs perfectly, and that you still need somesort of photo software. So the Tamarack's shortcomings may be commonto all analog-to-digital transfers. PROS:

* Scanner pays for itselfonce you get beyond 60 photos

* Small footprint; about the size of abrick

* Good choice for pics that will end up on the Web

* UsefulAdobe software

CONS:

* Doesn't handle true blacks well

*Documentation is atrocious, very badly translated from Chinese END

The quality difference between this scanner to the high end ones is similar to the difference between Toyota Camry to Lexus: similar good hardware but different level of luxury. The Tamarack scanner worked very well without problems but the software needs to be improved: scanned images most of time were washed out and pale, they also weren't focused accurately. My protocol is: read the enclosed mannual and the FAQ on the Tamarack website carefully before installation, then hook up all the plugs except the USB. Turn on computer then connect the USB to the computer.A pop up menu will then ask you to insert the driver, load the Documen 3.0 to the CD-ROM and then the install process goes smoothly. I threw the Docupal into the trash can - My Microsoft Office does a better job than it. Then I turned on my scanner, started my Photoshop 6.0 (you can install and start the bundled Adobe Photodeluxe or any other twain supported image editing software in similar way), went to file, import, then click Filmscan Twain32; the documen menu lanched automatically within the photoshop. I clicked SETTINGS first to get 2400 resolution for a letter size photo quality image, 1200 for 5x7..., then went to image select, then chose FILTERS and set iso from 100 to 400 (the single most important measure to affect image looking), adjusted bright and contrast, and clicked preview. After seeing the preview images you may need to readjust the filter and scan image individully - the filter is batch adjusting only. At this time you click on the scan button and the selected images will be scanned into my photoshop work space, and then I retouch the image by adjusting level, contrast, color balance, saturation and hue - an excellent picture is done. Criticize: The Documen 3.0 need to be improved in color intensity - the scanned images are too pale a lot of time, if they can add another step of iso setting to 800 in the FILTER then the problem should be solved; the focus is not too good,adjusting contrast with photoshop helps a lot; and the FILTERS adjustments can not be set to each individual pictures and so was the resolution SETTINGS - this led to difficulty scanning all the 6 pictures at one time, instead you may need to scan 6 times for each picture due to different exposure on the negatives. The Docupal makes the whole product look cheap; it should be disregarded. In general this is a very good product at it's price. If the Documan 3.0 can be improved as I mentioned above, this scanner should be a supervalue!

This camera is a piece of crap! I had a Nikon many years ago that I foolishly sold, for this more "Easy to use" Sure Shot. It should be called the Sure Sucks. Red eye everywhere even when the function is turned on, and the "auto focus" when shooting indoors in low light is terrible. This "hold button halfway down, then wait for the light, then shoot" garbage is ridiculous in today's technology. I am selling this as quickly as I can and am truly disappointed in the Canon name- which I trusted when I bought this camera.

Camera takes okay pictures on "red eye" or "auto setting." However, the delay between depressing the shutter button to the actual picture can seem like an eternity. Therefore, many opportunites are missed. Especially when photographing children. In the past I have used cameras with similar features that did not have such a significant delay. Obviously, this delay is the difference between a good picture and no picture.

This Camera is really a good one to use and handle, the dial mode selection is very easy. The kit serves its purpose, we can keep 4 rolls and a battery in the side pouch, which I feel is more than enough for a normal photographer. Pictures are crystal clear, very neat and perfect images, no shadding or patches. The Zoom buttons are in a comfortable place, which makes the user to focus very easily, unlike other cameras. It is worth the money you pay for the Camera which comes with Free Kit. It is rated one among the best in the Consumer reports