Al de Man

This is actually a very good buy at the price. http://www.eos-classifieds.com/index.php?a=2&b=2963 5fps so not a full on sports body but still pretty rapid. That particular model was released at the beginning of 2006 so no more than 3 years old. I borrowed one of these for a gig at the Guildhall and was quite impressed.

Does 1590 mean anything to you?

Frame rate is only one consideration. The Canon 5D was a "budget" full-frame body, only shoots at 3fps and it's autofocus is nowhere near as fast as the 1D-series, so lousy for sports. It's designed to get the most out a controlled studio environment where things aren't as rushed. The 5D mark 2 is only a little quicker at 3.9fps. Even the top of the range 1Ds MkIII with a price tag of about £4000 is only 5fps. The fastest DSLR in the World is the 1D MkIII which costs about half a much and has double the speed. If you want a fast sports body for not very much money, try looking at the original Canon 1D. They should be available for not much over £300 on eBay, built like a brick outhouse, shoot at 8fps, still has a larger sensor than most DSLRs on the market now and compatible with Canon EF lenses which is their current range. Bear in mind that it did originally come out in 2001 so only produces 4.15mp images (2496×1662), has a tiny 2" LCD screen which you can't zoom in on, pretty bad noise at high ISO compared to modern cameras so best suited to bright conditions. I can send you links to footy pictures taken on the original 1D. Stretch to £7-800 and you can get the 1D MkII which overcomes all those negative points I just raised about the MkI. Of course, don't forget that a 300mm f/2.8 lens is going to set you back about £2500.

It does look like quite an old model having been released in 2006, so I would have expected it to be even cheaper than £300 to be honest. For sports photography you want as high a fps rate as possible and 3fps is as slow as I've seen on a DSLR.

I f***ing well know him and recognise the office that's filmed in!

Any idea how much the lens if worth? I would suggest it's not going to be worth it unless the lens is over a couple of hundred quid. http://www.camerarepairworkshop.co.uk/

Watch the video then.

In about a month, yes.

Don't be such a tight git and buy her a new set of batteries as well.

I couldn't hold out any longer after all my eBay sales and have ordered one from Warehouse Express before the price goes up too much. The weak pound has made the UK prices appear to be some of the keenest across the World and there was no way the manufacturers like Canon and Nikon were going to allow that. As a result, almost all lens have seen a sharp rise in price since Christmas. £2497 for an EOS 5D2 and 24-105 lens, which at the current exchange rate is only about £50 more than the street price in a hugely competitive camera district of Mongkok in Hong Kong. I'll probably have to wait 3-4 weeks as they don't have stock but have said they'll honour the order at that price even though it'll certainly go up in that time. Ignore my feelings after the Novatel show at the end of November about this being an expensive upgrade over the original 5D. This camera is in a totally different class and Canon should have really given it a whole new model number instead of downplaying it and just calling it the Mk II version.

You're welcome. I'm not saying anything. Going back to the "New Technology" you mentioned earlier, I've read into it a little and it refers to the fact that older NiMH had a tendency to self-discharge over time which is why you have to charge them before their first use. Even if the manufacturers charged them, they'd be useless by the time they'd shipped them to the stores and sat on the shelfs for a while. Obviously, the same is true if they're sat in the bottom of your camera bag unused for any length of time but shouldn't be an issue if you're constantly using them.

When asked the same question, Angela Rippon tells people she shares her birthday with me.

I understand most taxi drivers take the M27 & A27 to Worthing and then head north up the A280, then A24, A264, M23. Are you going during the week or at the weekend?

Those are the ones. I'm afraid I have no idea what it means by "New technology" though. Don't buy a rapid charger as these don't give you such a full charge; much better on a slow trickle charge over night rather than blasting them full of charge in a under an hour. The "Cd" in NiCd refers to cadmium which is a toxic element and a pain in the arse to dispose of in an environmentally friendly manner. It's older technology which suffered considerably from "memory effect" if you didn't discharge and charge fully resulting in a reduction in capacity. As you can probably gather, the fact that you only started with 700mAh suggests you didn't exactly have a huge amount of capacity to begin with compared to the newer batteries available now. Bad times. NiMH or Nickel Metal Hydride is capable of much higher capacity, less environmentally toxic and less susceptible to "memory effect". Good times!

Pentax K110D? Anyhow, Are you talking about AA rechargables? Minty and I use Vapex/Vapextech in our flashguns. NiMH @ 2900mAh was the highest rating last time I looked on eBay. Any idea what capacity and composition (NiCd, NiMH...) you're currently using?

Strange that the film Notting Hill was "white only".

I met the bloke this evening and he said his maximum bid was £790. Eventually, but I'll probably wait until the MkII is not quite so new and taken a bit of a price tumble so struggle on with my MkI for the time being.

It eventually sold for £741.20 to a bloke in Hythe, so I didn't even need to pay £25 in PayPal fees. Thank you Pancake for being too poor. 40D went for £431.50. The extender went for £185.99 so I guess no one picked up on the fact that it was a mark I.

What version?

"Whether your a sportsperson or not," Seriously, what spaz wrote that?

Keith created the best Saints forum bar none and all he got was **** online and in real life including vandalism at his home. Was it any wonder he jacked it in? Btw, yes, I'm Keith too.

Put it on eBay and you might get lucky with two scammers trying to outbid each other.

Just reading about that printer, it seems there is no duplex unit available for it anyway. However, it does allow you to manually duplex through the driver, which I presume prints the pages in a specific order (2,1,4,3,6,5,8,7,... etc) so you can just pick up the whole wad and reprint on the back in the correct order and you get two sets. I suppose you still need to separate them out into two piles if that's what you're getting fed up with?

It depends what application you're using to print out your pages, but if you're pasting images into your document, you may find that they're embedded in as a full size picture, even if you're only printing them out thumbnail size. Get some photo editting package to reduce them in resolution before pasting them and see if it has a detrimental effect on the printed page to see if they need to be that big. You say 75 copies, but how many pages do you average per copy? Because you mention toner rather than ink and your budget, can we assume you're looking at a colour laser with duplex?