What SLR would forum members recommend as the top of the line, money not a consideration?

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002

Answers

Nikon F5.

Don't buy a Leica R8, they are very ugly and people will mock you in the street. You will be known throughout your neighbourhood as 'ugly- camera-bloke'. The people who bought them(mostly old men) did so because they have more money than sense.

-- Phil the Wise (philkneen@manx.net), May 04, 2002.

Oh no - I'm agreeing with Phil!? I too think that the best all-round SLR is the F5. The only time I would seriously consider an R8 is if I was doing a lot of studio work with flash (for its built in flash metering), which is pretty much the domain of medium format anyway.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

I too wish I had an F5. With 17-35 and 180, you've got your bases covered.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 04, 2002.

When considering a top-of-the-line SLR as a supplement to a Leica M kit, my view is that two basic choices exist: a. SLRs with specialized features or qualities (e.g. Leica R and Contax), and, b. SLRs with "state of the art" features (e.g. Canon and Nikon). My preference is for "state of the art" and the Nikon line, particularly the top-end F5, although the F100 has a couple of features I'd like to see on the F5.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), May 04, 2002.

Don't get a F5 unless you need the super motor drive or are going to run hundreds of rolls through it a week...a F100 is much lighter and has all the essential features of an F5 and is a lot cheaper...use the extra money to get better glass...also I would take a good look at a EOS-3 they're a lot cheaper now and some Canon glass is fantastic...24 1.4 USM L...28-70 2.8 USM L...85 1.2 USM L...The best SLR is going to be the one that you understand how best to use, feels good in your hand, has the features you're going to use and isn't so heavy or expensive that you never want to take it anywhere...ask your self those questions first, and go to a camera shop where you pick them up and really feel them out... good luck

-- Jason Eitelbach (JEitelbach@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

I consider the F5 ugly also. Esthetically and functionally, I prefer the F3...except that it doesn't accomodate the superb Leica lenses. I suppose that leaves the now discontinued Leica 6,2.

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

Also, I'm suspect of the reliability of Canon cameras...

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

I am an old man with more money than sense so I recomend the R8. It handles better than any SLR bar none, and uses Leica glass. You can learn to use it effectivly in a few minutes. Try that with an F5 or EOS3. If you are looking for consistency between your M and R photographs the R8 is the way to go. Now its time for my nap.

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), May 04, 2002.

The F5 or F100 are both excellent cameras and would be excellent choices... However, after I got my Leica M I sold both my F100 and F5 and all of my Nikon lenses. The main reason for me was the incompatibility in use of the two systems. I know it will sound like I'm whining, but Nikon lenses focus backwards, adjust aperture backwards and mount backwards relative to Leica (and almost every other manufacturer for that matter). I used Nikon for over 20 years, so I was used to it, but when I donned the Leica, I immediately adjusted to its "right" way of mounting, focus, etc. Then after Leica, going back to my Nikon and changing lenses was a nightmare; almost always I tried to screw the lens off or on backwards. I found it very frustrating...

So, I switched to a Canon EOS 1V HS instead. FWIW, I don't like the camera as much as the F5, as it is not nearly as intuitive to use, the ergonomics are not quite as nice (especially in vertical mode), nor does it feel as solidly built, but the AF is better and faster -- incredible really -- and at least the lenses screw on and off in the right direction, and I don't have to re-think it which is a huge advantage to me when shooting. I think the RGB matrix metering on the F5 is better than the Canon in tricky lighting situations (BTW, the meter in the F5 is also better than the meter in the F100 in tricky situations), and I give the lenses from both manufacturers an essentially "equal" rating -- neither of which IMO are anywhere near as good as the Leica M lenses, excepting Nikon's 85 AFD -- and I have not shot the Canon equivalent but it is rumored to be exceptional also. Finally, I *really* like Canon's IS technology, and it is available in many more focal-lengths than Nikon. Also I think Canon is going to take the lead in Digital SLR technology very soon, so I wanted to be poised (and familiar) with a compatible Canon system and lenses beforehand.

Cheers,

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 04, 2002.

A number of things I've read have suggested that among professionals Canon is wiping the floor with Nikon, to the extent that there were even fears at one point for Nikon's survival, which leads me to wonder why all the pro-Nikon suggestions. Thirty-year obsolete snob appeal? :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

the f5 is a fine camera, really in a class by itself in some ways (color matrix, 4 sec film rewind, 7fps, af speed, build quality). however, it is a HUGE momma, really not meant for carrying around with you for any length of time. the f100 is much smaller, weighs about half as much, has the same metal body, has nearly all of the same features (including the fab thumbwheel system for adjusting most things and 22 custom setings), as well as a few the f5 lacks (most notably illuminated focus spots/meter spots, a briter finder, and even faster af). i think it is the ideal slr complement to a leica system. put it in flexible program (adjusted to suit your needs), flip on the matrix, and fire away. with the new 45mm pancake, which is really built to leica standards (but with nikon aesthetics unfortunately), you end up with a very compact package. the 45mm is super sharp, and it is a "D" series lens (the only MF nikon lens with an icu??) so you get the full matrix monte. one warning: spend a little time with an f100/45mm and you mite find it hard to go back to an m -- any you'll never want an m7.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 04, 2002.

Micheal - I'm sure sales for different cameras are somewhat regional. "Canon wiping the floor with Nikon". Where I am in Western Canada since it came out the F5 has easily outsold the various Eos 1 versions, and the F100 outless the Eos 3 about 5 to 1. All the local sports guys and journalists have gone Canon, but most commercial, industrial and editorial shooters are using Nikon.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

Unless you want to buy my mint R6.2, I would recommend you go to your neighborhood store, and find out which of the current SLR's feel intuitive to you, and balance that with the available lenses. Canon and Nikon both make good glass, though maybe not up to Leica standards. Canon has a better selection of fast wide primes. (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 135/2. etc.) But if, like me, you're only using an SLR to supplement an M-system on the long end, you might only care about longer glass. The nikon 85/1.4 and 180/2.8 are superb. I've also heard great things about Canon's stabilizer lenses. Overall, I'd give Canon the advantage when it comes to lenses.

However, IMHO, Nikon cameras are easier to use and more intuitive. I've used the F5 and F100, and can STRONGLY recommend the F100 over the F5 unless you shoot sports as your main specialty. I find that the F100 has a brighter focusing screen, and the focus points are easier to see 'cause they are red instead of black. I was lugging a couple of F5's and big zooms through an airport in Lagos, Nigeria in 105 degree heat, when I decided to lighten the load. They are just to big and heavy, and they attract lots of attention. As soon as I got back, I got my first M6 and I fell in love with the m-system.

I got an R6.2 with a 180 apo for those times I needed a longer lens. But I found the camera cumbersome to use and I never really liked it, so I'm dumping it for a canon or nikon. The focus rotation issue is a moot point if you use AF.

To summarize, I think Canon has the edge as far as lenses and the variety of lenses available, but Nikon cameras are nicer to use. I think the F100 is one of the best SLR's ever made. If I were you, I'd try out different cameras 'till you find one that feels right to you.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 04, 2002.

New: RB-67. Used: 3.25x4.25 Super D Graflex.

-- Willielmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

Ivor Matanle says that the best SLR ever made was the Contarex Cyclops with the 50mm Planar. Can be bought in A1 condition for about $1,000

-- David Fisher (davidfisher@dicepiper.co.uk), May 04, 2002.

Michael - Accusing Nikon advocates of obsolete snob appeal on a Leica forum... I doff my hat to your sense of irony. ;-)

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), May 04, 2002.

the best slr to compliment the m is the hassy (choose your poison) w/meter prism. not that much bigger than the anvil f5/eos, and you don't need the fast canikon lenses having the m. IS long tele is another story. but, how often?

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

EOS 3 is a great camera. It looks, feels sturdier than the EOS5's I regularly trudge into the steamy Everglades for bird pics.

One thing to consider is what you need with the AF. Catching a bird on the wing is something the EOS5's can do, but the EOS3 can do better. Of course the other thing is the lenses, and I've never had a problem with the better EF lenses as far as resolution and contrast are concerned (with they were a tad warmer tho).

Your question is like asking "I want to hire some musicians, and I want the best, price be damned!" Thats fine, but its more a matter of what you want to listen to, or photograph, and how, that matters.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 04, 2002.

Max: When you consider a camera you must take into account many factors including the quality of the camera and its optics, the range of lenses, the reliability of the system and the accuracy of the meter amongst others. The F5, which many of my forum colleagues adore, is a great camera with too many bells and whistles. I prefer the R8 because it is bereft of fancy/confusing accessories, has Leica glass including the best viewfinder in SLR-dom, and most important of all, produces the pictures I intended to make. Consider this carefully before you buy. Allright fellows, flame away!!!

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 04, 2002.

"Don't get a F5 unless you need the super motor drive or are going to run hundreds of rolls through it a week...a F100 is much lighter and has all the essential features of an F5"........

......But the F5 is sexy, you won't get any girls carrying an F100, size DOES matter, both in the trouser department and in the camera bag. Buy an F100 if you have small hands like a girl(or a small penis).

Not many votes for the old boy R8 I see.Pentax 67, now there is a real mans camera.

-- Phil the Man (philkneen@manx.net), May 04, 2002.

before buying an slr check them all out at a store. the diferences between the major brands are small enough not to matter for most photographers. you should also check out their lens selection. your 50 mm and wider leica M glass will beat any thing that any of the big three put out, and the long glass of some of the big three is outside the price range of all but the super rich or serious professionals. my 35mm slr's are a minolta 9 because I believe that it has the best vertical orientation which is important because i shoot a lot of portait work. their lens range while not outstanding is adequate for my needs and budget. for long glass, I have a leica sl and a 400 f6.8. anyone who has seen frequent contributer doug herr's website, www.wildlightphoto.com quickly realizees that he lacks for nothing in his photographs, and he does not feel the need for nikon or canon long glass.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

having read the above and used leica M, nikon, and canon.. Go with nikon for toughness (F-100 for it's weight advantage) and Leica for it's lens quality and system weight.

-- gary brown (drdad1111@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

Canon lens has Leica style flavor, the EOS3 is a exceptional camera, it gives you precise exposure and focus, I really regret that I sold my EOS3 and 28-70 L lens, now I use F-100 and Nikon's 28- 70 f/2.8, the picture came out sharp and exposure and focus also dead on, but I don't see any Leica flavor in the prints. If you know what I am talking about!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), May 04, 2002.

"Michael - Accusing Nikon advocates of obsolete snob appeal on a Leica forum... I doff my hat to your sense of irony. ;-) "

Certainly--what better place to accuse one of being a neanderthal than in a group of neanderthals? :-) That's one of the reasons why I found the Nikon suggestion so suspect. :-) In general construction terms the Nikon is the logical choice for people who really don't like plastic cameras.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

Phil is wrong. Chicks really dig the R8. It's a babe magnet of a camera. But it is acquired taste like really fine chewing tobacco and MD 20-20. How would a generation raised on Coca Cola cameras even begin to contemplate the glory? I used to be a wedding photographer but the R8 is so wonderful ad agencies started calling me and begging me to do calenders for Victoria's Secret. Now I rarely have to shoot chubby brides and grooms with bad teeth.

Kirk

-- kirk tuck (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 04, 2002.

Max, it might be helpful if you said a bit more about the kind of features/benefits you would like to see in your "money no object" camera. For example: (1) Do you want an all manual [will perform without batteries] camera, or do you want automation? (2) Macro capability? (3) How long do you want the available lenses to go? (4) Do you care about picture quality, like Dr. Knapp? (5) Is weight a consideration? (6) etc., you get the picture. Otherwise you'll get freeform brainstormy answers, leaving you more confused than before. As it currently stands, if money is no object, buy all the Leica-R's, Canons, Nikons, and Hasselblads, with all their lenses, and make up your mind after shooting 100 rolls through each combination. Then, since money is no object, send me the cameras you don't want to keep. :)

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

Max, as you asked on Leica Photography, I will give you a Leica answer.

If New, then the R8. But I don't like the style

If second hand or new on Demo (Dr Lang of Germany on Ebay) then a: R6 or R6.2 if mechanical R7 if electronic.

For both you can can find bargains in terms of lenses.

Of course, in other brands, look the previous answers. There are nice.

However, if you want to keep the Leica spirit, I'd recommend the Nikon FM3A, expensive but with nice lenses too.

All in the mood. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

Vikram: I am looking a SLR with the highest build quality; glass quality; picture quality; and reliability.

Xavier: I am sorry, but I do not understand your comment ". . .if you want to keep the Leica spirit, I'd recommend the Nikon FM3A. . ." . Would you please explain, or is this a tongue-in-cheek response that I am not sophisticated enough to understand?

Thanks to all for your advice and suggestions.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.

Hey, Alfred Knapp MD: How come you always sign your posts "Alfred Knapp MD"? I'm sure you're not trying to impress us. It just seems weird. I'm a doctor too (vascular surgeon) but I don't throw it around. No offense, just wondering.

Hector V.

P.S. The F5 is a brick. I tried it for three months and felt like Sisyphus.

-- hector v. (hector2398@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

Vikram: I am looking for the SLR that has the best build quality; lens quality; picture quality; and reliability.

Xavier: I am sorry, but I do not understand your comment: ". . .if you want to keep the Leica spirit, I'd recommend the Nikon FM3A. . .".

Thanks to all for your advice and suggestions.

-- (mtwall@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.

I apologize for the duplicate post.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.

Max, Apologies if I came across as being rude. I think for a manual "money-no-object" the only new SLR's worth considering are the Nikon FM3a or the medium format Hasselblad manual. You can still find some unsold manual cameras at obscure dealers. The used market will get you better cameras, such as the Leica R6.2, Canon F-1, Nikon F2AS, Pentax MX [great size], etc. (I'm no expert on the available list). For automated cameras you have unlimited choices, as outlined above. (My own preference is 100% manual, with a light meter.) Are you manual or do you like automation?

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

I use both M and R Leica. The R probably goes out with me a little more than the M, but it goes in phases. I recommend that you get either the Canon EOS-3 or the Nikon F100. Get the 16 or 17-35 zoom and a couple of primes, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 or 1.4, 135 2.0. You'll be ready for most any situation and you'll get great pictures. Good luck!

-- Gil Pruitt (wgpinc@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

I use Leica M, Leica R (including R8), and recently switched from F5 and F100 Nikon to Canon EOS 1V. Simply put I was tired after 10 years of waiting for Nikon to catch up. The F5 is probably the more high-tech and durable body, but Canon's got a large assortment of IS lenses now and Nikon's VR are still coming.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 04, 2002.

I am looking for the SLR that has the best build quality; lens quality; picture quality; and reliability.

Max, no matter what you buy it will be a compromise. If you don't care about modern features the camera with best build quality, lens quality, picture quality and reliability is a Leicaflex SL, rebuilt by Sherry Krauter, Don Goldberg or the like.

Bla ck Skipper
Leicaflex SL, 400mm f/6.8 Telyt

Any of the cameras mentioned can produce exceptional-quality photos, depending on you, the photographer. Canon and Nikon and other makers produce some exceptional lenses, and they also produce some lenses that are merely adequate. If you go with one of these brands you'll have to be more selective about which lenses you get. An advantage of current Leica-R equipment is that the entire line of lenses is either best-in-class or among the best in the class: no second-rate lenses. Leica reflexes lack a lot of the electronic gizmos of Nikon and Canon but if these are not important to you there's no point picking one of these bodies and having to be careful which lenses you buy.

Sharp-shinned Hawk
Leicaflex SL, 560mm f./6.8 Telyt

If, in your mind, the camera is supposed to think for you then definitely forget Leica. If you want the camera body to work reliably for many years, give you a clear, uncluttered view of the subject, and let you use many of the finest lenses ever made for 35mm SLR cameras, definitely consider the R8. But most importantly define what kind of photos you want, what camera features you consider essential, and go to a store to try them yourself.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.

danged fumble fingers! the first bird is a Black Skimmer.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.

One thing that (in my mind) keeps the Nikon line at the top for SLR work (even though I use an SL right now) is that Nikon has kept the removable prism.

Being able to 'Pop the top' and shoot with the camera at ground level or held high over your head is still THE sign of a pro-level camera. Any so-called "pro" camera that can't do this is just a Canon Rebel with delusions of grandeur, IMHO.

The little right-angle viewer dealies just don't cut it - unless you ENJOY lying on your belly in the mud.

If I used an SLR more and could live without the 400 f/6.8 (which I could probably adapt anyway) I would go directly to ANY Nikon F or the Canon F-1 range, for that reason.

And no, that isn't contradicted by my use of the (eye-level only) Leica rangefinders - I keep drawing mental designs in my head for a true waistlevel finder for the M that would cover from 15mm up to 35mm lenses. I want one - bad!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 04, 2002.

EOS 1v, no contest. At least you can remove the power booster when you'd prefer not to be carrying a boat anchor. Plus you get all those IS lenses.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), May 04, 2002.

Max, I must speak up for the humble Canon EOS-A2, probably the most under-rated camera on the market. It is one of the best-kept secrets in photography and is used by an astonishing number of working photographers.

I bought a pair of them seven years ago and they've been in regular professional use ever since. I did my Rock City Barns book with them, and they have accounted for numerous corporate assignments, magazine articles, brochures, and weddings. The A2's combination of just the right features, precision, silence, durability, reliability, and ease of use make it one of the best cameras ever made for day-in, day-out professional work. And they don't weigh a ton, either.

Did I say the A2 is quiet? It is nearly as silent as my M3 and not as loud as my Leica CL. Brand new EOS-5s can be bought for $489 apiece from B&H, and A2s for $399 -- surely one of the best bargains in the history of photography.

For those who will inevitably reply that the A2 is outmoded, I would simply say that nothing is outmoded if it can capably handle the job it was designed to do. Besides, we all use Leicas! Who are we to talk about outmoded?!

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 04, 2002.

Canon 1V, along with the 28-70L, and a few juicy primes. Who said Canon is plastic? Not this badboy, can we say magnesium? Oh yah...

-- James, Doctoral Candidate, Mathematics *grin* (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Hello Hector V.: First of all it is Albert not Alfred. Secondly, I have always signed off with MD and never gave any thought to not. Thirdly, I am a gastroenterologist in New York at NYU and Lenoxs Hill. How about you?

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 05, 2002.

Max,

My comment about the FM3A? It's a simple SLR, hand wound and re- wound, a large choice of fantastic lenses.

The Nikon is not the state of the art (compared with a F100) but it is simple to operate. When well used it delivers wonderful pictures. Mind you, the M6 has some of those characteristics. And the M6 is the spirit of Leica, isn't it?

A few years back if the Nikon FM3A was on the Market, I would have bought it to replace my Pentax P30N.

Regards. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Kirk, isn't Victoria's Secret the CocaCola of lingerie and dessous? The very definition of mass market junk.

-- Jacques (noircouvert@wanadoo.fr), May 05, 2002.

Nikon F5..too big a F100 does the same lower price,lot less size and weight.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 05, 2002.

You can't just by an SLR anymore: you must consider the whole system.

For me, Canon EOS is the most conforable and intuitive camera system, having the most advanced autofocus lens technology. (They seem to continually stay 2-3 years ahead of Nikon on this front-- first it was USM motors, now it's IS).

It's often the little things that make a difference. For example, it's second nature to me to manually touch up focus without first switching to manual focus mode. This is impossible with most other AF systems. Or applying exposure compensation when shooting on AE: the back dial on the Canon bodies makes this really easy. Or being able to configure the camera with or without the booster. I also like that the top-end EOS bodies and lenses are now nearly waterproof.

But--a lot of people like the "feel" of the top Nikon bodies in their hand and the sound of the Nikon motors, which are a bit quieter than the Canons. This is a subjective thing, but it counts for something. Me, I find EOS bodies easier to work, and can put up with a louder drive.

Whatever you choose, consider what lenses you will be using now and down the road.

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), May 05, 2002.

I agree with Doug Herr. Consider, what type of photography will you apply to your SLR. If you want knock your socks off images and do not do sports or low light wildlife, then Leica R lenses are without peer. If you can afford putting the price of a BMW into a lens, then the Leica modular long lenses are beyond peer for image quality or price. But discontinued the Leica 400mm f/6.8 Telyt (about US$800) will beat any current Nikon or Canon optic of equavalent focal lenght for knock your socks off images in good light. Canon and Nikon offer image stabilzation and auto focus that may get an image in low light where a 400 Telyt shooter may miss (see contra the Doug Herr shots for wildlife). In the 19mm to 180mm range, Leica R lenses are without peer in quality and lens to lens consistency - Canon and Nikon pro lenses cost about the same now. The 19mm Elmarit, 50mm Summicron, 100mm APO Macro Elmarit and (old) 180mm f/3.4 APO Telyt are unsurpassed by Nikon, Canon or the M lenses. Cameras are mostly just boxes for film. The R6/R6.2 is a better manual camera than the M6. The R7 is a very sound electronic auto exposure camera with features way beyond the M7. I don't have a R8, but would like one to shoot with my R lenses. By the way, I still like my M3 and M6 better for intimate people photography. For the selection of a SLR, Canon means the latest fad and compatability to the best 35mm digital boxes, Nikon means snobbery outdated by five years or so and Leica means the priciest and best lenses for a strictly film based system. Your choice.

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), May 06, 2002.

R6 and 100mm Apo-Macro Elmarit.

Iron Man

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), May 06, 2002.

Well if you are a Leica user you owe it to yourself to check out the following R8, R6.2, R7, SL2 or SL. All are very nice cameras and you have the best glass bar none. If you buy s/h then you are onto a good thing. But if you want AF and all the extra stuff that only the big boys can provide (and I know very few people who really need this stuff - but the idea of having it, or possibly having it one day, appeals to them) then you need to look at Canon or Nikon, and maybe Minolta. Much as I think Nikon are the more venerable marque, I do think Canon has the edge in terms of features.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

I bought a Nikon F5 shortly before the F100 was introduced. What sold me on the F5 over the Nikon N90 or any Canon SLRs was the way it feels in my hands (which are of average size). This is indeed a heavy SLR an I'm no Charles Atlas, but the grip fits me so well and the controls are so well placed I can easily shoot one-handed if need be. I love the way this camera works, looks and feels. That said, the F100 appears to have the same ergonics at much less weight, and I would have considered this model over the F5 if it had been on the market then.

-- Bruce Wilcox (bwilcox@pps.k12.or.us), May 10, 2002.