At 06:12 16.1.2003 -0500, Graywolf wrote: >This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared >about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You >are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The >real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the >answer to that is a resounding YES!
I'd be buying the 14Mpix Kodak if I could buy it with the same money as I can buy the MZ-S (or LX) plus 2-5 years worth of film and processing. With the amount of shooting I do, I am more happy to go and buy a new car instead of the DSLR body (about the same cost). If I were shooting professionally the above equation would be the same but the result would be different. I'd most propably buy the DSLR. For quality "digital" today, I shoot 4x5" slides and scan them at 1600dpi (or higher) and get about 150-200MB files. The resulting printed images are pretty impressive. (It will take quite some time to get this kind of landscape prints with affordable digital) Digital is starting to be comparable with 35 or 120 but with a lot higher price tag (at the moment). Digital or film.. choose as you like but remember to enjoy yourself. Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku * FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
