It is equally interesting how all the film users have an equal number of justifications. Seems to be a rather natural thing about humans. We all want everyone else to think our choices make sense. I don't get the feeling from most on this list that anyone has made a bad decision given their needs, wants and circumstances regarding film and digital.
-- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 2:46:54 PM, you wrote: g> Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take to make g> those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show it on the Internet? g> Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me. g> I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify their g> expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to film. If you are g> smart, you use both for their particular strengths. Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR g> is good for any kind of photography, will think the same about digital, and g> unless I am reading this list wrong that is 90% of you. g> No one in their right mind thinks Joe Sixpack cares anything about quality, and g> he never bought a film camera that cost over $29.95 in his life. He loves g> digital. Nuff said? g> -- g> Gonz wrote: >> Yea, but if you want the ultimate, see this: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj >> >> 4x5 doesnt even come close. And it doesnt have to stop there, you can >> keep going and going.... >> >> rg >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM >>> camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone. >>> >>> For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium >>> format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt >>> even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some >>> time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become >>> cheap and all the indications are they wont. >>> >>> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be >>> shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want >>> really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this >>> time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM. >>> >>> JCO >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, >>> August 25, 2004 11:34 AM >>> To: Cotty >>> Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers) >>> >>> >>> I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably >>> in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning. >>> >>> It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking >>> they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the >>> film cameras anymore. >>> >>> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to >>> shoot film. It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is >>> like. They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not >>> without issues, but film has issues too). Remember I am talking about >>> comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR. When I had a Coolpix >>> 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything >>> beyond quick snaps. With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment. >>> >> >>
